Affs

Military hardline

1. Icebreakers (MI, Emory, Georgetown, Gonzaga, Cal)

-ship building (naval power impacts (war and supply chains), general industrialization (including steel) impacts)

– research (disease impact, general biodiversity impact, climate impacts)
– Siberia will melt destroying the world, need international cooperation

– REMS (renewables/climate impacts)
– Missile defense (need nuclear icebreakers to support)

– oil spills (need icebreakers to respond to oil spills)
– icebreakers increase trade (trade solves war)
– Arctic oil access by Russia means they circumvent the oil price cap and continue to destroy Ukraine.
– Arctic dominance means Russian expansion and collapse of the liberal world order, US must check
– Deter China

2. Logistics/Capacity (Michigan, Gonzaga, Cal, DDI (Arctic Task Force & Arctic Command))

• Deter Russia and China
    Adak Altuein islands specific
    Sea cables scenario (DDI)
• Support missile defense deployment (includes NK scenario)
• Freedom of Coast Guard navigation with fish stocks impacts
• Oil (we need more oil)
• Shipping – protect shipping routes
• Save the international order

3. Military Bases (MI)
Trade routes, Russia, Ukraine deterrence, alliances, solve China REM dependence

4. NATO (MI)
This affirmative say the United States should develop an Arctic Joint Command center, likely in Alaska with another sister station hosted by another NATO ally. 

General Russia deterrence and D in the Arctic

5. Quantum Cables (MI)
This affirmative argues the United States and NATO should build and secure a fiber optic cable in the Arctic with quantum sensing technology. The first advantage says that other cable routes are longer and face disruption risks and don’t utilize proper security measures. The second advantage says the US and NATO should collaborate to set quantum standards and that quantum sensing is the most mature and near-term application of quantum technology. The quantum standards advantage does not have a strong Arctic key warrant.  A core weakness is that there is only one good proposal that says cables, quantum, and Arctic (Ondrášková) – lots of evidence has two of the three but not all.

6. Autonomous weapons in the Arctic (DDI)
Russia, China, and sea cables advantages

7. Space-based operations in the Arctic (Georgetown, Gonzaga)

• Space-based assets are critical to check Russia/China (in the Arctic +)
• Space-based climate modeling is key to agriculture
• Space-based tech means we get REMS and solve climate change
  
  8. Domain awareness (Michigan, DDI, Missouri State (“Early Warning))

• Miscalc
• Missile defense good
• Environmental monitoring
• Quadraliteralism (US-Canada-Korea cooperation over shipping routes)
  
  DDI also has a remote sensing version with similar advantages

9. Hypersonic missile defense cooperation in the Arctic (DDI)
Advantages – Deter Russia, China, North Korea, strengthen NATO

10. Deep Sea Mining (MI)

  Ocean governance, REMs, Japan cooperation/alliance

Cooperation

11. Cooperation

a. Science Coop  (Michigan, Missouri state)

• Climate (we need Russia’s climate science data)
• Permafrost research—cancelling research on permafrost thaw makes pandemics more likely)
• Science cooperation reduces war risks in the Arctic
• Coop solves biodiversity
• Coop boosts CCP legitimacy (Missouri State)

12.. Security cooperation with Russia  (Michigan)

Two versions: general coop, cooperation under the Arctic Coast Guard Forum

• Miscalc
• Illegal fishing
• Trade/supply chain collapse
• Cooperative BMD with Russia
• Cooperation with Russia isolates China, status quo means China-Russia coop

13. Security cooperation with Japan in the Arctic (DDI)
    – Japan alliance and Russia deterrence advantages

14. Search & Rescue

• Russia cooperation and trade advantages

Indigenous

15. Native Climate adaptation – help natives adapt to climate change (Michigan, DDI)

Structural violence/util bad

16.. Land Trusts (MI)
      Native sovereignty advantage

17. Native Benefit Sharing (MI)
Plan: The United States federal government should significantly increase its development of the Arctic by authorizing new mineral resource extraction projects bound to benefit-sharing agreements co-designed and co-managed with Alaska Natives
– oil spills and indigenous violence impacts

18. Traditional Knowledge (MI) – The United States federal government should significantly increase its exploration of the Arctic by incorporating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into climate adaptation strategies in the Alaskan Arctic.Climate and science advantages

Environment

19. Arctic geoengineering (Cloud Brightening) (Michigan, MNDI)

General climate impacts +// arctic melt bad

20. Arctic Renewables (Missouri State)

Renewables better for the Arctic envt
Renewables solve climate change

20. Oil spill response, includes cooperation with the Arctic Council (Gonzaga)

Mining & Energy    

21. Geothermal development in the Arctic (Cal)
      We need geoengineering to solve climate change and get energy needed to sustain AI  against China)

22. Oil & Natural gas drilling (AI leadership,, LNG disruptions advantages) (Missouri State)

23. The Unites States federal government should significantly increase its natural gas pipeline development in the Alaskan Arctic (MI)
Japan cooperation, get leverage over China and deterrence, climate change, data centers/AI

24. Geoenginering (MI)
      We need geoengineering to solve climate change and leads to global cooperation

25. . REM Mining (Cal) 

     We need REMs for energy, to solve climate, to protect against China, etc

26. Floating Nuclear Power Plants (FNPP) (Michigan)
US way of doing it best/it’s otherwise inevitable and other approaches cause nuclear accidents, spurs nuclear development that solves climate change, solves pollution

27. Minerals (MI)

This aff argues that the United States should expand its mining operations in Greenland to secure its strategic mineral supply chain and assuage concerns over Trump’s imperialist foreign policy with respect to Greenland. Advantage 1 is useful vs DAs, Advantage 2 is useful vs CPs. The aff fiats both development and exploration, as the primary solvency advocates (Hardy 24 and Maitra 25) both use the words “development” and “exploration” to define the recommended course of action. The aff would likely require negotiating with Greenland over rights to new mining areas, although the second Maitra 25 card in the 1AC says that “the United States already has basing and mining rights in Greenland, and both Denmark and Greenland are interested in offering more.” There’s a China advantage that can be paired with or read separately from Advantage 2 – basic idea is it baits the China DA link and says getting China out of Greenland/Arctic is good.

Research

28. Science Research (Cal)

General research with disease, China deterrence, Russia deterrence) (Cal) . Science Research with India (MI)

+ India Plan: The United States federal government should significantly increase its scientific exploration research with the Republic of India in the Arctic.

India relations and research good advantages

29. NOAA Research (DDI)

Oil spills, climate adaptation, science diplomacy advantage

30. Microbes Research (DDI)

1. Disease and food impacts
2. Wildfire prevent management (MI)

Advantages

Deterrence

– Russia
– China

– AI dominance (supply chain links, REMs links)

– Missile defense good

-Shipbuilding and naval power

Cooperation

– Russia
– China
– Miscalc

– Crisis escalation

Science cooperation

 (War, envt, disease, climate)

Environment

Biodiversity general 

Climate (REMS solves, monitoring solves,
Disease

Oil spills

Overfishing

International law

Trade

 Interdependence
Supply chains

Multilataralism

Soft Power

Hegemony

 General
“Liberal order”

Poverty

  General impacts
  Structural violence

Resources

  REMS (Renewables and AI impacts)
  Oil (AI impacts)

Oil spills

Climate adaptation

Disadvantages

1. Coast Guard Trade-Off (Emory)—Funding icebreakers trades off with security efforts in Asia, China war
2. Indo-Pacific Trade off (Cal) – Plan trades-off with Indo–Pacific focus, Missouri State has this DA in their “ban the plan” counterplan file  “Asia Pivot” in MI file
   MI military trade-off versions for Iran, F-35/SCS, and autonomous warfare (Taiwan)
3. Diplomatic Capital  – The plan trades off with DipCap needed to resolve India/Pakistan and Israel/Iran (MI); Phillipines/ASEAN (MI)
4. Assurances/Allied Prolif – Cooperating with Russia destroys security assurances and allies proliferation in Europe (MI)
5. Allied Assurances – Cooperating with China destroys security assurances and allie proliferation in Korea (MI)
6. Trump Bad Politics (Emory)
   – The impact is that tax cuts pass, which obviously already happened
7. Trump Good Politics (MI). Plan costs political capita and undermines Trump. Trump key to passage of –
   Continuing Resolution (MI)
   GENIUS Act/Crypto (DDI)
   CLARITY Act/Crypto (DDI)
8. Hegemony Bad (Georgetown)

• Multipolarity better
• Collapses arms control
• Causes prolif
• Causes pandemics
• Causes warming9. Russia (Georgetown, Michigan, Cal, DDI)Pressure on Russia Bad

Unilateral action in the Arctic undermines cooperation with Russia generally and in the Arctic
Arctic Council Version – plan causes Russia to quit the Arctic Council, war (Michigan)
General Arctic coop impacts (DDI)
Arms control impacts (Michigan)

Emerging Tech Impacts (Michigan)

Loss of sphere of influence collapses Relations, isolation/war (Cal, Missouri State, Michigan)

Icebreakers bad – any/most plans require icebreakers and those alienate russia (Michigan)

Russian Encirclement (MI)

Russia Regime Stability – Plan undermines Putin regime stability leading to lashout and war (Michigan)

Concessions to Russia Bad

Appeasing Russia undermines NATO (Michigan, in Security cooperation Aff, Missouri State)

Appeasing Russia/Cooperating with Russia emboldens Russia (Missouri State)

Cooperation undercuts Russia sanctions, Russia invades the Baltics (Missouri State)

Russia appeasement—cooperating with Russia in the Arctic signals appeasement (Michigan, in Science Diplomacy Neg)

Russia Economy (From Crowdout)

Russia economy (Gonzaga, Michigan) – Plan crowds Russia out of the Arctic, depriving them of oil they need for their economy

Russia war good (Michigan)

10. China

China soft power good – US leadership in the Arctic undermines China soft power, Loss of Soft Power causes a leadership crisis and China attacks Taiwan (Michigan, Cal)
China climate leadership good, China regime stability good impacts
China tech leadership good, save its economy (MI)

11. Strategic Stability (Missile defense undermines strategic stability and causes war (Michigan, in Domain Awareness Neg)Climate adaptation assistance trends off with Alaskan renewables (in climate adaptation neg)

13. Decarbonization Good DA (Michigan, MNDI)
Status quo supports decarbonization, plans like geoengineering delay decarbonization

14. Allied prolif good/Prolif good (MI)
15. China War Good (MI)
16. Taiwan war good (MI)
17. Russia War Good (MI)
18. Oil DA – more oil from the Arctic means less oil from Saudi Arabia, destroying their economy and causing war (Cal)
19. Envt – E&D, especially icebreakers, destroy the environment (Gonzaga, Harvard, MI)
20. Disease – E&D in the Arctic releases Autoimmune diseases
21. Pandemics – E&D results in the release of deadly diseases (Cal)
22. Belarus (Cal)

 

          It’s meant to be an impact turn to the idea Aff reduces Russian Arctic control in the Northern Sea Route (NSR). The link is based on the Aff deterring Russian Arctic port operations that are necessary for Belarusian fertilizer exports

23. Wipeout with factory farms impact (MI)
24. Spark with tech bad impact (MI)
25. REM mining destroys biodiversity (Michigan)

Counterplans

1. Reengage with the Arctic council (texts are vague) (Emory, Georgetown, Gonzaga,  DDI, Haarvard)

[Gonzaga Example: ​​The United States federal government should develop a new Arctic Council forum for security discussions and support Russia’s participation in the Council. The United States federal government should request an advisory opini on from the Arctic Council forum for security discussions on whether or not to [plan]. The United States federal government should comply with the recommendation of the Council.]
– Net-benefit: Solves war (just basic multilateral coop
DDI: The United States federal government should ought develop an Arctic Council Security Forum. The United States federal government ought request an advisory opinion from the Arctic Council Security Forum on whether [plan but replace w/ ‘ought’] and abide by the result.

Harvard: The United States federal government should increase its engagement with the Arctic Council, including supporting Russia’s participation with the Council, increasing collaborative scientific research, and facilitating joint resource extraction.

Missouri State: The United States should engage in prior and binding consultations with the Arctic Council to propose [the plan], implementing it if and only if the Arctic Council approves.

A Michigan version: ​​Plan: The United States federal government should enter prior, binding consultation with the Arctic Council over balancing [plan area].

The CP solves—the US consults the Arctic Council over the plan and enacts it if the Council says yes. This is key to establishing strong US leadership in the Arctic region.

2. Nordic Commission CP (MI)

3. Consult NATO (MI)

4. Natives CP (MI) Devolve authority to Native American (Tribes) and have them do the plan  Another version is called “Consult Indigenous Groups”

5. Non-arctic placed AI climate modelling (Georgetown)

6. Independent Agencies CP (MI)
The President of the United States should prohibit [XXX]. The independent agencies of the United States should [XXX]. It competes and solves. The president bans the plan, but existing independent agencies do the plan. That proves independent agencies are independent, which is key to nuclear waste management, solves better from expertise, and avoids political fights.

7. Track II diplomacy (Michigan, in science cooperation neg)

8. Environmental Impact Statement (study the aff and only do it if it doesn’t have a negative environmental impact (Michigan)

9. Hotlines and triliteral dialogue to solve crises (MI, in Domain Awareness Neg)

10. Alaska – Alaska provides climate adaptation assistance (MI, in climate adaptation neg)

– Give Alaska full authority over an area of the plant and have Alaska do it (Michigan), Missouri State

Missouri State example text: The state government of Alaska should use a Unified Command through the Arctic 7 for coordinated development of early warning systems in the Arctic, including sensors, drones, submarines, and satellites to monitor shipping, military assets, and the environment

12. Canada – Have Canada do the plan – boosts Canadian multilateral leadership (Michigan, DDI (a big focus of DDI neg)

13. Norway CP – Norway Does it (MI)

14. U (Gonzaga)

15. Privates – Devolve all authority for privates to do the plan via public-private partnership (Michigan)

16. Establish an Arctic Sanctuary (Cal); Missouri State has a similar (Ban the Plan Counterplan)

17. Track II Diplomacy (MI)

18. Advantages CPs
Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) (Gonzaga)
Icebreakers (Gonzaga)

India share REMS (MI)
EU space awareness/monitoring (MI)

Carbon Tax (MI)
Nuclear Power (MI)
Guam Naval (MI)
Finland Icbreakers (MI)
Alaska Ports (MI)

Aerosol Cooling (MI)

Hoover Mammals (MI)

Burdensharing CP (MI)

Waste Mining Solves REMS (MI)
Shipbuilding Jones Act Repeal (MI)

Alaska Defense Force Domain Awareness (MI)

Boost Airpower  (MI)
Boost Cybersecurity (MI)
Deterrence (Cheng & AI) (MI)

Disease prevention
The United States federal government should

—prevent the deforestation of tropical forests; —improve economic securities of communities in disease hotspots; —enhance biosecurity in animal husbandry; —shut down wildlife markets; —and expand surveillance.

 Fish
The United States federal government should
—develop climate-smart fisheries, integrate blue food security, and improve fish tracers;
—negotiate for proactive protection of the maritime environment through the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries agreement;
—include IUU fishing and crime as an authorized mission set of the U.S. military;
—-expand ship ride agreements for the U.S. Coast Guard;
—-and increase funding for Maritime Safe Act of 2019.

Grid
The United State federal government should
—invest in renewable technology transmission across the grid;
—invest in long-term battery storage;
—implement AI into renewable technology and grid.

Japan Prolif
The United States federal government should

—create negotiations with Japan to end their nuclear fuel cycle;
—create negotiations with Japan to participate in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.
—formally end its nuclear umbrella over Japan;
—formally establish a conventional military umbrella over Japan;
—increase its alliance with Japan as per according to Akiyama.

Miscalc

The United States Federal Government should

—implement AI into NC3 systems;
—adopt a nuclear policy to increase decision-making time.

Nuclear Terrorism

The United States federal government should

—increase collaboration with international organizations on nuclear weapons;
— determine whether national anti-government and terrorist groups operating in the U.S. should be included on the list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations;
—work with Civil Nuclear Sector to strengthen United States Leadership.

Tech Leadership

The United States federal government should

—significantly invest in sectors that include Artificial Intillgence, Space, Quantum Computing, and Semiconductors according to NAICS (North American Industry Classification System);
—increase federal investment of STEM in K-12 schools.

 12. Counterplan competition file (Missouri State)

 

Kritiks

1. Capitalism (Emory, Gonzaga, Cal, Harvard, Michigan)
   Arctic exploration and development is capitalistic
2. Securitizing the Arctic (reps, deliberately via policy action) causes war (Michigan, Gonzaga, Harvard, Missouri State)
   [Note: Gonzaga version combines with Set Col]
3. Colonialism—plan frames X as requiring western intervention (Michigan, in Climate adaptation neg, Harvard)
4. Blue Humanities (Michigan)
5. Trying to control the ocean is based on trying to control the blue, imperialism and anti-blackness versions)
   6. International Relations K general (DDI)
   IR based on racism, control, etcHeidegger & Managerialism (MIchigan)
   7. Psychoanalysis and Death Cult (MI)
   8. Shunning (MI) – Immoral to work with Russia
   9. Cartography K (Arctic notions are Eurocentric)

Topicality

1. Exploration and development requires infrastructure (Emory)
2. Substantial is 50% (Georgetown)
3. Its—No private actors (Georgetown)
4. Development—not sustainable/environmental (Georgetown)
5. Development—not military (Michigan)
6. Exploration—Must be for resources (Georgetown, Michigan)
7. Exploration—Minerals/mining/economic resources (Georgetown, Michigan)
8. Exploration—Not research (Michigan)
9. Exploration—Requires human presence (Georgetown)
10. Its – Its is exclusive – No foreign cooperation (Michigan)
11. And.or means “and” – (Michigan)
12. Not Military (Harvard)

Kritik Affs  

1. Indigenous knowledge co-production (DDI)
2. Decolonial Fugitivity (MI) Vote AFF for a fugitive resistance — disrupting setter cartographies and foregrounding Indigenous relationalities is a method for both undoing dominant settler narratives about the Arctic and opening space for ongoing resistance
3. Countermemory (remembering imperialism in the Arctic) (DDI)
4. Feminism K (myth of Arctic hysteria) (DDI)
5. Red Deal (DDI)
6. Baudrillard Aff (MI) The premise of Baudrillard is basically just that. We’re playing this game that we think is bad and a symptom of hyperreal simulations where nothing has meaning anymore, so we want to break it by acting out within a moment of rupture. There’s some intertwining with how the West works and controls everything, and basically how our 1AC of radical thought is the only way to ‘break free’ or return to this concept of singularity that can’t be mapped or willed to anything. It’s irreducible and uncontrollable. The rest of the 1AC is premised off of integral reality, where the progress of society is going towards this sort of dystopian and totalitarian world where everything is visible and micromanaged. This is key offense versus T where you can claim it’s basically the ‘will to interpret’ and is violent, creating ressentiment and causing exhaustion. The in round stuff about a moment of healing is good too. Topic link can be used as offense against the rez though it’s not too good. The final thing you’ll see a lot is reversability. That’s the idea that there’s an action reaction spiral that whenever ‘good things’ happen there’s always a counterbalancing effect which ends up worsening the negatives. There’s the thought that good movements are never actually good, they’re caught within this ‘intelligence of evil’ that means that everything is always shaped in opposition to that original movement. Any movement within the system means that the system remains in place because it requires conflict to sustain itself and persuade people of it’s change.