indo us nuclear deal

Please clarify whether this is a military nuclear technology deal or not. If it is it would necessitate a completely different style of attack. For now, I'm assuming it is not for purposes of developing nuclear weapons. A. Pursuing further nuclear technology is a bad idea. 1. There are plenty of other alternatives that build relations between the US as well as providing a steady source of energy. a) The US could provide cooperation on the development of solar energy, thus enhancing relations and providing clean and sustainable fuel. Solar energy is sustainable so long as the sun continues to shine, and there's no reason to waste the energy we are blessed with every second of every day. b) The US could provide cooperation on the development of wind power, a technology which already has had some relative success. Though they do require some land, they produce no harmful waste products and require less maintenance than other forms of energy. This is another sustainable energy source. c) The US could provide cooperation on a select few biofuels, such as algae or switchgrass. These biofuels can grow in areas which many other types of plant life cannot while simultaneously providing great amounts of energy. These plants can be grown and regrown, and thus they are a relatively sustainable source of energy. d) The US could provide cooperation on further developing hydro-electrical power, such as damming or tidal power. This is a another clean form of energy that is sustainable. e) The US could provide cooperation of further developing geothermal power, such generators (which create power through heat, often from the earth) are cost effective and provide clean and renewable energy. 2. Nuclear power has many drawbacks. a) Some of the waste produced by nuclear power will be harmful for the next 10000 years, that's a long time for it to be stored in a safe and contained area. Not only is the waste a health threat, but it is a huge and continuous cost. b) Nuclear power is extremely costly, and it can easily cost as much as $5000 or much more to produce just a kilowatt of energy. Furthermore, nuclear plants require massive amounts of money and time to construct. c) Nuclear power isn't as sustainable as many think, it is expected that within the next 100 years the earth's uranium deposits will be feasibly exhausted (there may be some left then, but it won't be enough to power the world). Regardless of the timeframe, uranium has a 100% guarantee to run out, and far sooner then something like say, coal. d) Nuclear power devestates the environment. For one, around 33% of the energy produced is heat that must be sent out of the plant, and cooling towers require mass amounts of water to cancel it, thus, they waste much water. As well, some of this heat is sent directly into the water source, some bodies of water have had much higher temperatures because of this, endangering many species of plants and animals within these bodies of water. They also unleash radioactive waste, which is explained above. e) Nuclear plants represent a constant safety threat, there have been accidents (Chernobyl) and there is always, at every second, a mathematical possibility of another great accident occurring which could unleash radioactive material and devestate an entire area. f) Nuclear weapons are a constant hazard from terrorist attacks, a single successful attack on a nuclear plant could unleash planned devestation on a region. 3. The alternative deals provided above are clearly better policy options. None of the options above are excessively harmful to the environment (and at least better than nuclear power), they are all cheaper or similar in cost, they are all sustainable in comparison to nuclear energy, and they do not act as a threat to security. Furthermore, cross-apply my opponents arguments about a US India deal and it's benefits to society, a deal should be reached however it should be on a safe, cheap, and efficient means of creating energy, rather than nuclear power. **********Final Summary*************** Thus, my argument is not that the US & India should not have an energy deal, but that it should not be one over nuclear power. Rather, there are numerous other energy options which should be pursued. This can essentially be seen as a counterplan that negates the resolution because it does not support a nuclear deal. Also, my opponent's current advantages stem from improved relations & cooperation (entrepenuership, efficiency, platform to voice opinions and such) which an energy deal in any of the aforementioned sectors would do, and thus, I capture all the benefits of the Affirmative without inducing the harms caused by the usage of nuclear power. To paraphrase... "If I have a milkshake, and you have a milkshake, and you have a straw, and I have a straw that reaches all the way across the room and into your milkshake, I drink your milkshake! SLURP!! I drink it up!" Thus, I present the better policy option and you should vote NEG.