Organized Crime Bad: Bioweapons
C. L. Staten EmergencyNet Exclusive, 1999
(Questions and Answers On Bio-Warfare/Bio-Terrorism (Q & A) with Dr. Ken Alibek EmergencyNet NEWS Service Special Report Wednesday, July 14, 1999
Although Russia currently does participate in almost all of the world's biological non-proliferation treaties and it's current leaders deny involvement in the further development of biowar agents, that doesn't prohibit the illicit transfer of a biowar knowledge base to terrorists or rogue nations. It is this illegal transfer that is presently of great concern to bio-warfare researchers and counter-terrorism experts. Unfortunately, with the breakup of the former U.S.S.R. and a lack of funding for the continuation of extensive bio-warfare programs there, many of the scientists and much of the technology may have been exported or sold (legally or illegally) in an effort to help pay Russia's burgeoning debts. There would appear to be evidence to suggest that at least some of the underpaid or unpaid biowar scientists may have also since immigrated to nations that are considered "rogue" by the United States and her allies. Even more troubling is the fact that instability only seems to be increasing in some parts of Russia as radical Muslim insurgents and mafia/crime organizations ply their trade.
This means extinction
Daily Mail 2001 (lexis-nexis, Daniel Jefferies)
NO INSTRUMENT of war is more terrifying than biological weapons. Unlike nuclear warfare, where nations can protect themselves with missile systems, bio-weapons can creep in under the radar. Indeed, a population may not know it is under attack until millions begin to die. For the first time in its history, the world now faces a realistic threat of biological conflict.
The current anthrax scare is just a taste of what lies ahead, with the human race itself facing possible extinction.To biological warfare experts, the U.S. anthrax attacks are no surprise. They have warned for years that germ-based terrorism was inevitable.But tragically, the West has too often ignored the risk, as an extraordinary new book, Germs, reveals. This startlingly prescient analysis details just how the West has miscalculated the danger, and is virtually defenceless against a determined bio-attack. It concludes that the threat posed by biological weapons is of Armageddon proportions.
Russian Federalism Bad: Nationalism
A) Russian federalism leads to nationalism
Andrei Lnitsky, publicist, social manager, 2005
(“RIGHT TURN, LEFT FOOT FORWARD” Izvestia, August 5, 2005 What the Papers Say. Part A, Translated by Tatiana Khramtsova) Lexis
Upholding regional interests could be the main cause for the right wing. Strong regions mean a strong Russia: that's a basic patriotic postulate for the right, having nothing to do with separatism. It's necessary to cultivate democratic right-wing voters in the regions. N. Krechetova says: "Everything is failing in Moscow. We need to be more active in the regions - uniting leaders, recruiting new people who are liberally-oriented, and striving to get them elected to municipal and regional legislatures."Regional patriotism could become the ideological foundation for unifying Russia's right-wing parties. The basic components of their policy programs need to include support for the values of federalism - explained at the level of practical significance. "This is my native soil, my homeland, I'm the master here, and I'm responsible for them!" If right-wing parties can recruit members with this kind of outlook and level of responsibility, it will become possible to start promoting liberal ideas in this generally left-wing country.
B) Nationalist revival causes US-Russian nuclear war.
Victor Israelyan, was a Soviet ambassador, diplomat, arms control negotiator, and leading political scientist, 1998 Winter, Washington Quarterly.
The first and by far most dangerous possibility is what I call the power scenario. Supporters of this option would, in the name of a "united and undivided Russia," radically change domestic and foreign policies. Many would seek to revive a dictatorship and take urgent military steps to mobilize the people against the outside "enemy." Such steps would include Russia's denunciation of the commitment to no-first-use of nuclear weapons; suspension of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) I and refusal to ratify both START II and the Chemical Weapons Convention; denunciation of the Biological Weapons Convention; and reinstatement of a full-scale armed force, including the acquisition of additional intercontinental ballistic missiles with multiple warheads, as well as medium- and short-range missiles such as the SS-20. Some of these measures will demand substantial financing, whereas others, such as the denunciation and refusal to ratify arms control treaties, would, according to proponents, save money by alleviating the obligations of those agreements. In this scenario, Russia's military planners would shift Western countries from the category of strategic partners to the category of countries representing a threat to national security. This will revive the strategy of nuclear deterrence -- and indeed, realizing its unfavorable odds against the expanded NATO, Russia will place new emphasis on the first-use of nuclear weapons, a trend that is underway already. The power scenario envisages a hard-line policy toward the CIS countries, and in such circumstances the problem of the Russian diaspora in those countries would be greatly magnified. Moscow would use all the means at its disposal, including economic sanctions and political ultimatums, to ensure the rights of ethnic Russians in CIS countries as well as to have an influence on other issues. Of those means, even the use of direct military force in places like the Baltics cannot be ruled out. Some will object that this scenario is implausible because no potential dictator exists in Russia who could carry out this strategy. I am not so sure. Some Duma members -- such as Victor Antipov, Sergei Baburin, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, and Albert Makashov, who are leading politicians in ultranationalistic parties and fractions in the parliament -- are ready to follow this path to save a "united Russia." Baburin's "Anti-NATO" deputy group boasts a membership of more than 240 Duma members. One cannot help but remember that when Weimar Germany was isolated, exhausted, and humiliated as a result of World War I and the Versailles Treaty, Adolf Hitler took it upon himself to "save" his country. It took the former corporal only a few years to plunge the world into a second world war that cost humanity more than 50 million lives. I do not believe that Russia has the economic strength to implement such a scenario successfully, but then again, Germany's economic situation in the 1920s was hardly that strong either. Thus, I am afraid that economics will not deter the power scenario's would-be authors from attempting it. Baburin, for example, warned that any political leader who would "dare to encroach upon Russia" would be decisively repulsed by the Russian Federation "by all measures on heaven and earth up to the use of nuclear weapons." n10 In autumn 1996 Oleg Grynevsky, Russian ambassador to Sweden and former Soviet arms control negotiator, while saying that NATO expansion increases the risk of nuclear war, reminded his Western listeners that Russia has enough missiles to destroy both the United States and Europe. n11 Former Russian minister of defense Igor Rodionov warned several times that Russia's vast nuclear arsenal could become uncontrollable. In this context, one should keep in mind that, despite dramatically reduced nuclear arsenals -- and tensions -- Russia and the United States remain poised to launch their missiles in minutes. I cannot but agree with Anatol Lieven, who wrote, "It may be, therefore, that with all the new Russian order's many problems and weaknesses, it will for a long time be able to stumble on, until we all fall down together."