Taylor chairman of NOVA, former nuclear weapons designer 2006
(Theodore B. Taylor, July 6 2006, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,” http://www-ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/chapters/taylor.html)
Nuclear proliferation - be it among nations or terrorists - greatly increases the chance of nuclear violence on a scale that would be intolerable. Proliferation increases the chance that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of irrational people, either suicidal or with no concern for the fate of the world. Irrational or outright psychotic leaders of military factions or terrorist groups might decide to use a few nuclear weapons under their control to stimulate a global nuclear war, as an act of vengeance against humanity as a whole. Countless scenarios of this type can be constructed. Limited nuclear wars between countries with small numbers of nuclear weapons could escalate into major nuclear wars between superpowers. For example, a nation in an advanced stage of "latent proliferation," finding itself losing a nonnuclear war, might complete the transition to deliverable nuclear weapons and, in desperation, use them. If that should happen in a region, such as the Middle East, where major superpower interests are at stake, the small nuclear war could easily escalate into a global nuclear war.
Collapse of Russian Federalism spreads WMD prolif
Hahn, visiting scholar with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University,2003 [Gordon M. “The Past, Present, And Future Of The Russian Federal State” Summer 2003 Vol. 11, Iss. 3] Growing tension in Russian-Muslim relations and the federation's weakness or collapse would have grave international security implications. On the most obvious level, the fate of Russian federalism touches on the political stability and integrity of a nuclear power. But it also impinges on issues such as the successful integration of a stable, prosperous, and democratic Russia into Western and other international economic and security structures; the threat of Islamic terrorism; and the proliferation of weapons and other means of mass destruction. Russia is vulnerable to illegal as well as legal infiltration of Islamists from abroad. The titular Muslim republics border on and/or maintain close business, educational, and cultural ties to Chechnya, the Transcaucasus, and Central Asian states. Russia's own borders are extremely porous. Thus, these republics are subject to infiltration by and lending support to revolutionary Islamists from Muslim and Arab states. On 28 June Russia's Federal Migration Service reported that Russia is now a major transit corridor for illegal international migration and hosts from 1.5 to 5 million illegal immigrants. With Wahabbi infiltration among Russia's Muslims, Putin's support for the U.S.-led war against terror, and the pressure that federative reforms are putting on federal-regional and Russian-Muslim relations, Russia is less stable and provides more fertile ground for the support of Islamic terror. A small number of militants can cause great havoc. It is well known that Russian sites holding nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and materials are far from fully secure. There have been several attempts to penetrate such sites and seize weapons or materials. Several years ago, Chechens claimed responsibility for leaving a small quantity of nuclear-grade uranium in several Moscow parks. In April 2002 a team of journalists made their way into a high-security zone near a nuclear material warehouse to highlight lax security. In mid-June, a resident of Tatarstan was detained carrying two kilograms of uranium in the upper Volga republic of Udmurtia.
Domrin, Fellow at the Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law (Moscow) and research and legislation-drafting division of the Russian federal government, 2001
(Alexander, 2001, “The Russian Federation,” http://www.federalism.ch/files/categories/IntensivkursII/Russiag3.pdf)
There is no consensus among Russian scholars on the future of Russia as a federal state. It is hard to agree with authors who proclaim that, historically, Russia has tended to federalism. Neither the Russian Empire nor the USSR were true federations.Unlike many other federations, Russia was not formed as a product of treaties between various regions of the union but, rather, grew by acquiring (forcefully or voluntarily) neighbouring lands. For more than a thousand years Russia was a strong unitary state, flexible enough to have territorial autonomies yet not a federation. The existence, and remarkable economic development, of China as a unitary state negates the argument that big countries should necessarily have a federal structure. Even though Russia is a multiethnic country, ethnic minorities constitute no more than 15 percent of its population, making it comparable to France. Even among ethnic republics named after a titular nation, there are very few in which the titular group constitutes a majority. The Russian-speaking minority constitutes about 40 percent of Latvia’s population and more than half of the population of Riga (Latvia’s capital), yet this Baltic state is not a federation.
Russian Federalism Key to Preventing Mass Genocide
Alexander Dugin, political scientist, 2006
(“RUSSIA'S FUTURE: A UNITARY STATE OR AN ETHNO-FEDERATION?” Translated by Denis Shcherbakov Rossiia, No. 4, February ) Lexis
Experts and political scientists were prompted to consider such questions by reforms to the hierarchy of governance in the course of 2005 - especially the abolition of elections for regional leaders. For example, Alexander Voloshin, former head of the presidential administration, spoke about a possible scenario for transforming federative Russia into unitary Russia, noting that the ethnic republics, as self-sufficient regions of the Federation, are hotbeds of tension. Therefore, the process of expanding regions might end in erasing the borders of the ethnic republics. Meanwhile, Boris Nemtsov agreedwith other Russian liberals in naming "the curtailment of federative principles and local government, leading to a unitary state," among the negative trends of the past year. I'd agree with the liberal opposition here, but from a completely different standpoint - a Eurasian standpoint. Russia as a unitary state would be the worst of all possible options, precisely because it would happen at the expense of genocide for the native ethnic groups comprising it. This genocide doesn't just threaten ethnic minorities that are assimilated into the majority people; it also threatens the majority people, which loses its unique ethnic qualities, its native characteristics, originality, traditions; its members become mere citizens of the nation-state. Consequently, Russia ought to take the federalist path, but with one substantial proviso: federalism should change from the territorial federalism of today to ethno-federalism - that is, a federation of ethnic groups, or Eurasian federalism.