south korea 1ac aff

8/2/2019 South Korea 1AC Aff

1/26

Strategy South Korea Aff 1AC

WMD War Advantage

Harm -Impending North Korea and South Korea WarInternal Link-US Presence Leads to War with North KoreaImpact-North Korea Escalates Conflict to WMD War

Korean Reunification Advantage

Harm-US Presence Impedes ReunificationLink-US Pullout Causes Reunification

China Hegemony Advantage

Harm-US Stops China from Being HegemonU.S. Presence hinders China attempt at Establishing Peace: Brink = NOWLink-Only US Presence Keeps China from Being Hegemon, Pullout SolvesInternal Link-China Creates Regional Security and PeaceImpact-Regional Security Avoids Arms Race

Nano-Technology Advantage

Harm-US-South Korea Relations TenseNanotech brink is NOWLink-US Military Presence Increases Tensions, Pullout SolvesInternal Link-US-South Korea Relations Key to Nano-Tech DevelopmentInternal Link : U.S. Brain Drain solves for Tech dominanceInternal Link: SK scientists dont return home = NO BRAIN DRAINInternal Link: SK braindrain nanotech at risk = NEED GOOD RELATIONS WITH SKImpact-Nano Technology Good


2/26

Plan: Withdraw all US military troops from South Korea immediately.

2


3/26

Harm

Impending North Korea and South Korea War

(J.A. Boucher, 10. The Cabin. The Two Koreas, J.A. Boucher is a US Army LTC(Retired) and independent columnist. He lives in Conway. 11/28/10 7:18 pm. )North and South Korea are literally trading fire. People have been killed, a ship has beensunk and tensions on both sides of the demilitarized zone are high.Both countries have mobilized quick reaction forces and are forming reserves. The UnitedStates has dispatched a carrier task force to the region for exercises. China has criticizedthe U.S. for dispatching the carrier task force. By all accounts the situation is escalating.So, what are the chances of an actual conflict between the two Koreas? Pretty high,unfortunately.

South Korea has about 49 million people who churn out a gross domestic product of $1.48trillion. It is a vibrant, driving economy with government-aided export policies, significantresearch and development, and excellent education systems. The people are well-dressed,drive nice cars and live in nice houses. Hunger and unemployment are virtually unknown.South Korea is a constitutional democracy. While the South has known periods oftotalitarian government in the past, the United Nations now describes the government as afully functioning democracy.South Korea spends more than 15 percent of their government funding on the military.They have mandatory conscription for two years and a very extensive reserve system.South Korea has 2700 modern tanks, 1700 modern artillery pieces and the eighth largest airforce in the world.

The Air Force consists of more than 800 aircraft including F-15 and F-16 fighters. TheSouth Koreans are mindful of the June 25, 1950, invasion of the South by mass NorthKorean formations, so many of their systems and tactics are designed to specifically dealwith mass attack, day and night.In contrast, North Korea is populated by 24 million people. The gross domestic product isless than $40 billion. The UN and many other aid groups estimate that between 5 percentand 8 percent of the population is malnourished. One important consequence of the riftbetween the Koreas is that food aid programs from the South have virtually stopped in thelast two weeks, leaving many in North Korea without food.North Korea and Cuba are the last two countries in the world that exist on central planningeconomic schemes. Thus, while North Korea has invited venture capital, relatively little

has been successful at implementing new systems and products. For example, cell phoneshave been periodically banned nationally since their introduction in 2002, socommunications companies, generally, are reluctant to enter into agreements with theNorth Korean government.The North has an enormous military establishment that is commanded by the dictator, KimJong-Il, who recently appointed his son, Kim Jong-Un to be his successor. In the North, thedictator commands the Armed Forces absolutely. Over 1.2 million men are under arms inNorth Korea. They have 4000 tanks, 2500 artillery pieces and a very large air force. But

3
http://thecabin.net/authors/ja-boucherhttp://thecabin.net/authors/ja-boucher


4/26

much of the equipment is World War II vintage. The availability and reliability of theNorth Korean tank fleet, for example, is believed to be as low at 40% of total systems. Asimilar situation exists with North Korean combat aircraft. But before we write-down theNorth Korean military establishment note intelligence analysis suggesting the North hasenough material to build eleven nuclear devices rocket and missile systems to deliver them.

So, the two countries peer at each other across the DMZ, both armed for a coming conflict.The South is fearful that all theyve worked so hard to achieve will be destroyed. TheNorth is envious of the accomplishments of the South and coveting Southern resources,especially food. Historically, when countries arm for war they eventually engage.The Eighth U.S. Army is in Korea, including the 2D Infantry Division. They will fightbecause they are committed to do so, and because they wont actually have an alternative.The US will be in and once again what the Chinese will do remains to be seen.Personally, I pray for peace.

Internal LinkFirst U.S. military presence and training in South Korea is heightens tensions and

4


5/26

emboldens the ROK

BBC 6/24Worldwide Monitoring, 6/24/2010, Lexis

The fact that the United States is actively inciting the South Korean puppets and driving thesituation to the extreme at a time when the Korean Peninsula situation is very tense over theship sinking incident in South Korea is a matter that cannot be considered apart from amanoeuvre for an arms race that is going into full swing. The United States intends tosquanderenormous military expenditures and launch the largest combined anti-submarine trainingin history on the West Sea [Yellow Sea] along with South Korean belligerent elements with theparticipation of a tremendous mobile strike force that includes the "Aegis" destroyer and the nuclear

submarine. As part of this, US military forces from the US mainland and Pacific region are beingimmediately mobilized and deployed to the Korean Peninsula and surrounding areas. A while ago, 12US Air Force "F-22A Raptor" stealth fighters were mobilized and deployed from the US mainland toKadena US Air Base in Okinawa, Japan. The United States intends to commit a modern large-scale warforce, beginning with nuclear weapons, and launch an adventurous, precursory military operation against

our Republic. This is an adventurous nuclearwar gamble that proceeds from the absolute interests ofUS military logistics industry corporations that want to reap great profits by starting the fire of war. Thegeopolitical gains in the Asia-Pacific region that came out of the "Ch'o'nan" ship incident were just what

the United States had eagerly awaited. The Northeast Asia region, which includes the KoreanPeninsula , is a strategic area in which the interests of large countries intersect, so it is anextremely sensitive area in which the flame of all-out war - including nuclear war - couldspread through even a minor accidental cause. The objective ofthe United States in

Impact, North Korean military doctrine emphasizes fast WMD use

International Crisis Group 9

5


6/26

(18 June, NORTH KOREAS CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS PROGRAMS, Asia

Report No. 167,:www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/167-north-koreas-

chemical-and-biological-weaponsprograms.aspx+north+korea's+chemical+and+biological-

weapons+program+international+crisis+group&cd =1 &hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

This report examines North Koreas chemical and biological weapons capabilities in the context of itsmilitary doctrine and national objectives. It is based on open source literature, interviews and unpublisheddocuments made available to Crisis Group. Companion reports published simultaneously assess theDPRKs nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities and what the policy response of the international

community should be to its recent nuclear and missile testing.1North Korea s programs to developweapons of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missiles pose serious risks to security.Pyongyangs nuclear capabilities are the greatest threat, but it alsopossesses a large stock- pile ofchemical weapons and is suspected of maintain- ing a biological weapons program. The Six-Party Talks (China, Japan, North Korea, Russia, South Korea and the U.S.) had been underway sinceAugust 2003 with the objective of ending the Norths nuclear ambitions, before Pyongyang announced its

withdrawal in April 2009, but there is no direct mechanism for dealing with its chemicalweapons and possible biological weapons. The North Korean leadership is very unlikely tosur- render its WMD unless there is significant change in the political and security environments. The

Six-Party Talks produced a Statement of Princi- ples in September 2005 that included a commitment toestablish a permanent peace mechanism in North East Asia, but the structure and nature of such a coop-erative security arrangement is subject to interpretation, negotiation and implementation. Views among thepar- ties differ, and no permanent peace can be established unless North Korea abandons all its WMDprograms. The diplomatic tasks are daunting, and diplomacy could fail. If North Korea refuses to engage in

arms control and to rid itself of WMD, the international community must be prepared to dealwith a wide range of threats, including those posed by Pyongyangs chemical andbiological weapons capabilities. Unclassified estimates of the chemical weapons (CW) arsenal areimprecise, but the consensus is that the Korean Peoples Army (KPA) possesses 2,500-5,000tons, including mustard, phosgene, blood agents, sarin, tabun and V-agents (persistent nerveagents). The stock- pile does not appear to be increasing but is already suf- ficient to inflict massivecivilian casualties on South Korea. The Norths CW can be delivered with long- range artillery,

multiple rocket launchers, FROGs (free rocket over ground), ballistic missiles, aircraft and naval vessels.North Korean military doctrine emphasises quick offensive strikes to break through enemydefences in orderto achieve national military objectives before the U.S. can interveneeffectively on behalf of its South Korean ally. However, the Norths conventional military capa-bilities are declining against those of its potential foes, so the leadership is likely to rely on asymmetric

capabilities for its national security objectives. This strategy poses a significant danger because itrisks deliberate, accidental or unauthorised WMD attacks or incidents.

Harm US Presence in KoreaUS Military Presence in South Korea Harms Reunification Prospects

6


7/26

Harrison, 2002(Selig S Harrison,ICASFellow, is Director of the Asia Program at the Center forInternational Policy and a senior scholar of the Woodrow Wilson International Center forScholars. Selig has specialized in South Asia and East Asia for fifty years as a journalistand scholar and is the author of five books on Asian affairs and U.S. relations with Asia,

includingKorean Endgame: A Strategy For Reunification and U.S. Disengagement,published by Princeton University Press in May 2002, 2002. Harrison, May,KoreanEndgame: A Strategy for Reunification and US Disengagement, page 18,http://books.google.com/books?id=csVMXWKo734C&pg=PR18&lpg=PR18&dq=US+presence+in+korea+impedes+reunification&source=bl&ots=0lXv3XMIgw&sig=lw_wFGR6W3EJem2bW2nIHcnfQVw&hl=en&ei=GJ2CTKnNFoG0lQfhhNUd&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=US%20presence%20in%20korea%20impedes%20reunification&f=false)I also discuss in part 2 the prospects for confederation and reunification in the context ofUS policy options,showing how US alignment with the South (and the present form of

the US military presence) prolongs the civil war in Korea and impedes reunificationby providing an economic subsidy that enables the South to have a maximum ofsecurity with a minimum of sacrifice. Souths upper and middle income minority, inparticular, has acquired a vested interest in the status quo. Solong as the South has USmilitary presence as a cushion, it is under no compulsion to make compromises withthe North necessary to reach agreementon coexistenceand eventual reunification.

Link US WithdrawalUS Withdrawal from South Korea Aids Reunification

7


8/26

Nguyen, 2007 Peter Van, freelance writer based in Sydney, Australia. His articles have been published inOpEdnews, Asia Times Online and Foreign Policy Journal,2007. Nguyen, April, USBases Are Obstacle to Korean Reunification UPI Asia.com,http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/13/us_bases_are_obstacle_to_korean_reunificati

on/1193/)

This would create a deep rift within the Koreas and threaten to derail the reunification

process. The complete withdrawal of all U.S. military bases and personnel from the

Korean peninsula should follow after a timetable has been set, allowing the new Korea to

handle its own security.

The question is, will the United States pull out all its troops in order to allow the

peaceful reunification of the Koreas? The United States has been dreading a scenario in

which its military bases in South Korea could come under threat.

Harm US HegemonyUS Stifles China Hegemony

8


9/26

Feigenbaum, 2010

(Feigenbaum, Evan A, Adjunct Senior Fellow for East, Central, and South Asia at the Council on ForeignRelations. He is also the Head of the Asia practice group and a director at Eurasia Group, a global politicalrisk consulting firm. Initially an academic with a PhD in Chinese politics, his work has since spanned

government service, business, and think tanks, and all three major regions of Asia. From 2001 to 2009, heserved at the State Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia (2007-09), DeputyAssistant Secretary of State for Central Asia (2006-07), and Member of the Policy Planning Staff withprincipal responsibility for East Asia and the Pacific (2001-06), 2010, March Wheres the Tipping Point inUS-China Relations? http://blogs.cfr.org/asia/2010/03/22/where%E2%80%99s-the-tipping-point-in-u-s-china-relations/)

Liu argues that the hegemonic nature of the United States will not permit it to

accept Chinas rise. He devotes two chapters to what he describes as merciless

U.S. efforts to contain the rise of Japan and the Soviet Union. Liu argues that the

United States will inevitably fight a third battle to retain its title by seekingto contain Chinas rise. This will produce a marathon contest for global leadership

that will be the duel of the century (Global Times, February 5). U.S. determinationto maintain its superiority and to keep China down will force China to contend for

global dominance if its economic rise is to continue.

9


10/26

U.S. presence in South Koreahinders China attempt at

Establishing Peace: The Brink isNOW

(MARTIN FACKLER: U.S. and South Korea Begin Joint Naval Exercises. Columnist for the

New York Times, November 28, 2010, New York Times)

SEOUL, South Korea The United States and South Korea began naval exercises

on Sunday that were meant as a warning to North Korea for recent provocations,

including last weeks deadly artillery attack on a island populated by South

Koreans in the Yellow Sea.

At the same time, China stepped up its diplomatic efforts to cool tempers in the

region, with a senior envoy holding a meeting on Sunday morning with South

Koreas president and Beijing announcing that it had invited a senior North

Korean official for talks this week. China also called for an emergency meeting of

the so-called six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program, news agencies

reported.

North Korean artillery was heard Sunday on the island, though no shells landed

there and South Korea considered it just a drill, according to a spokesman for

South Koreas Joint Chiefs of Staff. The North Koreans also shot off artillery on

Friday, after a visit by an American general to the island, called Yeonpyeong.

The announcement of the naval exercises last week raised already heightened

tensions, angering both North Korea and its patron, China, and stirring intense

speculation in the South Korean news media about whether the North would

respond violently.

After the announcement, China warned against any military act in its exclusive

economic zone without permission, according to the state-run Xinhua news

10
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/martin_fackler/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-orghttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/martin_fackler/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/j/joint_chiefs_of_staff/index.html?inline=nyt-org


11/26

agency. But virtually all the waters to the west of the Korean Peninsula fall within

that 200 nautical mile limit. It was not immediately clear if the American and

South Korean flotilla, which included the United States aircraft carrier George

Washington, had sailed into that area.

Chinas diplomatic efforts came after days of entreaties from Washington and its

allies to exert a moderating influence on North Korea.

The Chinese envoy, state counselor in charge of foreign affairs, Dai Bingguo, met

with South Koreas president,Lee Myung-bak, as part of a previously

unannounced visit to Seoul, according to a senior South Korean official.

Chinas diplomatic initiative also included the planned talks with Choe Tae-bok,

chairman of North Koreas Supreme Peoples Assembly, who will pay an officialvisit to China starting Tuesday.

The United States has hoped that China would use its leverage over North Korea

to restrain it from any further attacks, but so far China has not rebuked the

Norths leaders, at least in public. And when China did finally make a strong

public statement late last week on the attack the one warning against military

actions in its economic zone it directed its pique at the United States for the

naval exercises.

The show of force was designed both to deter further attacks by the North and to

signal to China that unless it reins in its unruly ally, it may see an even larger

American presence in the vicinity.

The flurry of diplomacy over the weekend followed days of recriminations by both

Koreas. On Saturday, North Korea accused South Korea of using civilians as

human shields around military bases on the island. The accusation, reported by

the Norths official news agency, is apparently an effort to redirect South Korean

outrage over the barrage, which killed two civilian construction workers and twoSouth Korean marines.

If the U.S. brings its carrier to the West Sea of Korea at last, no one can predict

the ensuing consequences, the report said, using the Korean name for the Yellow

Sea.

11
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/lee_myung_bak/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/lee_myung_bak/index.html?inline=nyt-per


12/26

Also on Saturday, at least two protests were staged in Seoul that criticized both

North Koreas leader, Kim Jong-il, for the attack and South Koreas president for

what many here see as the militarys failure to make more than a token response.

The bombardment of the island was the first attack on a civilian area since the1950-53 Korean War, and it enraged the South Koreans far more than previous

provocations by the North, including its nuclear weapons tests and the sinking in

March of a South Korean warship that killed 46 sailors. Despite the findings of an

international investigation, North Korea denies responsibility for the sinking.

The North has said that Tuesdays attack was carried out in response to South

Korean artillery drills earlier that day on the island, which sits within sight of the

North Korean mainland. On the morning of the attack, North Korea warned

South Korea not to conduct the drills.

Citing those warnings, North Korea said it had made superhuman efforts to

prevent the clash at the last moment. It also offered an uncharacteristic show of

remorse, calling the civilian deaths very regrettable.

The comments were apparently an attempt to present the Norths view of events

to the South Korean public, which has reacted to Tuesdays attack with

uncharacteristic vehemence toward the North.

Ian Johnson contributed reporting from Beijing, and Su-Hyun Lee and Sharon LaFraniere from

Seoul.

12
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/_kim_jong_il/index.html?inline=nyt-perhttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/_kim_jong_il/index.html?inline=nyt-per


13/26

Link US Pullout China Hegemony

US Withdrawal from Asia Allows China to Gain Asia Hegemony

Godwin, 2004(Godwin, Paul HB, Professor of International Affairs at the National War College, Washington, DC,where his research focuses on Chinese security policy and defense modernization. He is a graduate of DartmouthCollege (1960) and received his M.A. in Asian Studies (1963) and Ph.D. in Political Science (1967) from theUniversity of Minnesota. In the fall of 1987, Professor Godwin was a visiting professor at the Chinese People'sLiberation Army National Defense University in Beijing. His most recent publications are "China's Security: AnInterpretation of the Next Decade," in David M. Lampton and Alfred D. Wilhelm, Jr., eds., United States andChina Relations at a Crossroads, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995; and "A New PacificCommunity: Adjusting to the Post-Cold War Era," in Howard J. Wiarda, ed., U.S. Foreign and Strategic Policyin the Post-Cold War Era, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996. Other essays have appeared in Studies inComparative Communism, Contemporary China, The China Quarterly, andArmed Forces and Society, 2004China, Regional Hegemon? http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Godwin,%20China%20as%20a%20Regional%20Hegemon.pdf)

As long as there is a second regional great power in Asia, by

definitionChina cannot become the regions hegemon. With its strongalliances andaccess to naval and air facilities along Asias peripherytogetherwith itsdiplomatic and economic influence within the region, the UnitedStates is in anextremely robust offshore position. In this sense, as Robert Ross hassuggested, East Asia has become bipolar; China and the United Statessharesthe regional balance of power.5The question therefore becomes

whether Chinas regional security objectives have as their ultimatepurpose the removalof the United States as Asias other great power. This question becomesimportant when it is recognized that Chinas principal objection to thecurrentdistribution of global and regional power is focused on the role of theUnitedStates. China resents the manner in which the United States employsthedominant military, economic and diplomatic power it achieved with theColdWars end in global as well as regional affairs. Before evaluatingBeijingsperceptions of the United States, however, it is necessary to assessChinassecurity priorities.

13


14/26

So a US pullout would leave China as the sole hegemon.

Internal Link China Hegemony

China Hegemony Will Cause Asian Peace and Demilitarization

Godwin, 2004(Godwin, Paul HB, Professor of International Affairs at the National War College, Washington, DC,where his research focuses on Chinese security policy and defense modernization. He is a graduate of DartmouthCollege (1960) and received his M.A. in Asian Studies (1963) and Ph.D. in Political Science (1967) from theUniversity of Minnesota. In the fall of 1987, Professor Godwin was a visiting professor at the Chinese People'sLiberation Army National Defense University in Beijing. His most recent publications are "China's Security: AnInterpretation of the Next Decade," in David M. Lampton and Alfred D. Wilhelm, Jr., eds., United States andChina Relations at a Crossroads, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995; and "A New PacificCommunity: Adjusting to the Post-Cold War Era," in Howard J. Wiarda, ed., U.S. Foreign and Strategic Policyin the Post-Cold War Era, Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1996. Other essays have appeared in Studies inComparative Communism, Contemporary China, The China Quarterly, andArmed Forces and Society, 2004China, Regional Hegemon? http://www.southchinasea.org/docs/Godwin,%20China%20as%20a%20Regional%20Hegemon.pdf)

Chinas desire to present itself as a good neighbor and responsible memberof Asias multilateral organizationsled to Beijings introduction ofthe NewSecurity Concept (NSC).45 Formulated in the spring of 1997, and occupying aprominent place in Beijings 1998, 2000 and 2002 defense white papers, theNSC is Chinas proposal for a post-Cold War security system. Beijing madeclear that the principles China espouses are in distinct contrast to the UnitedStates Cold War mentality seen in its use of military power and alliances asthe bedrock of Washingtons approach to regional security. In the place ofmilitary arrangements, Beijing recommends mutual trust, dialogue between

sovereign states as equals, mutually beneficial economic cooperation, and noresort to military threats. Beijings 2002 defense white paper summarizedChinas approach as based on mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality andcooperation.46

14


15/26

Impact China Hegemony

China Regional Security Structure Avoids Dangerous Arms Race

Sakamoto(Sakamoto, Yoshikazu, professor emeritus of international politics at the University of

Tokyo,1988,Asia,Militarization,andRegionalConflict,http://books.google.com/books?

id=Rd5q_1q2yNkC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=asian+militarization+arms+race&source=

bl&ots=bQX9OOdoy3&sig=uID80zoGfpPJ-oD3tm-

npRKxlNM&hl=en&ei=cP6MTIfLOcP6lwe1holg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resn

um=5&ved=0CCsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=asian%20militarization%20arms

%20race&f=false)

This list is merely illustrative of the arms buildup in the region; it is certainly notexhaustive and does not address itself to the balance of forces issue which is discussedelsewhere in a number of well known sources. The fundamental point of all this is thatthe Pacific is rapidly becoming the most militarized/nuclearized ocean in the world.The same process has been going on in Europe with a fundamental difference:

Chinas NSC would stop the arms race by demilitarizing.

15


16/26

Har

m-NanoTechUS-South Korea Have Tensions

Lee, 2008(Lee, Youkyung, 2008, April, The US-South Korea Alliance, Council on Foreign

Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/ussouth_korea_alliance.html)

South Korea made cuts in humanitarian aid to its northern neighbor following the July

2006 missile tests, but Seoul questioned Washingtons hard-line approach, fearing it

might provoke an aggressive response from Pyongyang. Roh downplayed the importance

of the July missile tests, saying the weapons would not make it to the United States but

would go too far to be a threat to Seoul. He did not want to lose ground on advances made

in inter-Korean relations, but his response to DPRK missile testsand his opposition to

increased sanctions drove a wedge into the U.S.-South Korea alliance. East AsiascholarDavid C. Kang said in 2006 that the United States is angry with South Korea

for not going along, and South Korea is angry about the United States ignoring all the

gains South Korea has made.

16
http://aparc.stanford.edu/people/davidkang/http://aparc.stanford.edu/people/davidkang/


17/26

We are on the brink of nanotech right now

(Breggin and Carothers, 2006: Governing Uncertainty: The NanotechnologyEnvironmental, Health, and Safety Challenge, Columbia Journal of Environmental Law,Linda K. Breggin, Senior Attorney, Environmental Law Institute (ELI), J.D. University of

Chicago; Leslie Carothers, President, ELI, J.D. Harvard University, LL.M. GeorgeWashington University 2006)

The nano-revolution is upon us. Nanotechnology, the science and technology of controllingmatter at the nanoscale, n1 promises to have far reaching impacts on the economy in areasranging from consumer products to health care to transportation. n2 According to theNational Science Foundation, nanotech is likely to exceed the impact of the IndustrialRevolution and may represent a $ 1 trillion market by 2015. n3 In fact, over 200 productsthat use nanomaterials [*287] are already in the marketplace. n4 There are only minimaldata at this juncture, however, on the effects of exposure to nanomaterials on human healthand the environment. Moreover, initial studies indicate some cause for concern. n5 Thus,the nano-revolution brings with it the challenge of developing a governance structure thatwill address potential risks effectively, but at the same time will allow for the realization ofthe societal benefits associated with nanotechnologies.

The table n14 below outlines some of the existing and near-term applications acrossdifferent sectors:

Automotive Industry Chemical Industry Engineering

.Lightweight .Fillers for paints .Protective

construction .Composite materials coatings for tools and.Painting .Impregnation of papers Machines.Catalysts .Adhesives .Lubricant-free.Tires .Magnetic fluids bearings(fillers).Sensors.Coatings forwindshield and

17


18/26

bodiesElectronics Construction Medicine

.Displays .Materials .Drug delivery

.Data memory .Insulation systems

.Laser diodes .Flame retardants .Contrast medium

.Fiber optics .Surface coatings for .Rapid testing.Optical wood, floors, stone, tiles, systemsswitches roofing .Prostheses and.Filters .Mortar implants.Conductive, .Antimicrobialantistatic coatings agents

.In-bodydiagnostic systems

Textiles Energy Cosmetics.Surface .Fuel cells .Sun screenscoatings .Solar cells .Lipsticks

.Smart textiles .Batteries .Skin creams.Capacitors .Tooth pasteFood and Drinks Household Sports/Outdoors

.Packaging .Ceramic coatings for .Ski wax

.Sensors for irons .Tennis rackets,storage life .Odor removers golf clubs.Additives .Cleaners for glass, .Tennis balls.Clarifiers ceramics, metals .Antifouling(for juices) coatings for boats

.Antifoggingcoatings for glasses/goggles

We are on the brink of nano rev now.

20-Year Timeline for NanotechnologyPassive Active Systems of Molecular

Nanostructures Nanostructures Nanosystems NanosystemsCoatings, Transistors, Robotics, 3D Molecules by Design,Polymers, Targeted Drugs, Networks, Guided Evolutionary SystemsCeramics Actuators Assemblers

2001 2005 2010 2020

It is important to understand that the nanotech revolution is just [*292] beginning. Asindicated on the long-term timeline above, over the next two to five years a transition islikely to occur from passive nanoparticles to more active nanostructures. n25 Citing MihailRoco of the U.S. National Nanotechnology Institute, a Science article notes that "thecurrent era is that of passive nanostructures, materials designed to perform one task. Thesecond phase will introduce active nanostructures for multitasking, for example, actuators,drug delivery devices, and sensors." n26 The article further explains that "the third

18


19/26

generation is expected to emerge around 2010 and feature nanosystems with thousands ofinteracting components. A few years after that, the first integrated nanosystems,functioning much like a mammalian cell with hierarchical systems within systems, areexpected to evolve." Similarly, EPA recognizes that "in the long term nanotechnologyincreasingly will likely be discussed within the context of the convergence, integration, and

synergy of nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitivetechnology." n27 For example, the convergence of nanotechnology and biotechnology"will result in the production of novel nanoscale materials." n28 As these transitions occur,risk will change, both qualitatively and quantitatively. n29

The development of a multi-faceted approach may take considerable time due to datalimitations, resource deficits, and administrative constraints. There is an immediate need,therefore, to take steps to ensure that the current manufacture, use, and disposal practicesfor nanomaterials and products containing them are protective of human health and theenvironment. Thus, the development of an interim governance approach, in addition to apermanent long-term structure, is essential. It is crucial that this interim approach be

systemic and look across programs, statutes, and potential voluntary initiatives.

19


20/26

Link-Nano TechUS Military Presence Increases Tensions, Pullout Solves

Lee, 2008

(Lee, Youkyung, 2008, April, The US-South Korea Alliance, Council on Foreign

Relations, http://www.cfr.org/publication/11459/ussouth_korea_alliance.html)

The rearrangement of the U.S.-South Korea military alliance has represented a hot

domestic political issue in South Korea since the negotiation of command structural

began. Citing concerns about Seouls defense preparedness, some conservative sectors in

Korea insist on renegotiating the year of the transfer. The rise of South Koreas defense

budget from 2.8 percent of GDP in 2007 to 3.2 percent in 2008, and the costs of relocating

U.S. troops out of the Yongsan garrison in Seoul, also faced criticism. Others were

suspicious of the U.S. military presence and remembered the 2002 killings of two

South Korean teenagers who were accidentally struck by a USFK armored vehicle, an

incident which sparked widespread street protest.

20


21/26

Internal Link-Nano TechUS-South Korea Relations Key to Nano Tech Development

Jin and Liu, 2009(Jin, Hongfang, and Liu, Lerwen, 2009, July, Asia Nano-Forum Newsletter,http://www.asia-anf.org/admin/upload/files/general/News168_1.pdf)The 6thKorea-U.S. NanoForum Successfully Held

Exchanging research accomplishment in nanoelectronics and drawing issues to bepursued collaboratively by the governments

The 6th Korea-U.S. NanoForum was held in Las Vegas, USA on April 28-29.

This forum, officialmeeting between Korea and the United States governments, initiated in year 2003based on the mutual agreement during the fifth meeting of Korean-US Science & Technology Collaborative Committee in 2002. Since

2003, both parties are hosting this joint forum annually in turns and they enjoyed the 6th gathering recently.This forumfocuses on exchanging information on major research accomplishment and promoting

young scientists in the field of nanotechnology. Additionally, several issues to be

collaboratively executed on the aspects of governmental authorities are brought up

through the process of in-depth discussion among leading experts in research

institutes of nanotechnology and proposals which will exercise its influence over

governmental policies are also made and submitted to the government.Under the joint auspices of the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) of Korea and US National Science Foundation(NSF), Korea Nano Technology Research Society (KoNTRS, HakMin Kim, President), Korea Institute of Science and Technology

Information (KISTI, YoungSeo Park, President), and Carnegie Mellon University are co-hosting the forum. This 6th forum

highlighted the nanoelectronics under the main theme of Nanoelectronics & Its

Integration with Applications. The cutting edge research achievements of both

countries in the area of nanoelectronic devices such as CMOS and More than Moore

were presented. American scientists reaffirmed that they want to continue to

exchange the idea and collaborate research activities with Korean researchers in the

field of nanoelectronic system technology.Also, panel discussions on Nanoelectronics reached research themesand detail items. Especially, it was agreed to encourage the participation of young scientists and students to maximize the publicrecognition of this forum. Accordingly, it was suggested to hold upcoming forum in a place where many nanotech institutions andschools are located.

(Analytical: The agreements from the forum led to)

Korean Government Investing $19 billion for 17 New Growth Engines, 200 detailed implementations

A total of 24.5 trillion won (roughly$19 billion) is to be put in the 17 new growth engines includinggreen technologyhigh-tech converging technologyvalue-added service sectors overthe next five years. The government revealed Action Plan for New Growth Engines containing 200 detailed implementation

projects on May, 26th as a follow up to the reports in which 17 new growth engines in 3 major categories were selected and publicized

by the government party on Jan. 13th of 2009. Along with it, Technology Road Map to New Growth

21


22/26

Engines was released for the purpose ofsupporting 17 industrial sectors. In this map,62 star brands to lead and accomplish new growth engines were selected and 1,197

of core technologies were determined to commercialize these 62 products. Thisroadmap specified the developmental supervisors such as government, privateinstitutes or collaboration between private sectors and government for each core

technology to result in better execution of the plans.The government plans to foster 700,000 key human resources over the next 10 years withthe expectation of securing its standing on top 10 in global market. Also the government isexpected to create 300 globally strong small- and medium-sized enterprises in the

growth engine areas with annual exports of over $50 million by 2013.

U.S. Brain drain solves for tech dominance

(Paarlberg, 2004: Science, Military Dominance, and U.S. Security: Knowledge as Power,The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, International Security. Robert L. Paarlberg; Robert L. Paarlberg is Professorof Political Science at Wellesley College, and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for

International Affairs at Harvard University. )

First, a great deal of American science remains autonomous despite increasedinternational linkages. U.S. scientists do publish more internationally coauthored articlesthan scientists in other countries, but this is only because the total number of articlespublished by U.S. scientists is so large. The internationally coauthored share of U.S.published articles is relatively low by international standards, lower than in Canada, China,the United Kingdom, or any of the continental European countries. n54 The bulk of allcollaborations in American science still remain contained within the country (the greatestdemise of distance has been among collaborators within the United States, rather thanacross international borders). Second, a leading reason for the growth of international

collaboration in science has been an increased number of "big science" projects that requirethe sharing of expensive large-scale equipment, and a preponderance of this equipment islocated in the United States. This means that most of the foreign collaborators of Americanscientists are coming to the United States, rather than the other way around, and it meansthat the essential nodes of innovation remain geographically located within the UnitedStates. Also, many of these talented foreign scientists never go home. Nearly 30 percent ofall Ph.D.'s currently engaged in R&D in the United States were born abroad. n55 This braindrain works strongly to the relative scientific advantage of the United States

22


23/26

BUT this isnt true with SK scientists who return home- thus realtions with south korea aremore critical for science access than relations with any other country.

(Paarlberg, 2004: Science, Military Dominance, and U.S. Security: Knowledge as Power,The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, International Security. Robert L. Paarlberg; Robert L. Paarlberg is Professor

of Political Science at Wellesley College, and Associate at the Weatherhead Center forInternational Affairs at Harvard University. )

Hypothetically, the United States might risk a net loss of scientific advantage if foreignscientists or students were to come on temporary visas, work briefly in U.S. laboratoriesand universities, and then return home. Many of those who come, however, are in factlooking to stay. One 1998 study found that 47 percent of foreign students on temporarystudent visas who earned doctorates in the United States in 1990 and 1991 stayed on andwere still working in the United States in 1995, and the students most likely to stay were

those from nonallied countries. Nearly 90 percent of science Ph.D.'s from South Koreawent home, and roughly half of the Canadians went home, but 79 percent of Indian Ph.D.'swere still working in the United States when this 1998 study was done, and 88 percent ofChinese Ph.D.'s had stayed on. n56 U.S. law has made it easier for Chinese students toremain in the United States following the Tiananmen Square crisis of 1989, and thousandsof China's brightest young scientists have taken advantage. More than 500,000 studentsfrom developing countries, communist countries, and former communist countries arecurrently studying outside of their home countries -- many in the United States -- and theNational Intelligence Council estimates that roughly two-thirds of these students will nevergo home. n57 The comforting picture that emerges for the United States is one of "braincirculation" among allied states, combined with a strong net brain drain away from rival or

potentially powerful neutral states.

23


24/26

And our brain drain is at risk, meaning we need Korean scientists even more.

(Paarlberg, 2004: Science, Military Dominance, and U.S. Security: Knowledge as Power,The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, International Security. Robert L. Paarlberg; Robert L. Paarlberg is Professorof Political Science at Wellesley College, and Associate at the Weatherhead Center for

International Affairs at Harvard University. )

More science will be good for security, but an overzealous pursuit of homeland securitynow risks a weakening of U.S. science. An excessive tightening of U.S. visa policies post-September 11 is reducing the vital flow of foreign scientists into the United States.Between FY 2001 and FY 2003, successful U.S. visa applications in all categories fell from10 million down to 6.5 million. The number of temporary worker visas issued specificallyfor jobs in science and technology in the United States dropped more sharply, falling by 55percent in 2002 alone. n75 The weaker post-September 11 U.S. economy can be blamedfor some of this decline, but not all. Tightened visa procedures are making entry into the

United States by foreign scientists significantly more difficult.Having previously erred on the side of being too lax, U.S. visa authorities are now

erring on the side of being too strict. Traditionally, foreign nationals accepted to studyscience at American universities could expect to receive visas at U.S. embassies byproviding only a passport, a university letter of endorsement, and records showing theycould afford to live in the United States. Following the September 11 attacks, U.S. consularofficers have become subject to criminal penalties if they grant a visa to someone whosubsequently commits a terrorist act in the United States, so as a consequence largernumbers of visa requests are either denied or delayed. Foreign scientists were among thefirst to be squeezed out by such new policies. n79 In 2002 compared with the year before,the United States gave 8,000 fewer visas to visiting scholars, researchers, teachers, and

speakers. Some individuals caught in this squeeze were prominent foreign scholars invitedto speak at scientific meetings or teach at American universities. In December 2002 thethree presidents of the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicineissued a statement warning that ongoing research collaborations had already beenhampered, outstanding foreign scientists had already been prevented from entering thecountry, and important international conferences were already being canceled or disruptedbecause of visa delays. n80 In 2003 a new rule required most visa applicants to undergo in-person interviews with U.S. consular officials overseas, causing still more delays.n81

24


25/26

Impact-Nano Tech

Nano Technology Will Solve Many World Problems

CRN, 2008

(2008, Benefits of Molecular Manufacturing, Center for Responsible Nanotechnology,

http://www.crnano.org/benefits.htm)

Molecular manufacturing (MM) can solve many of the world's current problems. For

example, water shortage is a serious and growing problem. Most water is used forindustry and agriculture; both of these requirements would be greatly reduced by

products made by molecular manufacturing.Infectious disease isa continuing scourgein many parts of the world. Simple products like pipes, filters, and mosquito nets cangreatly reduce this problem. Information and communication are valuable, but

lacking in many places. Computers and display devices would become stunningly

cheap. Electrical power is still not available in many areas. The efficient, cheap

building of light, strong structures, electrical equipment, and power storage devices

would allow the use of solar thermal power as a primary and abundant energy source.

Environmental degradation is a serious problem worldwide. High-tech products can

allow people to live with much less environmental impact. Many areas of the world

cannot rapidly bootstrap a 20th century manufacturing infrastructure. Molecularmanufacturing technology can be self-contained and clean; a single packing crate orsuitcase could contain all equipment required for a village-scale industrial revolution.Finally, MM will provide cheap and advanced equipment for medical research andhealth care, making improved medicine widely available. Much social unrest can be

traced directly to material poverty, ill health, and ignorance. MM can contribute to

great reductions in all of these problems, and in the associated human suffering.

25


26/26

south korea 1ac aff

Documents