query: Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors  Cyber attacks are often carried out by non-state actors, such as cyberterrorists or hacktivists (social activists who hack), without any involvement of the actual state. For instance, in 2007 a massive cyber attack launched on Estonia was blamed on Russia due to the then on-going tensions between these two states [17]. However, the attacks on Estonia were generated from all over the world; and even those from Russia could not have been linked to the Russian authorities, who denied involvement. Similarly, a huge wave of cyber attacks dubbed GhostNet that compromised computers in 103 countries in 2009 was blamed on China, not the least for hacking computers of Tibetan authorities. However, it could not be conclusively proven that this was an attack perpetrated by the Chinese authorities [18]. Any retaliation against a state for a cyber attack can never be certain to be against the right target – the state should not be blamed for the actions of its individual citizens.

positive: warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war In case of non-state actors attack, many practitioners in international law agree that the state can still retaliate in self-defence if another state is 'unwilling or unable to take effective action' to deal with attacks coming from within their territory [19]. This applies to traditional warfare, but the same way it can apply to cyberwarfare. If a country is not doing anything, or not doing enough, in order to ensure cyber security and persecute cyber attackers, then the attacked country has a right to take measures against cyber attackers.

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks A cyber treaty benefits everyone  A treaty that bans, or sharply curtails cyber-attacks would benefit every state. Even those who may currently benefit from cyber espionage would be better off signing up to the treaty.  First most cyber-attacks are not carried out by the state even in countries like China where the state is using the internet as an offensive tool. In its annual report to congress the Department of Defence stated some cyber-attacks “appear to be attributable directly to the Chinese government and military” but this does not sound like a majority. [1]  Secondly no state wants a risk of conflict as a result of an unregulated new field of potential conflict. Or even to risk relations with other nations; cyber-attacks in large part go on because they are cost free.  And finally all nations are the victims of cyber-attacks. The United States has repeatedly condemned cyber-attacks against it but China also claims that it is the victim of cyber-attacks. China’s Minister of National Defense General Chang Wanquan says “China is one of the primary victims of hacker attacks in the world.” [2] Having a treaty against cyber attacks would not only make business easier for all countries but it would build up trust between nations where it is currently being eroded.  [1] Office of the Secretary of Defense, ‘Annual; Report to Congress Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2013’, Department of Defense,  p.36  [2] Brook, Tom Vanden, ‘Cyber attack? What cyber attack?’, USA Today, 19 August 2013,

negative: warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Cyber attacks are no different from traditional attacks  The world has developed along with the new digital medium. Lots of crucial business and government services have moved online. While the military modernised in relation to digital developments, a definition of an act of war has not caught up with it yet. It is now being suggested that the digital domain is the new realm of warfare for the 21st century. States have already been using cyber attacks in hostilities and as acts of aggression against each other. For instance, USA and Israel have released a virus Stuxnet that sabotaged parts of Iran's nuclear programme in 2010, followed by retaliatory cyber attacks by Iran on USA [7]. In the 1998 war over Kosovo the USA successfully hacked Serbia's air defence systems, which left Serbia vulnerable to air attacks [8] [9]. Cyber attacks are thus attacks that can be perpetrated by states against other states in an effort to weaken the other state, the same way armed attacks are used. Given these realities large scale cyber attacks should be considered acts of war.

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks There is no reason to assume that nations cannot get along on the issue of cyber security just because cooperation has not been prevalent so far. The US and China despite regularly accusing each other of launching cyber-attacks have set up a joint US-China working group on cyber security. [1] There is clearly a willingness to work together on this issue.  As to working out who is behind attacks the United States at least claims to be capable of doing this. Panetta says the Department of Defence can track attacks so “Potential aggressors should be aware that the United States has the capacity to locate them and hold them accountable for actions that harm America or its interests.” [2] That computers in multiple countries should be taken over in order to launch an attack should simply provide another reason why all nations should want to be involved in preventing cyber-attacks.  [1] ‘US-China cyber security working group meets’, BBC News, 9 July 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks A treaty would benefit larger powers over the small  Any treaty that seeks to ban cyber-attacks would simply be an attempt to cement the position of the most powerful countries at the expense of weaker ones. This is because cyber-attacks are, like terrorism, weapons that can be used by anyone to attack a much bigger target. To launch a cyber-attack there is little need for training, only a small amount of comparatively cheap equipment (to military hardware at any rate), and an internet connection. [1] And it is difficult to defend against. This makes it ideal for poor nations to maintain cyber warfare as a credible threat to their bigger neighbours while their neighbours threaten them conventionally with their bigger militaries. We have seen before arms treaties that are fundamentally biased in favour of a small group of powerful states. Most notable is the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty where there are five recognised nuclear weapons states who are allowed the horrific weapons and everyone else is banned from having them. This discrimination was accepted as a result of the agreement that the nuclear weapons states would eventually disarm. It has not happened so leaving a troubled treaty system that appears to be regularly flouted. [2]  [1] Phillips, Andrew T., ‘Now Hear This – The Asymmetric Nature of Cyber Warfare’, U.S. Naval Institute, Vol.138/10/1316, October 2012,   [2] Miller, Steven E., ‘Nuclear Collisions: Discord, Reform & the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime’, American Academy of Arts & Sciences, 2012,

negative: warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Cyber attacks might be disruptive, but they do not result in destruction, violence, injury and death the same way traditional armed aggressions do. For the majority of businesses and citizens, disruptions to online baking might be very inconvenient, but they are in no way equal to actual bombings and deaths. Targeted power grids, if they result in power outages, is mostly a discomfort in contrast to actual killings and atrocities that happen during wars. Plus, the infrastructure that really matters in a conflict, such as nuclear plants or military weaponry, cannot be hacked as they are not connected to the internet [13] [14]. Developed countries might be very used to amenities and comfort of online services and computers, however, a definition of armed conflicts as acts of war is much more universal because everywhere a human life is more important than any form of comfort. This is why people have a right to life and not a right to internet.

negative: Sanctions are a proportionate response  Cyber-attacks pose a distinct problem for international diplomacy in that they are difficult to prevent and difficult to respond to. Any kind of military response as the United States has threatened would be completely disproportionate against all but the very biggest of cyber-attacks (those that actually result in deaths), [1] diplomacy on the other hand is as good as no response, if the response is simply a tongue lashing then the benefits of cyber espionage will be far higher than the cost.  The only proportionate, and therefore just, response to a cyber-attack is sanctions. The sanctions can be used to impose a similar economic cost on the offending state as that caused by the cyber-attack. This would be just like the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules. They allow for the imposition of trade sanctions to a similar value to the losses being experienced as a result of protectionist action, with the sanctions sometimes on differing sectors to those where there are unfair trade practices. [2] Alternatively sanctions could mean a proportionate Internet response; users from the offending nation could be prohibited from using Internet services, for example an attack by hackers on the US could result in people from that country being blocked from Google and other US internet services.  [1] Friedman, Benjamin H., Preble, Christopher A., ‘A Military Response to Cyberattacks Is Preposterous’, CATO Institute, 2 June 2011,   [2] World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes’, 2013,

negative: All software can be hacked, even with cruder hardware and software. The ability of Chinese hackers to undermine businesses’ advanced firewalls in the United States, having demonstrated a potent ability to penetrate several major media companies. 1 Products made in the West with government subsidy will just have a bloated price tag thanks to the extra costs of production in the West, and the tendency to overrun costs that tends to occur when government is involved. The incentive may not even be enough to persuade many software companies to work on such a project, as they will wish to maintain their markets in authorotarian states such as China which such an innitiative would annoy. China in particular has a history of blacklisting and retaliating against companies that are involved in activities that it sees as being against its national interests.  1 Pakzad, X. “Depth of Cyber Attacks from Chinese Hackers on American News Outlets”. IVN. 9 February 2013.

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks While there are bans on certain weapons these are because such weapons are considered beyond the pale. This is either because they are horrifying as in the case of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or indiscriminate as with land mines. This does not apply to cyber warfare. Other regulations similarly do not provide a good parallel as the Geneva conventions seek to limit the effects of armed conflict a similar treaty is clearly not necessary for cyber-conflict because the effects will already be limited by the type of conflict. Ultimately cyber-attacks are much more akin to espionage and are not regulated because they are small scale, localised, and have limited effects as well as being difficult to trace.

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Unlike warfare cyber-attacks don’t kill so they don’t need to be restricted in the same way  Warfare needs to be closely regulated because of the numbers of people who can be killed and the devastation that can result. This is not something that is a concern with cyber-attacks. So far cyber-attacks have not been very effective. ‘Stuxnet’ was a computer worm targeted an important control system in the Iranian nuclear program sabotaging gas centrifuges by making them run out of control. It was created by US and Israeli intelligence yet was not particularly effective, and certainly did not kill anyone. [1] Other major attacks have infected a large number of machines, such as ‘Shamoon’ that attacked the Saudi state oil company ARAMCO which affected 30,000 computers, but again this is simply destruction of property. [2] No matter how indiscriminate cyber-attacks may be that they don’t cause large numbers of deaths means there is little need to ban such attacks – it simply does not matter if attackers don’t follow a set of conventions like the Geneva conventions.  [1] Barzashka, Ivanka, ‘Are Cyber-Weapons Effective? Assessing Stuxnet’s Impact on the Iranian Enrichment Programme’, RUSI Journal, Vol.158, Issue 2, 28 April 2013,   [2] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Arenas of potential conflict must be regulated  Conflict needs to be regulated, and something that can start conflicts even more so. Warfare and conflict is currently regulated by the Geneva Conventions that seek to limit the effects of armed conflict and regulate the conduct of the involved actors. [1] Just as importantly there are rules on what weapons can be used through various treaties that ban weapons such as the Land Mine Ban, [2] and on when a state can legally initiate conflict through the UN Charter.  In just the same way when a new area of potential conflict arises that too must be regulated by treaty. The internet and the threat of cyber-conflict is that new area at the moment. While cyber warfare is not currently a large scale threat it is still a form of conflict that could escalate just like any other - the Pentagon has explicitly stated it could respond militarily to a cyber-attack. [3] As a result it is most sensible to draw up the rules and regulations early, to ensure everyone knows the consequences and prevent damage by making sure that states agree not to engage in offence cyber-attacks against each other.  [1] ‘The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols’, ICRC, 29 October 2010,   [2] ‘Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction’, un.org, 18 September 1997,   [3] Brookes, Adam, ‘US Pentagon to treat cyber-attacks as ‘acts of war’’, BBC News, 1 June 2011,

negative: Cyber Mercenaries  There is a new form of mercenary appearing on the continent which is hired to use technology, rather than a gun, to fight. Cyber mercenaries are a relatively recent phenomenon. In 2013, British intelligence service GCHQ stated that nations were beginning to employ hackers to ‘attack their enemies’28. Kenya experienced attacks by cyber mercenaries in 2013, with 91% of its organisations coming under attack from these hired hackers29. There is potential for this to become a substantial form of mercenary work in the future.  28) The Age ‘Hackers turn into cyber-mercenaries as nations battle a virtual war’ 2013  29) Murule,R. ‘Kenya: Firms Battle Cyber Crime’ 2013

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Everyone would benefit from the potential closure of a zone of possible future conflict. While cyber warfare may give a smaller state a brief advantage due to some low cost methods of attack ultimately the superior resources, both in defence and attack in cyberspace of the richer state would be telling. In the United States the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) alone has a budget of $1.54billion for research into cyber offence from 2013-2017 [1] considering that there are numerous other agencies involved in cyber warfare or defence, or monitoring the internet it is clear that cyber-attacks are not some wonder weapon that can even the odds between states.  [1] Kallberg, Jan and Thuraisingham, Bhavani, ‘Cyber Operations: Bridging from Concept to Cyber Superiority’, Joint Force Quarterly, Vol.68, no.1, January 2013,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Clearly cyber-attacks are not currently deadly but this does not mean they will not become so in the future. Leon Panetta has warned “A cyber-attack perpetrated by nation states or violent extremist groups could be as destructive as the terrorist attack of 9/11”. Such an attack would be indirect – unlike setting a bomb – but could be just as effective “An aggressor nation or extremist group could gain control of critical switches and derail passenger trains, or trains loaded with lethal chemicals. They could contaminate the water supply in major cities, or shut down the power grid across large parts of the country.” [1] At the moment systems are not really connected enough to allow this but it is pretty much certain that technology will become more sophisticated, control more systems, and become more and more connected. This is immensely beneficial economically but does create vulnerability.  [1] Garamone, Jim, ‘Panetta Spells out DOD Roles in Cyberdefense’, American Forces Press Service, 11 October 2012,

negative: How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009. [1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred.  [1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009,

negative: Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict  Cyber conflict favours the offence; when the defender is successful they gain nothing and impose no harm on the attacker who is free to try again elsewhere. The attackers are free to attack until they get past the defences somewhere. [1] That the attacks don’t risk lives helps to encourage an offensive mindset as makes it seem like there is no downside to attempting to dominate your opponent. [2] This means the only cyber response is to attack the attacker so that the same advantages apply.  The result is that cyber-attacks have a very real danger of long term tension or escalation. If one side is losing a conflict where both sides are attempting to steal the other's intellectual property (or the other has little to steal) the response may be something like the stuxnet attack that involves physical damage, this then would probably be considered an illegal use of force creating a thin line between a cyber-war and a real war. [3] When the cyber war involves physical damage as the US has warned there then may be a military response. Sanctions are a way to apply pressure without this risk of escalation into a military conflict.  [1] Lin, Herbert, ‘Escalation Dynamics and Conflict Termination in Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2012,  p.51  [2] Rothkopf, David, ‘The Cool War’, Foreign Policy, 20 February 2013,   [3] Zetter, Kim, ‘Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal ‘Act of Force’, Wired, 25 March 2013,

negative: Not all states are inherently rational, either by our standards or generally. North Korea is a xenophobic state based on the belief that they are racially and ideologically superior to all other states. [1] A government that does not consider its enemies fully human in its official propaganda is unlikely to blanch at the prospect of nuking them, even at their own expense. Even seemingly rational states make tactical mistakes, like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait.  Nuclear Weapons raise the stakes, and have the potential to make the consequences of those errors far more serious and deadly.  Furthermore, MAD does not operate solely due to the possession of Nuclear Weapons, but rather it requires that a state possess a “Second-Strike” ability. A “second Strike” ability means that a country has the capacity to nuke another country after it has already been attacked, whether through hardened silos or submarine launched warheads. Without such an ability, a state like Israel would risk losing its nuclear deterrent in an Iranian attack, and would therefore have every incentive to strike first if it thought such an attack might be about to occur. Iran, which is far less likely to be able to develop a “Second Strike” capability due to financial and technological limitations, would in turn almost constantly face a “use it or lose it” situation of its own.  [1] Myers, B.R., ‘Excerpt: The Cleanest Race’, The New York Times, 26 January 2010,

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression The NATO manual does specifically state “network intrusions, the deletion or destruction of data… computer network exploitation, and data theft do not amount to a non-international armed conflict.” [1] Instead it has to be persistent, and be carried out by organised armed groups; likely not criteria that would be ever satisfied by undermining censorship.  [1] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp.87-88.

negative: warpeace science internet house would consider large scale cyber attack act war Definition of a large scale cyber attack is extremely vague  Armed acts of aggression are a good method of judging if an action is an act of war because they result in actual destruction, violence and loss of human life. Cyber attacks, on the other hand, do not and thus there is no objective way to tell what scale of a cyber attack is enough to constitute an act of war. While Pentagon claims a cyber attack that is equivalent of damage caused by traditional warfare as a standard, how is it supposed to be applied if pretty much all of the cyber attacks have been bloodless [24]? For instance, stealing large amounts of confidential data from a country is a large scale cyber attack, and could have an immense economic impact, but it is bloodless and so how much damage does there need to be before it can be a casus belli? It is very difficult to measure the impact of even a very evident and intense cyber attack, as NATO found out when assessing a cyber attack on Georgia in 2008 [25]. While the Pentagon might have a nice theoretical framework, in reality there are too many unanswered (and possible impossible to answer) questions. This can lead to abuse of justifications for war and unnecessary violence.

negative: Sanctions require international agreement to be effective  When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures.  The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1]  [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012,

negative: Using drones blurs the distinction between war and peace.  The use of drones further blurs the already worryingly indistinct line between a state of war and a state of peace. The drone attacks are taking place in countries where the United States does not have any legal authority. The United States is not officially at war with Pakistan, Yemen, or Somalia, yet has launched hundreds of attacks on these countries and their citizens. The assumption is that a state can be at war with a non-state actor such as a terrorist group and therefore is free to target them wherever this group may be found. This means that the US is prosecuting a war in which only it thinks it is at war while sovereign countries like Pakistan are targeted despite believing they are at peace. It is the use of drones that makes it easy to circumvent sovereignty and attack targets on another country’s soil so creating the ambiguity.  Equally worryingly is the blurring of the distinction between civilian and combatant. Firstly the U.S. has decided to define any adult male in the target area as a terrorist when many are most likely nothing of the sort. [1] Secondly the Geneva conventions and their 1977 additions at their heart have the assumption that civilians cannot engage in a war – they are innocent bystanders. This however has been changed by the use of drones; it is a civilian agency, the CIA, which controls the drones and pulls the trigger. This makes the CIA combatants so breaking the obligation not to engage as soldiers. This means that U.S. civilians lose their protected status and the U.S. can’t complain if U.S. citizens are targeted in retaliation as the terrorists can no longer distinguish between those who are targeting them and those who are not. [2]  [1] Hammond, Jeremy R., ‘The Immoral Case for Drones’, Foreign Policy Journal, 16 July 2012.  [2] Hallinan, Conn, ‘CIA’s Drone Wars Blurs Distinction Between Military and Civilian Combatants’, Foreign Policy In Focus, 6 October 2011.

negative: e internet freedom politics government digital freedoms freedom Internet regulation is necessary to ensure a safe internet  Citizens, corporations, and public organizations face several security threats when online: critical infrastructure systems can be hacked, like the energy transport system, [1] citizens can fall victim to identity theft, [2] and phishing, [3] whereby hackers gain access to bank accounts or other sensitive information. Specifically, it seems that the public sector is attacked the most. [4]  In response to cyber-threats like these, many governments have set up Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERTs), Incident Response and Security Teams (IRTs), or Computer Security and Incident Response Teams (CSIRT; the fact that we haven’t settled on a fitting acronym yet shows how much it is still a novel phenomenon): agencies that warn citizens and organizations alike when a new threat emerges and provides a platform for (the exchange of) expertise in methods of preventing cyber-threats and exchanging information on possible perpetrators of such threats. Oftentimes, these (inter)governmental agencies provide a place where private CSIRTs can also cooperate and exchange information. [5]  These agencies provide a similar function online as the regular police provides offline: by sharing information and warnings against threats, they create a safer world.  [1] ‘At Risk: Hacking Critical Infrastructure’. 2012.  [2] ‘Identity theft on the rise’. 2010.  [3] ‘Phishing websites reach all-time high’. 2012.  [4] ‘Public sector most targeted by cyber attacks’. 2012.  [5] see for example the About Us page of the US-CERT or the About the NCSC page of the Dutch CERT

negative: Those who satisfy these demands by citizens are more likely to be voted back into office. It is in their absolute interest to keep their focus on relevant emails or phone talks, as if they don’t do that, there is another person qualified for the job who will.  Secondly, it is clear that in this quest for protecting society, it is in the government’s interest to obey the law. As recent events have proven, the population is allergic to any state agency’s violation of law, especially when it comes to warrantless tapping. They won’t risk breaking the law in the hope they will catch more criminals as they know there would be a society and media backlash. If anything, it is in any politician’s interest to search and investigate if any government agency is conducting such abuses and to reveal it with the resulting plaudits and votes it will bring. A politician will gain much more if it takes a public stance against that agency by imposing tighter controls and inspections rather than secretly supporting it. Let us not forget that it is the people who keep politicians in office.  Thirdly, we must remember that there is a lot of pressure from different NGOs and even whistleblowers that is put on these officials not to make any wrong steps. They know that if the population finds out that they focused on anything else but catching wrong doers, their career is over and there is no coming back.  As a result, we have every reason to believe that the government will maximize its efforts of protecting us, but abusing its powers won’t benefit it on any level.

negative: global science censorship ip internet digital freedoms freedom expression Aggressive foreign policy is not legitimate foreign policy  Foreign policy is legitimate when it is peaceful and based upon mutual respect. It is no surprise that the most controversial foreign policy actions are those that are aggressive whether this is invading another state such as the Iraq war, attempting humanitarian intervention as in Kosovo, or engaging in clandestine actions such as Iran-Contra. This is because there is a powerful norm against aggressive action in international relations in order to maintain stability.  Undermining states by circumventing censorship is simply a new method of engaging in aggressive actions against another state. NATO has accepted that cyber operations can be considered to constitute an armed conflict, [1] so it is increasingly accepted that actions on the internet can be aggressive action. Indeed “If such cyber operations are intended to coerce the government… the operation may constitute a prohibited ‘intervention’”. [2] While no one would argue that this policy will create a war it is not a very big step from considering cyber attacks to be armed conflict to considering undermining states through circumventing censorship to be an aggressive action.  [1] Bowcott, Owen, “Rules of cyberwar: don't target nuclear plants or hospitals, says Nato manual”, The Guardian, 18 March 2013,   [2] Schmitt, Michael N., ed., “The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare”, Cambridge University Press, 2013, p.17.

negative: Intervention in fragile states is simply a new form of imperialism  It is not for either the USA or the UN to impose a government upon individual countries. Doing so would deny the people of the failed state the right to chart their own future and be absent of the authorisation of the UN Charter, which states the organization is not allowed to intervene ‘in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state’. [1] Furthermore, if the USA, or any one country, regularly intervened it would create more hostility towards that country, with accusations that it is acting out of a self-interested desire to exploit peoples economically. The personnel of that country could rapidly become a target for attacks. Nor is it desirable to encourage the UN to increase the level of its intervention in the domestic affairs of member states. This might start with weak countries but could rapidly become a habit and encourage the organisation in its ambitions to become a world government.  [1] Ratner, S. R., & Helman, G. B. (2010, June 21). Saving Failed States. Retrieved May 16, 2011, from Foreign Policy:

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks Not all nations are equal. In an area where high technology is essential rich nations may be able to monitor all cyber intrusions but there will be many countries without the necessary systems. This treaty would therefore in effect be making poor countries without cyber defences into fair game. In theory they would be protected by the treaty, in practice with no monitoring there would be nothing they could do.

negative: For many countries, communication with outside actors does not make any difference. Iran has some internet freedom and access to outside information, yet president Ahmadinejad casts the West as a great evil trying to destroy Iran's culture1 . The government remains a theocracy and while there have been some protests, there are many that still support the system of governance2 . Additionally, China may have made reforms, but it is not a democracy even though they have extensive contact with the West3 . Therefore, contact does not necessarily indicate that values will be adopted. When it comes to information flowing out of oppressive countries, the international community might make matters worse. When the West gets involved in local movements, often it can make leaders hold a tighter grip on their power, and turn the blame for the situation on the West leading to violence, and hindering democratic development. This is similar to the situation in Libya4.  1 CNN Wire Staff, 'The West is to blame for regional unrest, Ahmadinejad says', CNN Worl, 18 April 2011  2 Wolverson, Roya, 'How Iran Sees Egypt's Protests', Council on Foreign Relations, 10 February 2010  3 Kurlantzick, Joshua, 'Beijing has bought itself a respite from middle class revolt', The National, 7 March 2011  4 Zenko, Micah, 'Think Again: Libya', Foreign Policy, 28 April 2011

negative: NATO actually undermines the authority of the UN. The attack against the Libyan regime, as well as NATO’s participation in it, has drawn severe criticism, especially from Russia and China, who see the military campaign NATO and the UK, US and France undertook as overstepping the boundaries set by resolution 1973, against their explicit wishes. If NATO ever were to operate as the de facto military arm of the UN Security Council, then China and Russia would feel alienated from the UN Security Council, simply because they’re not (veto-wielding) members of NATO. [1]  [1] Rapoza, Russia and China Team Up Against NATO Libya Campaign, 2011

negative: It is a means of vocalizing support for uprisings and liberty at a remove, preventing the backlash of direct intervention  By enacting this subsidy, the West makes a tacit public statement in favour of those involved in uprisings without coming out and publicly taking a side. This is a shrewd position to take as it blunts many of the fall-backs opposed regimes rely upon, such as blaming Western provocateurs for instigating the uprising. Rather than making a judgment call involving force or sanction, the simple provision of anonymity means the people involved in the uprisings can do it themselves while knowing they have some protections to fall back on that the West alone could provide. This is a purely enabling policy, giving activists on the group access to the freedom of information and expression, which aids not only in their aim to free themselves from tyranny, but also abets the West’s efforts to portray itself publicly as a proponent of justice for all, not just those it happens to favour as a geopolitical ally. In essence, the policy is a public statement of support for the ideas behind uprisings absent the specific taking of sides in a particular conflict. It throws some advantages to those seeking to rise up without undermining their cause through overbearing Western intervention. And that statement is a valuable one for Western states to make, because democracies tend to be more stable, more able to grow economically and socially in the long term, and are more amenable to trade and discourse with the West. By enacting this policy the West can succeed in this geopolitical aim without making the risers seem to be Western pawns.

negative: The quantity of information on the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it. The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls of China and Iran1. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade firewalls2. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can be considered good information.  Furthermore, regimes like China and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity that may be harmful to the state.  1. Gaouette, Nicole, 'U.S. Launches New Effort to Evade China's Internet Firewalls', Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2011  2. Irish Times, 'Bunnies Hop the Great Firewall', 2 February 2011

negative: Hired hackers don’t count as real mercenaries. While it is true that they are not a citizen of either state’s military structure and that they seek to gain profit from their venture, they do not qualify under the UN mercenary convention. To be a mercenary, one must qualify under all the conditions listed in the convention. Cyber mercenaries are not directly involved in acts of violence, which disqualifies them under Article 1, sub-section 2.A of the UN mercenary convention30. Definitions will have to be updated in the future if cyber-mercenaries are going to be considered anything other than criminals.  30) United Nations ‘United Nations Mercenary Convention’ 1989

negative: Shared experience of terrorism  A shared experience of terrorism means both have long term reasons to cooperate against it. Russia already had experience with terrorism with a string of bombings in the summer of 1999 which the Russian government blamed on the Chechans. [1] As a result of this on-going Chechen terrorism the Russian government was keen to cooperate in any counter terrorist effort there may be. Russian officials such as Sergey Ordzhonikidze spoke of the grief they shared with the American people “The hearts of Russians who know first-hand what terrorism is like are also filled with grief for all those who fell victim to terrorism in other parts of the planet.” [2] President Putin himself agreed with this immediately after the 9/11 attacks “[Russia is] deeply shocked by the reports of the tragic events that occurred today in the United States. The barbaric terrorist attacks against innocent people evoked the anger and indignation of the Russian people.” [3] Both the terrorists who had been attacking Russia and the 9/11 attackers were motivated by an extremist version of Islam, this gives both Russia and the United States a mutual interest in combating this terrorism wherever it may be occurring. This continues to give both Russia and the United States an interest in solving the problems that create terrorism such as the Israel-Palestinian conflict and keeping the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. That both understand the other’s motivations makes this link much stronger.  [1] Mark Kramer, Guerrilla Warfare, Counter Insurgency and Terrorism in the North Caucuses: The Military Dimension of the Russia-Chechen conflict, Europe-Asia Studies, Vol.57, No.2, (March, 2005), pp.209-290, p.212  [2] Statement by Sergey A. Ordzhonikidze, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, on agenda item 166 of the 56 session of the UN General Assembly: Measures to eliminate international terrorism New York, October 1, 2001  [3] Russian President Vladimir Putin telegram of condolence to US President George W. Bush, September 11, 2001,  accessed 20/4/11

negative: All conflicts are a threat to the entire international community.  As is discussed in the Opposition’s arguments, conflicts have the ability to spill over into other regions and to destabilize governments. Such conflicts endanger the international community because they increase the risk of irrational/non-state actors attaining weapons of mass destruction. This is problematic because irrational actors do not necessarily have a sense of self-preservation, and thus cannot be deterred by threats of mass retaliation. Thus if such an actor attains nuclear weapons, there is little that can stop them from using such weapons. Non-state actors are problematic because governments do not know with whom they are negotiating or where/how to find them. Thus the US is justified in intervening in such conflicts as a means of self-preservation.  The Pro’s argument is based on a theory of sovereignty that is already violated in most of the conflicts in which the US interferes.  The Pro’s argument is based on the notion that the proper agent to act on behalf of a group of people is a legitimate government that has earned the right to sovereignty. The Opposition does not dispute this theory. However, many of the conflicts in which the US intervenes involve abusive governments or invading nations that violate human rights on massive scales. The people that the US seeks to protect often do not have a legitimate government to represent their interests. US protection may not be the ideal means of protecting global human rights, but it is better than not protecting them at all.


query: There have been similar suggestions before for intercity travel  The Hyperloop is not the first proposal to use tubes with low – or no – pressure in them. A very high speed train was proposed by Robert M. Salter in 1972. This as a train running in a vacuum would have gone substantially faster than anything that is currently being proposed travelling at around 3000 mph. [1]  Nor is this the first proposal for a pneumatic transport system; such trains were around in the 19th century. They were first proposed as far back as 1812 [2] and several short demonstration tracks were constructed such as the Beach Pneumatic Transit in New York which opened in 1870. [3] Such idea has not got off the ground in the past and there seems no reason why they should now when the basic technology is pretty much the same.  [1] Salter, Robert M., ‘The Very High Speed Transit System’, RAND Corporation, 1972,   [2] Medhurst, George, ‘Calculations and Remarks, Tending to Prove the Practicability, Effects and Advantages of a Plan for the Rapid Conveyance of Goods and Passengers: Upon an Iron Road Through a Tube of 30 Feet in Area, by the Power and Velocity of Air’, D.N. Shury, 1812,   [3] Mihm, Stephen, ‘New York Had a Hyperloop First, Elon Musk’, Bloomberg, 14 August 2013,

positive: business economy general house would build hyperloop That there have been similar suggestions before does not mean they are not commercialisable today. The very high speed trains are an inspiration for the Hyperloop but have serious disadvantages by comparison. Because of their vacuum tube the system would be stopped at the slightest leak. [1] They are also astonishingly expensive with the cost associated with construction estimated at as high as $1trillion, the hyperloop is much more economic and therefore practical.  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  p.3

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop The Hyperloop is comparatively cheap  The Hyperloop would be cheap to build. The pods themselves would only cost $1.35million each, the pressurised tube just $650million (or double if wanting vehicles), with only two stations their cost would only be $250million. The biggest cost would be the construction of the pylons carrying the tube which is estimated at $2.55 or $3.15billion. There is an estimated total cost of $4.06billion for the passenger only version or $5.31billion for the vehicle version. [1] This should be compared to the current cost for California’s high speed rail project which is estimated to be $68billion while covering much the same ground. [2]  [1] Musk, Elon, ‘Hyperloop Alpha’, SpaceX, 12 August 2013,  pp.23, 27, 32, 28, 32  [2] Slosson, Mary, ‘California moves forward on $68 billion high-speed rail project’, Reuters, 18 July 2012,

negative: There are other options  There are plenty of other options that don’t have the disadvantages of HS2 (high cost, environmental impacts etc.) but do meet most of the requirements like increased capacity. First because it is capacity on main commuter lines that is mostly needed it makes more sense to lengthen platforms and trains, and if that is not enough raise bridges to allow double deckers on the busiest routes. The government rejected such an option in 2007 due to the cheapest option costing £2.4billion, which seems cheap compared to HS2. [1]  Similarly if the capacity problem is for freight as a chunk of the business case is then reopening the Great Central Railway could be the answer – most of the track bed still exists. It has been proposed as a useful freight corridor that would help take the load off the West Coast. [2]  Finally terms of faster journey times as already noted there is little need for more speed in the UK but even without HS2 journey times will improve as East Coast and Great Western are to be upgraded to 140mph. And in terms of capacity on intercity rail the better option has been suggested as being lengthening trains and reducing first class – which has been estimated as having a benefit of £6.06 for every pound invested, 2.5times that of HS2. [3]  [1] Millward, David, ‘Britons squash plans for double-decker trains’, The Telegraph, 16 September 2007,   [2] ‘Great Central is the way to go’,   [3] Doward, Jamie, ‘HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report’, 14 January 2012,

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop People are not always interested in the fastest possible option; they often want comfort as well. Trains allow riders to work or relax as well as travel the Hyperloop has little space for passengers to move around in. This means that passengers may actually be more productive on a train on which they can move around and work as they travel than they would be in a confined space on the Hyperloop.

negative: This is simply untrue. Yes, if a crash occurs it is likely to be significantly more dangerous than a crash at lower speeds, but this is also the case with cars travelling between cities on highways and even more so with aeroplanes. Exactly because a high speed crash can be so catastrophic high speed rail systems have very high safety standards.  The Japanese Shinkansen high speed rail system is famously safe. During 46 years of commercial operations having taken 7 billion passengers there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to train accidents such as derailment or collision. [1] It is also not the case that damage to the track will take the rail system out of operation for years. The Tohuko Shinkansen restarted operations only 49 days after the Tōhoku Earthquake. [2]  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “How Japan’s Rail Network Survived the Earthquake”, Railwaytechnology.com, 28 June 2011,

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop Less than $6billion seems to be suspiciously low. Some land would undoubtedly need to be purchased if only to allow for less tight corners. Added to this there would still be delays due to the need for permits for noise, light and vibration which will mean rising costs. [1] A study of 250 major transport infrastructure projects has found that 90% of come in over budget and this escalation is 45% on rail projects. [2] And it should be remembered that this is dealing with systems were we know the costs not something that is completely new. Additionally there would be costs associated with the closures of the main road routes between Los Angeles and San Francisco – though these might be moved to the people of California the cost would still be there.  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,   [2] Flyvbjerg, Bent et al., ‘How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?’, Transport Reviews, vol.23, no.1, 2003, pp.71-88,  , p.85

negative: None of the alternatives is a comprehensive solution and particularly not to the capacity problem. What happens once the double decker trains are at capacity? Then you are back to thinking of building new lines. Upgrading existing lines would require 14 years of weekend closures to allow the needed capacity increases. This would be “a patch and mend job that would cause 14 years of gridlock, hellish journeys and rail replacement buses. The three main routes to the north would be crippled and the economy would be damaged.” [1]  The difference between HS1 and the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line should also be mentioned. HS1 was a stand alone line that was on time and on budget, [2] WCML on the other hand was £6 billion over budget, four years late and caused immense amounts of disruption to passengers, what’s worse is the proposed upgrade part of the plan to make the line 140mph capable was abandoned. [3]  [1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘HS2 alternatives could require 14 years of weekend rail closures’, The Guardian, 28 October 2013,   [2] Major Projects Association, ‘Delivering High Speed 1: the successes and the lessons’, 7 February 2008,  p.4  [3] All Party Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, ‘A Better Deal For Public Building’, cic.org.uk, September 2012,  , p.24

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop While it seems reasonable that the cost will be low it is questionable that it will be quite as low as suggested. If the cost of construction rises – as it inevitably does – then because this is the basis for the pricing calculation the prices will surely go up. Musk is also forgetting all the extra costs that would be incurred such as the cost of airline style security measures. [1]  [1] Fernholz, Tim, ‘Does the Hyperloop even make sense for California?’, Quartz, 12 August 2013,

negative: Does not easily connect to the continent  Would it not be nice to be able to travel from Edinburgh straight through to Paris without having to stop in London? This was part of the initial dream of the Channel Tunnel with proposals for regional Eurostar services. [1] Unfortunately HS2 will not provide this option. There is a proposed link but it is currently single track and unlikely to be enough even to meet demand for domestic services running around London let alone international services from Birmingham and Manchester. [2] The much more sensible option of not having a terminal station, or at least some through platforms, has been ignored.  [1] BBC News, ‘Regions ‘cheated’ over Eurostar’, 27 January 1999,   [2] Railnews, ‘Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link’, 1 June 2013,

negative: High speed rail never makes a profit  The UK already knows that it is difficult to make rail services pay their way, currently fares from passengers despite regular criticism of them being too high, only cover 65% of operating costs. [1] High speed rail is no different in this regard; most of China’s high speed lines make a loss [2] indeed the only lines to have made a profit are Tokyo-Osaka and Paris Lyon. [3]  [1] ‘Rail ridership hits new highs as will regulated rail fares from January 2014’, Rail.co.uk, 19 August 2013,   [2] Wan, Zhang, ‘High Speed Train Too Expensive’, Chienglish.com, 1 April 2013,   [3] Feigenbaum, Baruch, ‘High-Speed Rail in Europe and Asia: Lessons for the United States’, Reason Foundation, 2013,

negative: High Speed Rail is Not Currently Economically Viable  The economic investment required for a high speed rail system to be implemented in the U.S. is substantial. Currently, the American deficit is at a level that is bad enough that S&P has downgraded the rating on American debt. Given that this is true and that the public spending required for high speed rail is substantial and a situation is caused where the American government would have to increase the flow of money out of its coffers. Even the lowest estimates by the California High-Speed Rail Authority are around $45 billion and it is likely to be much higher. [1] As such the deficit level within the U.S. could stand to increase from a system that would not provide benefit for another five years at least, if it provides benefit at all. At this time, investment in such an area is not needed when the result of such investment could be greater repayments on American bonds that reverse any economic benefits that the system stands to give. [2]  As such, extra spending within the current economic climate needs to show significant long term benefits as well as show at least some signs of being able to immediately help the economy, otherwise there is too great a risk that comes from extra public spending.  [1] California High-Speed Rail Authority, ‘Financing and Costs’,   [2] “US loses AAA credit rating after S&P downgrade.” BBC. 06/08/2011

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop That there will be some opposition to such a construction is inevitable. This however does not matter in a rational look at the advantages and disadvantages of such a transportation system. The politicians will ultimately decide on the same calculus as everyone else.  That the Hyperloop does not connect into infrastructure in the same way that the maglevs fail to is not a relevant argument to the United States where there are few rail services to connect into. Instead the possibility of having a Hyperloop that transport vehicles invites the prospect of connecting into the road network. A much more useful alternative in California.

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop If Musk won’t build it who will?  Elon Musk himself is unwilling to build his Hyperloop. He has stated “Maybe I would just do the beginning bit, create a subscale version that is operating and then hand it over to someone else. Ironing out the details at a subscale level is a tricky thing. I think I would probably end up doing that. It just won’t be immediate in the short term because I have to focus on Tesla and SpaceX execution.” [1] If the visionary for the project is having little to do with the project itself it seems unlikely that the proposal will come to anything. The Hyperloop being such a low priority for Musk is also likely to put off anyone else who might be interested in being involved.  [1] Elliott, Hannah, ‘Hyperloop Update: Elon Musk Will Start Developing It Himself’, Forbes, 12 August 2013,

negative: High Speed Rail is environmentally friendly  Trains are the most sustainable and green form of transportation. Electric high speed rail is the most energy efficient of all trains. This is because trains have significantly high capacity but have very low power requirements in order to work by comparison to the number of passengers that they carry. Although this is to some extent dependant on how the power is generated the Eurostar (where power comes from French nuclear plants) emits only 11g GO2 per passenger kilometre from London to Paris compared to 180g for a car containing 1.2 passengers and 150g for a short haul flight. [1]  A national high speed rail system would be the centrepiece of a sustainable America, and would significantly reduce congestion and America’s dependence on cars and the oil that fuels them. This would result in large cuts to carbon emissions. Any new system could be powered by renewable energy including wind, solar, geothermal, and ocean/tidal in order to make it even cleaner. High speed rail could be integrated in to a sustainable network including local commuter rail and tramways so providing public transport networks that solve serious mobility, energy, environmental, economic, health, and social problems simultaneously. [2]  [1] Pearce, Fred, “Greenwash: Time for rail to raise its game and cut emissions”, Greenwash guardian.co.uk, 22 January 2009,   [2] “Sustainability.” US High Speed Rail Association.

negative: High Speed Rail is Better Than Air Travel  Currently intercity travel within the U.S. tends to favour air travel. This is often due to the large distances between cities within the U.S. which mean that driving is not a viable strategy should there be time constraints on travel. However, air travel has significant constraints as well such as long boarding times. This causes problems for those people who frequently commute and high speed rail is set to solve these problems.  High speed rail provides a large number of significant benefits over air travel in this regard. This is because high speed rail can travel to city centres. Where airports, due to their size and the noise pollution they cause, are limited to the outskirts of a city, trains are not limited in the same way. As such, people can arrive in a much more central area, cutting large amounts of time off their journey.  Secondly, high speed rail has no limits on wireless communication or internet in the same way that air travel does. As such, high speed rail is significantly more useful for anyone who wishes to work on the journey.  Finally, the weather is incredibly problematic for air travel. This is especially true in the U.S. where a number of areas can be subject to unexpected snow or storms. By comparison, High Speed rail remains comparatively unhindered. [1]  [1] “Convenience of High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop It is very unlikely that the Hyperloop would quickly reach its capacity. Currently the number of people travelling from Los Angeles to San Francisco by plane only number 2.8million so there would clearly be plenty of room for expansion. [1]  [1] Amin, Saurabh, ‘Ride the Hyperloop before decade’s end?’, CNN, 13 August 2013,

negative: Whilst rail systems can be environmentally friendly, the higher the speed of a system the more fuel said system consumes. Whilst high speed rail might be useful as a transport system, owing to its high speed nature it does not reduce carbon emissions to a significant extent. Further, high speed rail is of limited popularity and as such it will not get enough drivers off the road to have any significant contribution to the environment. [1]  [1] Staley, Samuel. “The Pragmatic Case Against High-Speed Rail.” Reason Foundation. 22/06/2009

negative: HS2 is too costly  HS2 is already looking very costly. California’s San Francisco to Los Angeles High Speed rail is 520 miles at a cost of $68billion (£42bln), [1] HS2 will only be 33miles but is already expected to cost about the same £42.6billion. [2] The cost has already grown and there are regular claims even by respected economics analysts such as the Institute of Economic Affairs that it will eventually rise to £80 billion. [3] Britain is only just recovering from a long recession and does not yet have its deficit under control, can it really afford such an immense cost? The money could be spent on a great many other things, not just upgrades to the existing network but schools and hospitals too.  [1] AP, ‘No One Knows Where The Money Will Come From For California's $68 Billion High Speed Rail Plan’, Business Insider, 3 April 2012,   [2] Hs2, ‘Route, Trains & Cost’,   [3] Leftly, Mark, ‘The wrong side of the tracks: Lobbyists for HS2 rail line funded by the taxpayer’, The Independent, 25 August 2013,

negative: business economy general house would build hyperloop Even if Elon is not currently willing to lead the project himself he is willing to both build a demonstration prototype to prove the technology and to invest money in the development himself. [1]  [1] Elliott, Hannah, ‘Hyperloop Update: Elon Musk Will Start Developing It Himself’, Forbes, 12 August 2013,

negative: This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2. [1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big. [2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes.  [1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013,   [2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013,

negative: Both tidal and geo-thermal are untried technologies and have significant environmental implications in their own right.  It also seems highly unlikely that deploying nuclear as a ‘bridge’ technology would be anything like that, certainly the history of energy production does not suggest that industries are likely to plan for their own extinction in favour of more environmentally sensitive technologies.  This is especially true of nuclear power; it simply is not a short-term technology as the reprocessing and containment schedules are enormous. A decision to use nuclear even for a matter of decades would have implications that would run for longer than the history of human civilization to date.  Wind, by contrast, is a developed technology that has no implications for future generations.

negative: High Speed Rail is Dangerous  Owing to the extremely high speeds of high speed rail, should there be a problem with the trains the chance of a catastrophic accident is greatly increased. This is because there would be no reaction time for the driver. Further, should there be a derailment the impact of the crash will be significant greater owing to the speed of the train.  Should these accidents occur, the damage to the trains will obviously be catastrophic, but also the damage to the lines themselves will be incredibly significant. Should there be an accident and it is likely that if enough time passes there will be, the entire rail system in the area would require years to be able to regenerate. After the Hatfield Crash in the UK large sections of the whole network were shut down for up to a year. [1]  [1] Pook, Sally and McIlroy, A.J., “’Danger’ rail lines may be closed’, The Telegraph, 21 October 2000,

negative: We should not just be considering fares as the be all and end all. Successful rail companies elsewhere don’t tend to make a profit on ticket sales but instead through diversification. Tokyu, one of Japan’s private railways, has revenue of $2.63 billion and profits of $587millio but only a third of the revenue comes from rail fares with real estate bringing in about the same amount and much of the rest from retail. [1] Franchises make this difficult to operate in the UK but HS2 might have tracks/land/stations and operating trains integrated so providing an opportunity. Moreover it is wrong to suggest that only a couple of lines have made a profit as this is only a couple of lines have made a profit including the immense construction cost on the loss side of the balance sheet. Most high speed lines at least break even without subsidies after a few years of operation, as has been the case in Taiwan [2] – which is better than Britain’s other railways.  [1] Jaffe, Eric, ‘The Secret to Tokyo’s Rail Success’, The Atlantic, 18 May 2012,   [2]

negative: Highspeed Rail is Better than Upgrading Old Infrastructure  rovements to existing rail networks would ultimately fail to be viable as a replacement for highspeed rail. As British Transport Secretary (now reshuffled) Phillip Hammond states, "Opponents of the project have asked why we cannot simply upgrade our existing infrastructure to deal with this capacity challenge. But no upgrade of existing infrastructure can deliver the huge improvements in journey times and the transformation of our economic geography that a new high speed network would bring. Reliability would also deteriorate as we tried to squeeze ever more capacity out of existing, mixed-use lines. And another major upgrade to the West Coast Main Line would deliver years of disruption and huge economic cost." [1] Upgrading infrastructure may be an answer in some places, but not in all. There may not be the existing infrastructure to upgrade. The United States for example just does not have lines that could take both large numbers of passengers and the large amount of freight they already take. Moreover any upgrade of these existing lines would end up with a rail system which is uncompetitive with road and air transport, exactly why rail passenger transport ended in the 1930-50s in the United States despite having been running faster than Amtrak trains do today. [2]  Further, railroad tracks permit a far higher throughput of passengers per hour than a road the same width. A high speed rail needs just a double track railway, with one track for each direction. For the Eurostar the typical capacity is 15 trains per hour and 800 passengers per train (as for the Eurostar sets), which implies a capacity of 12,000 passengers per hour in each direction. By contrast, the Highway Capacity Manual gives a maximum capacity for a single lane of highway of 2,250 passenger cars per hour (excluding trucks or RVs). [3] Assuming an average vehicle occupancy of 1.57 people, [4] a standard twin track railway has a typical capacity 13% greater than a 6-lane highway (3 lanes each way), while requiring only 40% of the land (1.0/3.0 versus 2.5/7.5 hectares per kilometer of direct/indirect land consumption). This means that typical passenger rail carries 2.83 times as many passengers per hour per meter (width) as a road. [5]  [1] Hammond, Phillip. “High Speed Rail: the case for.” The Telegraph. 26/11/2010   [2] “Ask Trains from November 2008”, Trains, November 2008,   [3] Elefteriadou, Lily, “Chapter 8 Highway Capacity”, Handbook of Transport Engineering, 2004,   [4] U.S. Department of Energy, “Vehicle Occupancy by Type of Vehicle”, Fact #257: March 3, 2003,   [5] High Speed Rail, Railsystem.net

negative: The US High Speed Train Association has found a significant number of benefits for high speed rail that mean that it would be beneficial regardless of its success as a business.  Firstly, high speed rail would foster transport oriented development:  "Transit oriented development (TOD) is the exciting new fast growing trend in creating vibrant, compact, liveable, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. TODs can be stand-alone communities, or a series of towns strung along a rail line like pearls on a string. TODs are the integration of community design with rail system planning. High speed rail is the backbone of a rail-based transportation system. When combined with regional rail, light rail, metro systems, streetcars and trams, a complete and integrated rail network is achieved enabling easy, fast mobility throughout the system. Coordinating and encouraging compact, mixed-use development around the rail stations completes the system by enabling people to live, work, and play along the system without the need for a car much of the time. Together, these save time, money, energy, and lives."  And further, high speed rail would also help businesspeople be more productive:  "High speed rail delivers fast, efficient transportation so riders can spend less time traveling and more time doing business. High speed rail delivers people quickly to their destinations in city centers. Fast boarding times, no security delays, and no waiting for baggage (or lost bags) adds up to much less time spent getting to and from meetings. Adding to these savings, there's also little or no down time - people can be far more productive and efficient during a trip on a train, than flying or driving, and return to the office sooner with a shorter turn-around time. High speed rail allows people to continue working the entire trip using laptops and cell phones. Flexible meeting space is available on the train. Because of the reliability of trains and the reduced total trip time, an overnight stay is not always required - saving additional time and money. High speed rail offers great flexibility to plan last minute trips, purchase tickets on short notice, and make changes to schedules without huge penalties." [1]  And further to all of this high speed rail also frees up existing rail lines for other purposes, such as freight services as well as for commuter services, helping people in the economy to a significant extent. Given that this is true, it seems prudent to subsidise high speed rail even if it is costly as a business. Further, the motor industry already sees incredible subsidies in the U.S. and does not provide nearly as much social benefit as high speed rail is likely to.  [1] “Productivity Gains with High Speed Rail.” US High Speed Rail Association.

negative: economy general environment climate environment general pollution house would It is not as simple as considering that Heathrow is at capacity so everything will go to competitor airports. So far it is simple alarmism to warn of traffic going to European competitors, John Stewart (chairman of HACAN, Heathrow Association for the Control of Aircraft Noise) points out that the airport already has more departure flights each week to key global business centres than its two closest rivals in Paris and Frankfurt combined. [1] Heathrow being at capacity may encourage other forms of transport, for example encouraging passengers to take the train rather than the plane to Edinburgh, Paris, or Brussels. Secondly it is not always simple just to change hub. As a transfer point if moving airport it would be necessary to change dozens of flights to enable the same transfers not just one or two. And finally of course Heathrow’s expansion is not the only way to deal with excess demand at Heathrow, numerous other options have been proposed from the ‘Boris island’ airport, to linking Heathrow and Gatwick by high speed train. [2]  [1] Topham, Gwyn, ‘Airline chiefs slam government for blocking Heathrow expansion’, The Guardian, 25 June 2012,   [2] BBC News, ‘Heathrow and Gatwick airports: Ministers mull rail link’, 8 October 2011,

negative: Britain is behind the rest of Europe on high speed rail  The United Kingdom has been somewhat of a laggard when it comes to high speed rail. In the first half of the century Britain’s railways were the fastest in the world (still holding the world speed record for steam). But since what we would now consider to be high speed started with the launch of the Shinkansen in 1964 the UK has only marginally upgraded its own railways to 125mph. This means the only high speed line the UK has is the link to the channel tunnel which does not serve a large number of internal passengers. The UK therefore has 113km of high speed rail against 1334 in Germany, 1342 in Italy, 2036 in France and 3100 in Spain. Even much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have longer high speed lines. [1]  [1]

negative: y business finance government sport olympics house believes hosting olympics good Hosting stimulates regeneration in local areas  Hosting stimulates regeneration. The IOC is enthusiastic about bids that will leave a lasting impact and have looked favourably on cities that locate their Olympic Villages and stadia in deprived areas in need of regeneration. The 1992 Barcelona Olympics were used as a means to completely overhaul the port and coast of the city creating an artificial beach and waterside cultural area that became a lasting tourist attraction. Along with cleaning up areas and new stadia, Olympic Villages release between 5,000 and 20,000 new homes which governments can chose to hand over as low-cost housing (as is proposed for London 2012). Whilst these projects could be completed without the Olympics, the need to provide an overall package (transport, accommodation, stadia, greenery etc.) for a set deadline means that there is far more incentive to get the projects done. An example of this in London is the plan for a new £15bn underground rail system called ‘Crossrail’, first proposed over 20 years ago but only now being developed because of the attention surrounding the London 2012 bid.1 The fact that international scrutiny will follow the building program means that it is far more likely to be completed to a high standard (consider the detailed coverage of the preparations for Athens 2004).  1 Hayes, S. (2011, April 19). Crossrail will leave a positive legacy. Retrieved May 12, 2011, from Wharf

negative: There is precedent of paternalistic government policies in NYC.  The principle of paternalism, that the state may interfere with another person, against their will, with the motivation of protecting that person from harm, [1] underlines a wide range of policies and laws across the United States, and there is already a precedent for such paternalistic laws particularly within New York City. New York City, under the leadership of Mayor Bloomberg, has enacted regulations on smoking, restaurants’ use of salt and trans fats. Laws prohibiting marijuana, cocaine, and other potentially harmful drugs are made with the goal to protect citizens. Seatbelt laws and the prohibition of cell phone use while driving all infringe upon a person’s freedom of choice but have been accepted for their inherent positive causation meaning there will be less deaths and injuries in accidents. Paternalistic policies are made to maintain the public’s safety and well-being with the assumption that the government “knows best.” Mayor Bloomberg’s proposed ban on soda sold in containers larger than 16 ounces targets the growing problem of obesity in New York City. Although obesity has been a popular topic of discussion in the City, there has been negligible advancement in weight-loss. This growing problem shows that education is not enough to incentivize people to control themselves. Dr. Donald Klein writes, “A fleeting, short-term self that enjoys chocolate, nicotine, or heroin is working his will on an enduring self that pays the cost. Although we may fancy ourself a fully integrated and consistent being, it might make more sense to describe ourself as a bundle of multiple selves, selves that overlap, intermingle, and sometimes conflict”. [2] That more than 50% of New Yorkers are overweight shows the people do not recognize their own long term interests. [3] Mayor Bloomberg’s goal is to limit soda consumption of the population. He has the wellbeing of New Yorkers in mind and he is following a precedent that people need guidance in personal choices.  [1] Dworkin, Gerald, ‘Paternalism’, in Edward N. Zalta e., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Summer 2010.  [2] Klein, Daniel B., ‘The Moral Consequences of Paternalism’, Ideas on Liberty, May 1994.  [3] Hu, Winnie, ‘Obesity Ills That Won’t Budge Fuel Soda Battle by Bloomberg’, The New York Times, 11 June 2012.

negative: If only it were true. The typical shuttle mission to the International Space Station costs $500-700 million. Private individuals, space tourists, have managed it for just $20 million a head1. Therefore, there is little in the argument that the existing space infrastructure is driving costs down. Furthermore, whilst the ISS has been justified as a terminal for the shuttles, the shuttles themselves have been justified as means to reach the space shuttle; a circular argument that offers little hope to the space explorer. Moreover, despite over fifty years of investment, NASA specifically has maintained a shuttle program at the expense of new materials, new fuels and innovative concepts1. As such, the technology has not advanced significantly since the original missions to the Moon between 1969 and 1972. The infrastructure, in this case, appears to have been more of a hindrance and intellectual barrier to development and cost-cutting than an aid. 1 Kaku, M. (2009, July 16) The Cost of Space Exploration. Retrieved June 22, 2011 from Forbes

negative: The Arctic is a diverse but fragile ecosystem  Mineral extraction is not a clean process [1] and the Arctic is acknowledged as a fragile ecosystem. In addition to the pollution that using these fuels will cause elsewhere in the world, the process of extraction itself is fraught with risks. There is some destruction caused simply by the process of building and running rigs with everything running normally, but the nightmare scenario is a major spill. [2] Let’s be clear, with the best will in the world, there will be a spill; difficult and unpredictable conditions, gruelling tests for both the machinery and the engineers that manage it, and a track record that leaves a lot to be desired in far more habitable and accessible environments. There are two difficulties posed in terms of an off-shore (or below-ice in this case) spill. The first problem is that stopping the spill would be vastly more complicated logistically than anything previously attempted, making previous deep-sea containment exercises seem simple by comparison. [3]  The Exxon Valdez disaster showed the large scale damage that oil spills near the poles can have large and long lasting effects on the ecosystem; hundreds of thousands of seabirds were killed in the spill and it is estimates some habitats will take 30 years to recover. [4] Any such disaster is made much worse above the arctic circle because of the cold. Oil degrades faster in warmer waters because the metabolism of microbes that break the oil down works much more slowly in the cold arctic waters, at the same time the oil spreads out less so provides less surface area. [5] In 2010 it was reported that more than two decades after the spill there were still 23,000 gallons of relatively un-weathered oil in Prince William Sound. [6]  The second issue, as demonstrated by large scale experimentation in the 1970s is that the oil would interact with the Polar ice to affect a far larger area than would normally be the case.  At the very least, it seems sensible to have a moratorium on sub-glacial drilling until the technology is available to deal safely and securely with a spill.  [1] Bibby, N. Is Norman Baker Serious about Saving the Environment? Liberalconspiracy.org. 18 march 2012.   [2] McCarthy, Michael, The Independent. Oil exploration under the arctic could cause ‘uncontrollable’ natural disaster. 6 September 201   [3] Vidal, John, ‘Why an oil spill in Arctic waters would be devastating’, The Guardian, 22 April 2011,   [4] Williamson, David, ‘Exxon Valdez oil spill impacts lasting far longer than expected, scientists say’, UNC News Services, 18 December 2003, no.648,   [5] Atlas, Ronald M., et al., ‘Microbes & Oil Spills – FAQ’, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 22 April 2013,   [6] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ‘Intent to Prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council’s Restoration Efforts’, Federal Register, Vol.75., No. 14, 22 January 2010, p.3707

negative: The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems.  In addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time.  Equally the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage.  We still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts.  As far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.

negative: It’s been apparent from Rio onwards that ensuring action would require both patience and an acceptance that governments and industry would only genuinely get on board when Climate Change became an emergency rather than a distant theory. That is now starting to happen in a million ways, small and large. Changing the focus to another 30 years project now would just allow for another set of delays and missed targets.