1AC

Inherency
India-Pakistan have been in constant conflict over Kashmir
Ganguly 22 [Sumit Ganguly, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a visiting fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford University., 12-11-2022, "Why the India-Pakistan Rivalry Endures,"
Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/12/11/india-pakistan-complex-rivalry-mohan-
conflict-politics/, accessed 12-12-2022] // vedh

India and Pakistan have mostly been at odds since 1947, when both emerged as independent
countries after decades of British rule. The two states fought a war in that year—and three
more in the years since, in 1965, 1971, and 1999. (Their fleeting cooperation was largely
confined to the 1950s.) The most recent crisis between New Delhi and Islamabad took place
three years ago, following a terrorist attack in Indian-administered Kashmir; India followed with
an aerial attack in Pakistan, leading to retaliation from Islamabad.

As that crisis underscored, the India-Pakistan relationship has deteriorated significantly in the
last decade, especially following the election of Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2014.
This decline stems in part from Pakistan’s continued dalliance with anti-Indian terrorist
organizations, an unstated component of its national security strategy. In response, the Modi
government has adopted an unyielding stance. India’s decision in 2019 to unilaterally rescind
the special autonomous status of the disputed state of Jammu and Kashmir further
undermined bilateral ties. Any recent progress in the relationship—such as India’s
humanitarian gestures in the wake of devastating floods in Pakistan this year— has been largely
cosmetic.

Its only getting worse – recent elections mean they’ll continue to escalate
Ganguly 2 [Sumit Ganguly, Sumit Ganguly, a columnist at Foreign Policy and a visiting fellow at
the Hoover Institution at Stanford University., 12-11-2022, "Why the India-Pakistan Rivalry
Endures," Foreign Policy, https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/12/11/india-pakistan-complex-rivalry-
mohan-conflict-politics/, accessed 12-12-2022] // vedh

From this perspective, Pakistan’s ongoing political and economic crisis might have some effect
on the rivalry with India. In April, the ouster of Prime Minister Imran Khan threw the country’s
politics into turmoil, making a renewal of dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad even
more unlikely. The country’s opposition leader seems intent on harassing—and distracting— the
civilian government through public rallies and street protests. There is little reason to believe
that the appointment of Pakistan’s new Army chief, former spymaster Asim Munir, will pacify
the fraught relationship. Meanwhile, the economy is buckling under the weight of heavy debt
and massive inflation.
 Adv
Advantage One is Demilitarization:
Kashmir has a long history of running tensions and rapid escalation of
conventional conflicts
Waqar 19 [Annie Waqar is a lecturer in the Dept of Politics and IR at the University of
Westminister. Extensive research background in Nuclear Security in South Asia and the Middle
East, Defense, Arms Control, and IR. Worked for a bunch of think tanks and taught courses for
NATO officials.] “Nuclear war between India and Pakistan? An expert assesses the risk.” The
Conversation. March 6, 2019. https://theconversation.com/nuclear-war-between-india-and-
pakistan-an-expert-assesses-the-risk-112892] TG

Of the numerous areas of global tension, arguably the most perilous is that between India and
Pakistan. And recent events in Kashmir have made the situation even more dangerous . The
reason is straightforward: India and Pakistan are in a long-running and incendiary dispute , they
are both nuclear powers, and crossing a confrontational threshold could ignite a nuclear war
between them. Indeed, arms control investigators have long identified the subcontinent as one
of the world’s likeliest nuclear flashpoints.

India and Pakistan share a long and complicated history, and they have been in conflict over
the disputed territory of Kashmir since 1947. The Himalayan region is one of the most
militarised regions on Earth – former US president Bill Clinton has called Kashmir “the most
dangerous place in the world”.

Under the partition plan provided by the Indian Independence Act of 1947, Kashmir with its
Muslim majority was free to accede to either India or Pakistan. But the local ruler, Hari Singh,
decided against giving the population a choice, leaving the region in a geopolitical limbo and
with a disputed border. A two-year war erupted between India and Pakistan in 1947 and
another broke out in 1965. In 1999, the Kargil crisis, when the two countries again came to
blows, may have been the closest the world has come to nuclear war since the end of World
War II.

Diplomatic interventions have previously helped to defuse the military tensions, but an enduring
peace has remained elusive. Both sides have dug in along the disputed border and  military
skirmishes are commonplace.

The nuclear question

It has long been argued in international security circles that having nuclear weapons deters
countries from using them in warfare. Indeed, in the post-World War II era, no state has used
them – despite there still being around 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world. But horizontal
nuclear proliferation has made the world a dangerous place; the more countries that have them,
the more likely they are to be used at some stage.

And while the presence of nuclear weapons may forestall a nuclear exchange, they don’t
discourage nuclear states from using conventional military power against one another. And, as
conventional conflicts can quickly escalate, the possibility of a nuclear exchange remains a real,
if remote, possibility.

So what are the chances of India and Pakistan (which both have between 130 and 150
warheads) engaging in a nuclear war?

The most recent escalation is just another example of the ongoing tensions between these
nuclear neighbours. It was triggered by a Kashmiri militant suicide bombing of an Indian
paramilitary convoy in mid February. In that attack, more than 40 people were killed, mostly
Indian military personnel – and Jaish-e-Mohammed, an Islamist terrorist group situated in
Pakistan, claimed responsibility for the attack.

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, currently caught up in election fever, warned of a
“crushing response”, and launched air strikes on targets in  the Pakistan-controlled Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province. It was not long before both sides were exchanging artillery fire across
the line of control and the conflict quickly escalated.

Meanwhile, in a national televised speech, Pakistan’s prime minister, Imran Khan, stated that
any further escalation between the nations would be beyond the leaders’ control, warning:

With the weapons you have and the weapons we have, can we afford miscalculation? Shouldn’t
we think that if this escalates, what will it lead to?

Even a small conflict causes nuke war and allied draw-in

Mian 16 [Zia Mian 16, Ph.D. in physics from the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Princeton
University co-director of the Program on Science and Global Security, director of the Program’s
Project on Peace and Security in South Asia, 12-6-16, “Kashmir, climate change, and nuclear
war,” https://thebulletin.org/kashmir-climate-change-and-nuclear-war10261]

Nuclear forces and postures. Sincethe Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapon tests of May 1998, the two
states have expanded many-fold their respective nuclear weapon and fissile material stockpiles
and undertaken extensive development and testing of a diverse array of ballistic and cruise
missiles (with ranges from 60 to 5000 kilometers), acquiring the ability to deploy and launch nuclear
weapons from the air, from land, and from submarines at sea. They have put in place command
and control systems and doctrines that involve, in the case of Pakistan, first use of nuclear
weapons in a conflict and, in the case of India, massive retaliatory strikes against population
centers.
In 1999, the two countries fought a war which apparently included mobilization of nuclear weapons by Pakistan, making it the most
significant military conflict between two nuclear armed states. They also went through a major military crisis (December 2001 to
June 2002) triggered by an attack on India’s parliament by Islamist militants believed in India to be backed by Pakistan. The response
to the attack included the two countries moving a combined total of more than half a million troops to their border.

The slow pace of Indian deployment and inconclusive outcome of the stand-off led India’s army to begin planning and training for a
more decisive and rapid conventional attack on Pakistan. Pakistan began testing a short-range, truck-mounted missile to deliver low-
yield nuclear weapons on the battlefield. This latter development has increased longstanding international concerns about the
security of nuclear weapons and fissile materials in Pakistan, given the large-scale and frequent Islamist militant attacks on military
targets in the country and the ideological polarization within the armed forces and broader society associated with the rise of
hardline Islamist political groups over the past three decades.
Pakistan has long been explicit about its plans to use nuclear weapons to counter Indian
conventional forces. In March 2015, the former head of Pakistan’s Strategic Plans Division, retired General Khalid Kidwai,
announced that the country had developed “a variety of short range, low yield nuclear weapons.” Pakistani Foreign Secretary Aizaz
Ahmad Chaudhry declared that his country might use these tactical nuclear weapons in a conflict with India. The New York Times
reported in 2015 that so far, “an unknown number of the tactical weapons were built, but not deployed” by Pakistan.

From tactical weapons to massive retaliation. India

anticipates that Pakistan might use nuclear weapons
against Indian conventional forces during a war . The Indian Army conducted a massive military
exercise in April 2016 in the Rajasthan Desert bordering Pakistan, involving tanks, artillery, armored
personnel carriers, and 30,000 soldiers who practiced what they would do if attacked with
nuclear weapons on the battlefield. An Indian Army spokesman told the media that “our policy has been always that we
will never use nuclear weapons first. But if we are attacked, we need to gather ourselves and fight through it. The simulation is about
doing exactly that.” This was not the first such exercise.

Indian nuclear doctrine also calls for massive retaliation directed at Pakistani cities, and Pakistan
has threatened to respond in kind. In 2003, India’s cabinet declared nuclear weapons “will only be
used in retaliation against a nuclear attack on Indian territory or on Indian forces anywhere …
[N]uclear retaliation to a first strike will be massive and designed to inflict unacceptable damage.” According to Admiral Vijay
Shankar, a former head of Indian strategic nuclear forces, such retaliation would involve nuclear attacks on
Pakistan’s cities. General Kidwai from Pakistan describes such Indian threats as “bluster and blunder,” since they “are not
taking into account the balance of nuclear weapons of Pakistan, which hopefully not, but has the potential to go back and give the
same kind of dose to the other side.” This seems an explicit suggestion of Pakistan planning to target Indian cities with nuclear
weapons in retaliation of Indian nuclear attacks on Pakistani cities.

From regional war to great power war. Time is not on our side. The failure to settle the Kashmir dispute
despite the passage of 70 years has already triggered three wars . While Pakistan clings grimly to
its claims on Kashmir, India seems less inclined to compromise as it grows in economic and
military power. Adding to this will be the inevitable pressures from climate change over the coming decades on the Himalayan
glaciers, the monsoons, and ground water in the Indus Basin, which will lead to reduced and less reliable access to water in an
already water-stressed region, at a time of rapidly growing demand. These drivers have already started to overlap, and conflicts over
land, people, blood, and water may become one.

Once initiated, possibly even by the actions of a small militant group, a Pakistan-India conflict
may well escalate into a larger war and then bring in allied outside powers, as happened in Europe in
World War I.

Pakistan is building ever closer military and economic ties to China; India is becoming a
strategic partner of the United States. These alliances with great powers may give policy
makers in Pakistan and Indian confidence in escalating a conflict and issuing nuclear threats
during a crisis. Because of the increasingly tense and militarized nature of the rivalry between
China and the United States, a South Asian conflict that draws them in could escalate into a
potentially far more destructive war.

Given these risks, forestalling crises and possible war in South Asia should be a priority. The long
history of failures to find a path to peace for Kashmir through United Nations resolutions and bilateral Pakistan-India agreements
seems to have sapped the will to try to address the dispute directly. Preventing a South Asian war from becoming nuclear war will
require progress on banning the bomb.

Indo Pak spills over – 6 internals

Mirela 21 [Mirela Imširović is a PhD candidate at the Faculty of Political Science in Sarajevo at
the Department of Security and Peace Studies, and a PhD candidate in international relations at
the School of Politics and International Studies at Wuhan University in China. Mirela Imširović
"Geopolitical Significance Of Kashmir". IGES, 2021, https://iges.ba/en/geopolitics/geopolitical-
significance-of-kashmir/. Accessed 12 Dec 2022.] // Aadit M

The conflict between the two countries mainly causes the involvement of other countries, both
to resolve and suppress the conflict, and for their interests. War is the most primitive form of conflict
resolution. However, there are geopolitical points in the world that, due to their strategic value, are an important
aspect of the relationship between states and continents, so military conflicts are difficult to avoid. Political
conflicts, which often result in wars, primarily disrupt domestic and world security, and
consequently endanger the health of the population, destroy the economy, education, energy
security and create an impossible flow of food to populations. Every war in the world is especially felt
in developing countries. If the conflicting countries are also nuclear powers, then they automatically become the main
topic of the international community. One of the most important geopolitical points
with strategic
value in the world is the wider area of Kashmir, which is located between the three nuclear
powers of India, Pakistan, and China. Kashmir also borders Afghanistan, which is located at the
crossroads connecting South and Central Asia, while Central Asia is itself a geographical bridge
between Europe and other parts of Asia.

Indo Pak war will uniquely cause extinction – generic nuke war defense fails
Johnson 19 [Scott K Johnson is an educator and recovering hydrogeologist who has been
covering the geosciences for Ars since 2011.] “Misery of a nuclear war between India and
Pakistan would be global.” Ars Technica. October 4, 2019.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/10/misery-of-a-nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-
would-be-global/] TG

**this is about/cites the Toon study

The catastrophe would not be restricted by national borders. Nuclear explosions burn sizable
areas around the target, with heat so intense that near-complete incineration is possible. The
soot particles generated by these fires would be lifted into the upper troposphere. Some of that
would fall to the ground with rain, but much of it would absorb sunlight, heating the surround
air and riding the resultant rising motion into the stratosphere. Once in the stratosphere, it can
stay suspended much longer and encircle the planet. (This is also how some volcanic eruptions
produce a global climate impact.)

With estimates of fire extent and the amount of combustible material in those areas, the
researchers ran climate-model simulations of what the soot—16 to 36 million metric tons of it
—would do in the atmosphere. They actually used the same model that recently produced a
simulation of the Chicxulub impact at the end-Cretaceous mass extinction.

Simply put, soot would block about 20% to 30% of the Sun's light, globally. That's a decrease of
about 30W to 60W per square meter of the Earth's surface. For comparison, the 1991 eruption
of Mount Pinatubo caused a decrease of 4W per square meter. The result would be a 2°C to 5°C
(about 4°F to 9°F) global cooling. Temperatures would reach their lowest after about three years
and maintain that level for another four years. Getting back to previous temperatures would
take over a decade.
The cooling would slow the hydrologic cycle and decrease rainfall by 15% to 30% percent
globally, with impacts varying in different regions. In India and Central China, for example,
precipitation would drop to nearly zero. The Northeastern and Midwestern United States
would see a decline of 50%.

"Should a war between India and Pakistan ever occur, as assumed here," the researchers write,
"these countries alone could suffer 50 to 125 million fatalities, a regional catastrophe. In
addition, severe short-term climate perturbations, with temperatures declining to values not
seen on Earth since the middle of the last Ice Age, would be triggered by smoke from burning
cities, a global disaster threatening food production worldwide and mass starvation, as well as
severe disruption to natural ecosystems."

Military solutions have failed at deescalating the region

Eurasian Times 22 [Eurasian Times Desk, 12-12-2022, "Open Border The Only Feasible
Solution To The Kashmir Issue?," The EurAsian Times Desk (ET Desk) comprises authors,
reporters, interns, newswires, etc who directly work under the Editorial Desk of The EurAsian
Times and senior Editors of the media house., https://eurasiantimes.com/open-borde-solution-
to-kashmir-issue/, accessed 12-11-2022] // vedh

Kashmir issue has remained a massive dispute between India and Pakistan , till date which is
severely affecting the lives of people of the Indian subcontinent. The Kashmir dispute has
existed ever since the accession of Kashmir into India and has further given rise to extremism
and terrorism in the region. Former chief minister of Jammu and Kashmir has suggested an
open border as the best solution to the Kashmir issue.

Farooq Abdullah, the former chief minister of J&K has suggested a UK-Ireland style open border
in Kashmir as the best solution to the curious case of Kashmir and the disputes arising from it.
UK and Ireland share a common travel area between them which is as good as an open border.

Under an open border system as shared between Ireland and the UK, citizens of the nations
sharing an open border require minimum travel documents and identifications to travel through
each other’s countries.

Farooq Abdullah while addressing a discussion held by South Asia Institute in London said that
India and Pakistan must realise that there is no military solution to the Kashmir Issue. He said
that the only roadmap forward is to have an easy border. He also added that both the nations
being nuclear powers need to realise that whatever the solution be, it will be not accepted by
everyone. But he said that any solution decided upon must be agreed by at least 70%-80% of
people from India, Pakistan and Jammu Kashmir. He concluded by saying that hard-line
measures taken by India and Pakistan will not win the hearts of the people in Kashmir.

Open Borders means troop withdrawals and demilitarization

Bhutto 22 [Benazir Bhutto, The writer is chairman of the Pakistan People's Party and leader of
the opposition in Pakistan., 6-14-2022, "Toward a Solution for Kashmir," Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1999/06/28/toward-a-solution-for-
kashmir/5562cba2-a8f1-4b51-a995-a69ac06b9395/, accessed 12-11-2022] // vedh

But it is doubtful that the Kashmiris would settle for anything short of independence. That is
why the Pakistani opposition has proposed substituting a land-based solution with a people-
based solution. Instead of determining whether Kashmir should go to India or Pakistan , the
Pakistani opposition suggests that India, Pakistan and the All Parties Hurriyet Conference
accept open borders between India and Pakistan. As part of this peace package, India would
withdraw its troops from Srinigar and Pakistan would police Muzzafarabad. Pending a final
solution, the two assemblies could meet independently and perhaps jointly.
 Adv
Advantage Two is Indus River:
India and Pakistan are in the forever going conflict over the Indus River
Umar 16 [Mohammad Umar Baba, who writes under the byline Baba Umar, is a Kashmiri
journalist. The piece is an excerpt of a research paper written during the author’s Chevening
South Asia Journalism Programme (SAJP) fellowship in 2016. Diplomat, The. "Kashmir: A Water
War In The Making?". Thediplomat.Com, 2022, https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-a-
water-war-in-the-making/. Accessed 12 Dec 2022] // Aadit M
In Cameron Stracher’s 2011 novel The Water Wars, Vera and her brother Will struggle to survive in a country that has collapsed from
an environmental cataclysm. The authorities hoard water, dam rivers, and even exploit clouds as glaciers vanish and polar ice caps
melt. In their bid to find their lost friend, both the characters risk the ire of armed groups and gluttonous corporations and ultimately
learn the truth about the water scarcity. In a slightly different way, such a story has been playing out in Kashmir since 1947, when
the erstwhile British India was divided into Pakistan and India. With the division, Kashmir became a bone of contention — as did the
six major rivers flowing down to Pakistan (the three western rivers) and India (the three eastern rivers). Both countries agreed to
sign a World Bank-brokered treaty in 1960, the Indus Water Treaty or IWT. The treaty could not, however, take into consideration all
the river-relevant changes that the future was to produce. Today
Pakistan and India are locked in a bitter water
conflict. Though diplomatic exertions have prevented a major escalation, both countries are
entangled in legal battles as more dams and power projects come up in Kashmir . In Kashmir
itself, politicians and civil society groups of all hues have been demanding a review of IWT,
which has been labeled “detrimental” to the region’s economy. Pakistan and India are
dangerously energy-starved and nowhere close to an agreement on disputed Kashmir . The
intertwining impact of climate change and population pressures offer a forecast on their water conflict that is anything but
encouraging. Predictions that the next major war will be over water are common . But is such a scenario
realistic? Could both countries amicably end their water disputes? Between 1905 and 1908, a Swedish explorer, Sven Hedin, became
the first European to discover the mouth of the river Indus (or the Lion River) in Tibet’s Sangi-Kabab area. Four decades later, the
British divided the Indian subcontinent. The land division occurred without considering the irrigated boundaries. On
April 1,
1948 India — taking advantage of its control over the headworks — cut off the supply of water
in every canal that crossed into Pakistan . India briefly restored the flow at a price. In July 1951, Pakistan accused India
of cutting water supplies to its Wagha and Bhaun villages. Both sides traded accusations until David Lilienthal, who had won
preeminence in the United States as head of the seven-state Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) made a trip to India and Pakistan.
Lilienthal described the dispute as “a Punjab powder keg” in his articles about the trip.

India’s control dams in the Indus River – which means India is vital to the
livelihood of Pakistan
Sunden 19 [(Christopher Snedden was a Professor at the U.S. Department of Defense’s Daniel
K. Inouye Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies. He has nearly 40 years of professional
experience in South Asian politics and security with the Australian government in the
Department of Defence’s Joint (now Defence) Intelligence Organisation)// "What Kashmir's
Looming Water Crisis Means For India-Pakistan Relations". The National Bureau Of Asian
Research (NBR), 2022, https://www.nbr.org/publication/what-kashmirs-looming-water-crisis-
means-for-india-pakistan-relations/. Accessed 12 Dec 2022.] //Aadit M

The Kashmir water crisis is an ongoing dispute between India and Pakistan over the use of three
rivers—the Indus, the Chenab, and the Jhelum—that flow through the disputed region of
Jammu and Kashmir and into Punjab, the fertile geographic and cultural region located in northern India and eastern
Pakistan. The name “Punjab” comes from the Persian words punj (five) and ab (waters). The region is thus defined by the five
tributary rivers of the Indus River (the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Sutlej, and Beas) that flow through it, collectively called the “Indus
waters.” In 1960, India and Pakistan, with the assistance of the World Bank, agreed on the Indus Waters Treaty. Without much
consideration of efficiency, three of the rivers—the Beas, Ravi, and Sutlej—were given to India, and the other three rivers—the
Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum—were essentially given to Pakistan. Despite
this agreement, Pakistan still feels
vulnerable because the three rivers it received in the treaty first flow through areas of Jammu
and Kashmir that are controlled by India. Pakistan has protested against certain Indian activities
on these rivers, including the construction of dams for water storage and hydroelectricity , because
it believes that these activities will prevent water from reaching its agricultural areas farther south. As a downstream riparian nation,
Pakistan worries that in the event of a military conflict India could cut off its water supply, as
New Delhi did in 1948 and 1949, or even attempt to flood Pakistan by releasing water from the
dams. The conflict over Jammu and Kashmir and its associated rivers goes back to the dissolution of the British Indian Empire in
1947. Britain controlled two-thirds of that empire itself and partitioned those areas into either India or Pakistan, based on religion.
The other one-third of the empire comprised around 565 princely states, roughly 120 of which, being sufficiently large and
influential, had to decide whether they would join India or Pakistan. The ruler of Jammu and Kashmir, the largest of these princely
states, delayed acceding, hoping to secure independence instead. This former princely state remains disputed today, complicating
the control of three of the major rivers that contribute to the fertile (Pakistani) Punjab region: the Indus, Chenab, and Jhelum. These
three rivers, which India controls upstream, all flow through the disputed areas. The
major stake is water security in
India and Pakistan. Roughly 65% of Pakistan’s territory is dependent on the water that comes
down through the Indus. The Indus Basin is the world’s largest irrigation system at 21.2 million hectares. Concurrently,
Pakistan is considered to be “extremely high-stressed” in terms of water security, with under 1,000 cubic meters of water available
per person per year. India is “high-stressed,” with under 1,700 cubic meters per person per year. So both countries have water
issues. India, however, has far more options available to deal with its limited supply. As a much larger country with many rivers, it
can redistribute water from its northeast—which includes some of the wettest areas of the world—to other parts of the country
through a system of interlinking canals. Pakistan, being smaller and having less water, has very few options. The hydroelectric
projects that Pakistan has disputed include the Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant and the Baglihar Dam. In the case of the
Kishanganga, India
planned to divert water from the Kishanganga River before it traveled into
Pakistan-controlled Azad Kashmir, where the river is called the Neelum River .

There are three scenarios:

1---The Indus River is essential to Pakistani agriculture
Umar 2 [Mohammad Umar Baba, who writes under the byline Baba Umar, is a Kashmiri
journalist. The piece is an excerpt of a research paper written during the author’s Chevening
South Asia Journalism Programme (SAJP) fellowship in 2016. Diplomat, The. "Kashmir: A Water
War In The Making?". Thediplomat.Com, 2022, https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-a-
water-war-in-the-making/. Accessed 12 Dec 2022] // Aadit M
“Climate change indicators are quite loud and clear in the region and have impacted the snow and glacier resources in the upper
Indus,” glaciologist Shakil Ahmad Romshoo tells me. The Indus supports about 90 percent of Pakistan’s
agriculture. Scientists say a number of glaciers in the area are rapidly receding due to climate change. The large-scale human
intervention in the form of unorganized pilgrimages and mindless tourism too is upping the temperatures, resulting in the fast
melting of glaciers. “The
stream flows emanating from the region has significantly decreased. It is
pertinent to mention here that the IWT [Indus Water Treaty] did not have any clause on climate
change impacts on stream flows,” Romshoo says. The Indian Rivers Inter-link project in India and mismanagement
of existing water supplies augments the pressure on both countries. A glaciologist quoted by
the Economist calls the dams “water bombs” on the Indus, as they are in an earthquake prone
zone. In fact, a top water expert (preferring anonymity) who worked with the World Bank on a
report about Indian dams argues that about 15 large Indian dams in the Himalayas are “dodgy
dams” and shouldn’t have been commissioned at all. “In its survey, two of these [dams] were found adequate but not earthquake-
proof. [The] other 13 should have never been built. It found a lot of corruption in [the] Indian dam building system. The bank didn’t
publish the survey though,” the expert told me recently in an interview in the U.K.

Pakistani agriculture is crucial for global Climate, Food Insecurity, and Bio D
Doaj 19 [On Doaj, 8-27-2019, "Agricultural Land Abandonment and Farmers’ Perceptions of
Land Use Change in the Indus Plains of Pakistan: A Case Study of Sindh Province," MDPI,
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/17/4663, accessed 12-12-2022] // vedh ** Brackets bc
the evidence is huge

Agriculture is the mainstay of Pakistan’s economy . However, it has been noticed that farmers are increasingly
giving up agriculture in favor of non-agricultural activities. This study was conducted in the Khairpur district of
Sindh province, which is part of the Indus Plains in Pakistan. The main purpose of the study was to investigate
the current and future land use change (LUC) trends and to study farmers’ perceptions of the causes and consequences of LUC and
agricultural land abandonment (ALA) in the study area. The study used field survey data and secondary data obtained from the
government sources. The results show that agricultural land in the region has decreased by about 9% in the past two decades.
Survey data analysis confirms this because more than 80% of farmers believe that agricultural land in the area has declined over
time. In addition, farmers believe that socioeconomic and environmental changes are the main reasons for LUC and ALA. We used a
logistic regression model to determine the factors that influence farmers’ decisions to sell agricultural land for other uses. The
results show that the age, income, land ownership, farm inheritance by successors, social networks and lack of basic facilities in the
study area are the main determinants of farmers’ decisions to sell agricultural lands. In particular, farmers’ integration into the social
network and their belief that the farm will be inherited by heirs reduces the possibility of selling land. As for the consequences of
LUC and ALA, the results indicate that farmland prices, weeds infestation, urban diffusion, and pressure on existing infrastructure
have increased in the study area. In addition, the results show that the prospects of farming in the area remain grim as most farmers
indicated that they were willing to abandon agricultural lands in favor of other revenue generation activities. The study suggests that
policymakers should pay close attention to controlling rapid LUC and ALA to keep lands green.

[CUT]

LUC and ALA in Sindh have drawn much attention because agriculture is the main sector of the
Sindh economy, with rice, cotton, sugarcane, wheat, mango, and bananas being the most
important crops. Sindh’s geographical area is 140,900 square kilometers, making a significant contribution to national food
security. The Indus river flows into the Arabian Sea from the highest mountains in the world. The colossal flow of water
from the Indus river brings rich silt and sandy loam from the northern region into Sindh,
increasing its soil fertility. As the Indus delta of Sindh no longer has freshwater flows from the Indus
river, fertile farmland is turning saline due to seawater intrusion .

[CUT]

Sustainability 11 04663 g002 550Figure 2. Changes in agricultural, barren, forest and other land area in the Khairpur district over the
past two decades (1997–2017).
Since our main focus in this study is on the agricultural sector, the taluka wise pattern of agricultural LUC is worthy of attention, as
shown in Table 3. In the past two decades, the changes in the agricultural land area of all talukas of the Khaipur
district show a similar trend. In the first decade (1997–2007), the agricultural land area of all talukas showed an
increasing trend, while the second decade (2007–2017) showed a significant downward trend. As shown in the table,
LUC and ALA occurred in the study area. If the current trend continues, it is expected that the agricultural area will decline further in
the future. The
land will be diverted to other purposes, such as industrial, commercial and
residential uses, which can lead to the evolution of serious problems such as food insecurity,
global warming, destruction of natural habitat and extinction of wildlife [47].

Biodiversity collapse causes extinction

Jordan 15 [Rob Jordan develops content for the Stanford Woods Institute and writes research
briefs, press releases and program overviews. He is citing Paul Ehrlich of the Stanford Woods
Institute, Anthony D. Barnosky of the University of California at Berkeley, Andrés García of
Universidad Autónoma de México, Robert M. Pringle of Princeton University, and Todd M.
Palmer of the University of Florida. (“Stanford researcher declares that the sixth mass extinction
is here,” https://news.stanford.edu/2015/06/19/mass-extinction-ehrlich-061915/, June 19,
2015)] // recut vedh

The new study, published in the journal Science Advances, shows that even with extremely conservative
estimates, species are disappearing up to about 100 times faster than the normal rate between
mass extinctions, known as the background rate. “If it is allowed to continue, life would take many millions of
years to recover, and our species itself would likely disappear early on,” said lead author Gerardo
Ceballos of the Universidad Autónoma de México. Using fossil records and extinction counts from a range of records,
the researchers compared a highly conservative estimate of current extinctions with a
background rate estimate twice as high as those widely used in previous analyses . This way, they
brought the two estimates – current extinction rate and average background or going-on-all-the-time extinction rate – as
close to each other as possible. Focusing on vertebrates, the group for which the most reliable modern and fossil data
exist, the researchers asked whether even the lowest estimates of the difference between background
and contemporary extinction rates still justify the conclusion that people are precipitating “ a global spasm
of biodiversity loss.” The answer: a definitive yes. “We emphasize that our calculations very likely
underestimate the severity of the extinction crisis , because our aim was to place a realistic lower bound on
humanity’s impact on biodiversity,” the researchers write. To history’s steady drumbeat, a human population growing in
numbers, per capita consumption and economic inequity has altered or destroyed natural habitats.
The long list of impacts includes: Land clearing for farming, logging and settlement; Introduction of invasive species; Carbon
emissions that drive climate change and ocean acidification; Toxins that alter and poison ecosystems; Now, the
specter of
extinction hangs over about 41 percent of all amphibian species and 26 percent of all mammals,
according to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which maintains an authoritative list of threatened and extinct
species. “There are examples of species all over the world that are essentially the walking dead ,”
Ehrlich said. As species disappear, so do crucial ecosystem services such as honeybees’ crop
pollination and wetlands’ water purification. At the current rate of species loss, people will lose many
biodiversity benefits within three generations, the study’s authors write. “We are sawing off the limb that we
are sitting on,” Ehrlich said. Despite the gloomy outlook, there is a meaningful way forward ,
according to Ehrlich and his colleagues.
2---The Indus River is essential to Pakistani electricity
Umar 3 [Mohammad Umar Baba, who writes under the byline Baba Umar, is a Kashmiri
journalist. The piece is an excerpt of a research paper written during the author’s Chevening
South Asia Journalism Programme (SAJP) fellowship in 2016. Diplomat, The. "Kashmir: A Water
War In The Making?". Thediplomat.Com, 2022, https://thediplomat.com/2016/06/kashmir-a-
water-war-in-the-making/. Accessed 12 Dec 2022] // Aadit M
There is doubt whether IWT can address India’s mounting use of the waters for hydroelectricity and Pakistan’s growing need of the
same waters for agriculture. Pakistan-based Arshad H Abbasi, a
trans-boundary water expert, tells me there are
some serious emerging violations of IWT “as India plan to construct 155 hydropower projects in
Kashmir” and that “India isn’t sharing any information pertaining to the detail design, structural
drawings, and design calculations of the upcoming projects.” India began building major
hydropower projects in Kashmir in 1970s and now has 33 projects at various stages of completion on the rivers in
Kashmir. Currently, the most controversial dam project is the proposed 330 megawatt dam on the Kishanganga River (also called
Neelum in Pakistan-administered Kashmir), a tributary of the Indus. Its construction began in 2007 and is almost complete. The
waters are to be diverted through a 24 kilometer tunnel for power production and the rest of
the water flow is supposed to join the Wullar Lake and ultimately run through Jhelum to
Muzaffarabad (in Pakistan-administered Kashmir) — dodging the 213 km long Neelum, on which
Pakistan is also building its own Neelum-Jhelum Hydro-Electric Project (NJHEP). Pakistan has
also objections regarding the 850 MW Rattle hydropower project on Chenab river , which Islamabad
says involves faulty designs. Earlier in 2013, the International Court of Arbitration decided that “India shall release a minimum flow
of 9 cumecs [cubic meters per second] into the river below the KHEP [Kishanganga Hydroelectric Plant] at all times.” The judgment
also dictated that “[a]t any time at which the daily average flow in the river immediately upstream of the KHEP is less than 9 cumecs,
India shall release 100 percent of the daily average flow.” While media and officials on both sides hailed their respective countries
for winning this case, late South African water expert John Briscoe observed that India “has won the battle, but … lost a far more
important war.” The
rush to meet energy demand through hydropower is occurring in both
countries amid shortages of adequate access to energy . The number of dams under construction and their
management are a source of significant bilateral tension. Briscoe argued that if India builds all its planned projects on the Indus, New
Delhi will be capable of holding up about a month’s worth of river flow during Pakistan’s critical dry season, “enough to wreck an
entire planting season,” as the New York Times put it after interviewing Briscoe. “The treaty worked well in the past, mostly because
the Indians weren’t building anything,” Briscoe told the Times. “This is a completely different ballgame. Now
there’s a whole
battery of these hydro projects.” Mistrust threatens IWT’s stability. Any perceived decrease in
the flow of waters augments this mistrust, no matter whether caused by India’s activities or
climate change. The Economist argues that the Indian bureaucrats fuel these fears with “obsessive secrecy” about water data.
Climate change threatens Kashmir, already worn-out by the armed conflict between over half a million Indian soldiers and about a
dozen rebel groups fighting for independence or merger of the territory with Pakistan. “Climate change indicators are quite loud and
clear in the region and have impacted the snow and glacier resources in the upper Indus,” glaciologist Shakil Ahmad Romshoo tells
me.

Blackouts cause meltdowns – extinction

Hodges 14 (Dave, award-winning psychology, statistics and research professor as he teaches
college and university classes at both the undergraduate and graduate level, an established
author as his articles are published on many major websites, citing Judy Haar, a recognized
expert in nuclear plant failure analyses, "Nuclear Power Plants Will Become America's Extinction
Level Event", April 18, 2014, www.thelibertybeacon.com/2014/04/18/nuclear-power-plants-
will-become-americas-extinction-level-event/)
Fukushima is often spoken of by many, as a possible extinction level event because of the
radiation threat. Fukushima continues to wreak havoc upon the world and in the United States as we are being bathed in deadly radiation
from this event. Because of Fukushima, fish are becoming inedible and the ocean currents as well as

the prevailing ocean winds are carrying deadly radiation. Undoubtedly , by this time, the radioactivity
has made its way into the transpiration cycle which means that crops are being dowsed with
deadly radiation. The radiation has undoubtedly made its way into the water table in many
areas and impacts every aspect of the food supply. The health costs to human beings is
incalculable. However, this article is not about the devastation at Fukushima, instead, this article focuses on the fact that North America could
have a total of 124 Fukushima events if the necessary conditions were present. A Festering Problem Long before Fukushima, American regulators knew
failure lasting for days involving the power grid connected to a nuclear plant, regardless of the
that a power

cause, would most likely lead to a dangerous radioactive leak in at least several nuclear power

plants. A complete loss of electrical power poses a major problem for nuclear power plants
the because reactor core must be kept cool as well as the back-up cooling systems, all of which
require massive amounts of power to work. Heretofore, all the NERC drills which test the readiness
of a nuclear power plant are predicated on the notion that a blackout will only last 24 hours or
less. Amazingly, this is the sum total of a NERC litmus test. Although we have the technology needed to harden and protect our grid from an EMP
event, whether natural or man-made, we have failed to do so. The cost for protecting the entire grid is placed at about the cost for one B-1 Stealth
Bomber. Yet, as a nation, we have done nothing. This is inexplicable and inexcusable. Our collective inaction against protecting the grid prompted
Congressman Franks to write a scathing letter to the top officials of NERC. However, the good Congressman failed to mention the most important
aspect of this problem. The
problem is entirely fixable and NERC and the US government are leaving the
American people and its infrastructure totally unprotected from a total meltdown of nuclear
power plants as a result of a prolonged power failure. Critical Analyses According to Judy Haar, a
recognized expert in nuclear plant failure analyses, when a nuclear power plant loses access to
off-grid electricity, the event is referred to as a “station blackout”. Haar states that all 104 US nuclear power
plants are built to withstand electrical outages without experiencing any core damage, through the activation of an automatic start up of emergency
generators powered by diesel. Further, when
emergency power kicks in, an automatic shutdown of the nuclear
power plant commences. The dangerous control rods are dropped into the core, while water is
pumped by the diesel power generators into the reactor to reduce the heat and thus, prevent a
meltdown. Here is the catch in this process, the spent fuel rods are encased in both a primary
and secondary containment structure which is designed to withstand a core meltdown.
However, should the pumps stop because either the generators fail or diesel fuel is not
available, the fuel rods are subsequently uncovered and a Fukushima type of core meltdown
commences immediately. At this point, I took Judy Haar’s comments to a source of mine at the Palo Verde Nuclear power plant. My
source informed me that as per NERC policy, nuclear power plants are required to have enough diesel fuel to run for a period of seven days. Some
plants have thirty days of diesel. This is the good news, but it is all downhill from here. The Unresolved Power Blackout Problem A
long-term
loss of outside electrical power will most certainly interrupt the circulation of cooling water to
the pools. Another one of my Palo Verde nuclear power plant sources informed me that there is no long term solution to a power blackout and
that all bets are off if the blackout is due to an EMP attack. A more detailed analysis reveals that the spent fuel pools carry depleted

fuel for the reactor. Normally, this spent fuel has had time to considerably decay and therefore,
reducing radioactivity and heat. However, the newer discharged fuel still produces heat and
needs cooling. Housed in high density storage racks, contained in buildings that vent directly
into the atmosphere, radiation containment is not accounted for with regard to the spent fuel
racks. In other words, there is no capture mechanism. In this scenario, accompanied by a
lengthy electrical outage, and with the emergency power waning due to either generator failure
or a lack of diesel needed to power the generators, the plant could lose the ability to provide
cooling. The water will subsequently heat up, boil away and uncover the spent fuel rods which
required being covered in at least 25 feet of water to remain benign from any deleterious
effects. Ultimately, this would lead to fires as well and the release of radioactivity into the
atmosphere. This would be the beginning of another Fukushima event right here on American
soil. Both my source and Haar shared exactly the same scenario about how a meltdown would
occur. Subsequently, I spoke with Roger Landry who worked for Raytheon in various Department of Defense projects for 28 years, many of them in
this arena and Roger also confirmed this information and that the above information is well known in the industry. When I examine Congressman
Franks letter to NERC and I read between the lines, it is clear that Franks knows of this risk as well, he just stops short of specifically mentioning it in his
letter. Placing Odds On a Failure Is a Fools Errand An analysis of individual plant risks released in 2003 by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission shows
that for
39 of the 104 nuclear reactors, the risk of core damage from a blackout was greater than
1 in 100,000. At 45 other plants the risk is greater than 1 in 1 million, the threshold NRC is using to determine which severe accidents should be
evaluated in its latest analysis. According to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 1, in Pennsylvania has the
greatest risk of experiencing a core meltdown, 6.5 in 100,000, according to the analysis. These
odds don’t sound like much until
you consider that we have 124 nuclear power generating plants in the US and Canada and when
we consider each individual facility, the odds of failure climb. How many meltdowns would it
take in this country before our citizens would be condemned to the hellish nightmare, or worse, being
experienced by the Japanese? The Question That’s Not Being Asked None of the NERC, or the Nuclear Regulatory tests of

handling a prolonged blackout at a nuclear power plant has answered two critical questions,
“What happens when these nuclear power plants run out of diesel fuel needed to run the
generators”, and “What happens when some of these generators fail”? In the event of an EMP attack, can
tanker trucks with diesel fuel get to all of the nuclear power plants in the US in time to re-fuel them before they stop running? Will tanker trucks even
be running themselves in the aftermath of an EMP attack? And in the event of an EMP attack, it is not likely that any plant which runs low on fuel, or
has a generator malfunctions, will ever get any help to mitigate the crisis prior to a plethora of meltdowns occurring. Thus, every nuclear power plant in
the country has the potential to cause a Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident if our country is hit by an EMP attack. CANYOU EVEN
IMAGINE 124 FUKUSHIMA EVENTS IN NORTH AMERICA HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME? THIS
WOULD CONSTITUTE THE ULTIMATE DEPOPULATION EVENT. …And There Is More… The ramifications
raised in the previous paragraphs are significant. What if the blackout lasts longer than 24
hours? What if the reason for the blackout is an EMP burst caused by a high altitude nuclear blast and transportation comes to a standstill? In
this instance, the cavalry is not coming. Adding fuel to the fire lies in the fact that the power
transformers presently take at least one year to replace. Today, there is a three year backlog on
ordering because so many have been ordered by China. This makes one wonder what the Chinese are preparing for with these multiple orders for
both transformers and generators. In short, our unpreparedness is a prescription for disaster . As a byproduct of my
investigation, I have discovered that most, if not all, of the nuclear power plants are on known earthquake fault lines. All of California’s nuclear power
plants are located on an earthquake fault line. Can anyone tell me why would anyone in their right mind build a nuclear power plant on a fault line? To
see the depth of this threat you can visit an interactive, overlay map at this site. Conclusion I
have studied this issue for almost
nine months and this is the most elusive topic that I have ever investigated. The more facts I gather about the threat of
a mass nuclear meltdown in this country, the more questions I realize that are going
unanswered. With regard to the nuclear power industry we have the proverbial tiger by the tail. Last August, Big Sis stated that it is not
matter of if we have a mass power grid take down, but it is a matter of when . I would echo her
concerns and apply the “not if, but when” admonition to the possibility of a mass meltdown in
this country. It is only a matter of time until this scenario for disaster comes to fruition . Our
collective negligence and high level of extreme depraved indifference on the part of NERC is
criminal because this is indeed an Extinction Level Event. At the end of the day, can anyone tell me why would any
country be so negligent as to not provide its nuclear plants a fool proof method to cool the secondary processes of its nuclear materials at all of its
plants? Why would ANY nuclear power plant be built on an earthquake fault line? Why are we even using nuclear energy under these circumstances?
And why are we allowing the Chinese to park right next door to so many nuclear power plants?
 1AC—Framing
My value is justice as implied by the resolution.
Prefer:
1] Actor specificity
a. Aggregation – all policies benefit some and hurts others – only util can
resolve these cuz it gives a clear weighing mechanism
b. Bureaucrats aren’t philosophers – policymakers do not have experience with
dense frameworks so they don’t understand how to apply them to specific
instances but they do understand that pain is bad and pleasure is good because
it’s intrinsic to existing.
2] Only pleasure and pain are intrinsically valuable—pleasure is an end in itself.
3] Extinction outweighs.
MacAskill 14 [William, Oxford Philosopher and youngest tenured philosopher in the world,
Normative Uncertainty, 2014]

However, even if we believe in a moral view according to which human extinction would be a good
thing, we still have strong reason to prevent near-term human extinction. To see this, we must note three points.
First, we should note that the extinction of the human race is an extremely high stakes moral issue. Humanity could be around for a very long time: if humans survive
as long as the median mammal species, we will last another two million years. On this estimate, the number of humans in existence in the The future, given

that we don’t go extinct any time soon, would be 2×10^14. So if it is good to bring new people into
existence, then it’s very good to prevent human extinction. Second, human extinction is by its nature an
irreversible scenario. If we continue to exist, then we always have the option of letting ourselves go extinct in the future (or, perhaps more realistically, of considerably reducing
population size). But if we go extinct, then we can’t magically bring ourselves back into existence at a later date. Third, we should expect ourselves to progress,

morally, over the next few centuries, as we have progressed in the past. So we should expect that in a few centuries’ time we will
have better evidence about how to evaluate human extinction than we currently have. Given these three factors, it would be better to
prevent the near-term extinction of the human race, even if we thought that the extinction of the human race would actually be a very good thing. To make this concrete, I’ll give the following simple but

Suppose that we have 0.8 credence that it is a bad thing to produce new people, and 0.2 certain that it’s a good thing to
illustrative model.

produce new people; and the degree to which it is good to produce new people, if it is good, is the same as the degree to which it is bad to produce new people, if it is bad. That is, I’m
supposing, for simplicity, that we know that one new life has one unit of value; we just don’t know whether that unit is positive or negative. And let’s use our estimate of 2×10^14 people who would exist in the

if we
future, if we avoid near-term human extinction. Given our stipulated credences, the expected benefit of letting the human race go extinct now would be (.8-.2)×(2×10^14) = 1.2×(10^14). Suppose that,

let the human race continue and did research for 300 years, we would know for certain whether or not additional

people are of positive or negative value. If so, then with the credences above we should think it 80% likely that we will find out that it is a bad thing to produce new
people, and 20% likely that we will find out that it’s a good thing to produce new people. So there’s an 80% chance of a loss of 3×(10^10) (because of the delay of letting the human race go extinct), the expected

there’s also a 20% chance of a gain of 2×(10^14), the expected value of which is
value of which is 2.4×(10^10). But

4×(10^13). That is, in expected value terms, the cost of waiting for a few hundred years is vanishingly small
compared with the benefit of keeping one’s options open while one gains new information.