"Resolved: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan"

Thanks Pro. I'll present my case first. Ignore the "my partner and I" and "we" nonsense. If the sole practical effect of a policy is the destruction of innocent life and impoverishment, that policy should be avoided. With this in mind, my partner and I negate the resolution: The United States should suspend all assistance to Pakistan. We also observe that since the resolution is Pakistan specific, all objections to aid must be levied at Pakistan in particular, not foreign aid in general. Contention one: Ending aid to Pakistan significantly increases the likelihood of a Nuclear Catastrophe. Pakistani security is vital to U.S. strategic interests, as Washington Post[1] puts it Pakistan: ..already has the seventh-largest army and is close to overtaking Britain as the fifth-largest nuclear power. The country’s location, demographic heft, military might, nuclear weapons capability and links to Islamist terrorists ensure that it will remain central to U.S. interests even after NATO forces depart Afghanistan.” Current events indicate strongly that Pakistan is deeply unstable and any upset could lead to disaster, as the Heritage Foundation[2] writes: “The U.S. has a broader interest in maintaining steady relations with Pakistan and encouraging stability in the nuclear-armed nation of 180 million. If the U.S. were to cut all aid to Pakistan and prevail on the International Monetary Fund and World Bank to do the same, the Pakistani economy would teeter on the brink of collapse. The chances of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into terrorist hands, while currently remote, would increase.” The chances of having a Nuclear Strike against the U.S. would increase massively if the United States essentially threw Pakistan under the bus and left them to their own devices, political and economic instability would follow which could increase the likelihood of a Nuclear strike against the United States. Secondly, India must be considered. India is also a Nuclear armed power, with massive amounts of historical enmity to Pakistan. A suspension of U.S. aid has a twofold effect: First, it economically and militarily cripples Pakistan (The U.S. provides massive amounts of Military aid to Pakistan as well) making them a good target for Indian aggression, but a U.S. cut off also shows to the world that the U.S. views Pakistan as an enemy, and India (or anyone else) can attack them with impunity, with no U.S. intervention. Thus the incentive to not go to war is systematically reduced. Millions of lives are at stake here, this is a significant impact that cannot be outweighed. Contention two: Cutting aid to Pakistan will only punish the innocent Washington Posts[3] writes about what the U.S. should do with aid to Pakistan: “by investing in Pakistan’s political and economic development, the United States could play a small but meaningful role in creating a prosperous, tolerant and inclusive nation that would be a force for peace and stability throughout South Asia.” United States aid to Pakistan helps its citizens, and more efficient allocation would help them even more. Conversely, with no U.S. aid the situation is drastically different. For one, it would lead to the deaths of many relying on U.S. aid for subsistence, but it also harms the poor in Pakistan even more. There can be no doubt that tensions with Pakistan have increased recently, but not only would cutting off aid be detrimental to solving the issues tearing our two countries apart, but it would not even punish those who are hurting the U.S. and its nation security interests. “If we are mad at Pakistani failures in the security realm, we should not take our frustrations out on the Pakistani people, who are the primary beneficiaries of KLB and who have absolutely no control over the army.” Blaming and harming the innocent because of governmental tensions is morally repugnant and should not be done. Since cutting aid to Pakistan carries no positive benefits at all, and certainly none to outweigh the potential deaths of millions as a direct result of implementing a no aid to Pakistan policy. For these reasons, the resolution is clearly negated. Cite note: Cards are physical. If my opponent wishes to see the specific card, she need only ask and I'll hunt down the links.