Ag – Food Wars Ext Loss of food supply to war Wallensteen 1986 (Peter; Uppsala University; “Global resources and international conflict” p. 14) To secure a reliable supply of food remains a requirement for any society. For many societies, grains such as wheat or rice meet this requirement. Greater or lesser fractions of these staple food products are used by different countries to produce meat, luxury drinks, automotive fuels, and other products that go beyond basic human needs. A threat to the supply of the basic staple food requirements of a country is likely to lead to conflict. Such threats could arise in many ways, notably through the political manipulation of access to food (e.g. via an embargo), through environmental degradation (e.g., via soil erosion), or through competition among conflicting land-use or consumption interests (e.g., between nomadic and sedentary populations). Rising food prices starve one billion and triggers riots and civil disintegration Christian Science Monitor April 3, 1996 If food prices continue to rise, both sides agree, the hardest hit will be the world's poorest billion people, who subsist on less than a dollar a day and for whom continuing price increases could have catastrophic consequences. Behind food shortages and higher prices lies the risk of political instability in poor nations. When prices go up, governments are held accountable. The result could be urban food riots like those that have challenged civil order in countries ranging from Egypt to Zambia. Kills billions 2005 (Lester, President – Earth Policy Institute, People and the Planet, “Falling Water Tables 'Could Hit Food Supply'”, 2-7 http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2424) Many Americans see terrorism as the principal threat to security, but for much of humanity, the effect of water shortages and rising temperatures on food security are far more important issues. For the 3 billion people who live on 2 dollars a day or less and who spend up to 70 per cent of their income on food, even a modest rise in food prices can quickly become life-threatening. For them, it is the next meal that is the overriding concern."
No Escalation – General Strikes won’t escalate Barnett, ‘12 (Thomas P.M. Barnett is Chief Analyst at Wikistrat and contributor to Esquire, February 13, “The New Rules: The Coming War with Iran” ) Virtually all of America's strategic allies and rivals will ultimately forgive our involvement because, in the end, each will benefit: China and India, from Iran's resurrection as an energy exporter; Turkey, from Iran's diminution as a regional leader; and the rest of the world, from the Persian Gulf being spared from a lengthy period of unstable nuclear brinkmanship. Only Russia stands to lose outright, but that has been true regarding virtually every good thing that has happened in this world for the past two decades, and Moscow cannot do anything about it, save for beating down a tiny neighbor now and then. Of course, Beijing and Moscow will regret the precedent of yet another Western-led regime-change effort targeting a fellow authoritarian state. But since this war will be conducted prior to Iran's weaponization of its nuclear capacity, the enduring rule-set regarding nuclear weapons being off-limits will be preserved.
A2 Civilian Casualties Civilian casualities will be limited Matthew Kroenig (professor of Government at Georgetown University and a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations) February 2012 Foreign Affairs, http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136917/matthew-kroenig/time-to-attack-iran Washington would also be able to limit civilian casualties in any campaign. Iran built its most critical nuclear plants, such as the one in Natanz, away from heavily populated areas. For those less important facilities that exist near civilian centers, such as the centrifuge-manufacturing sites, U.S. precision-guided missiles could pinpoint specific buildings while leaving their surroundings unscathed. The United States could reduce the collateral damage even further by striking at night or simply leaving those less important plants off its target list at little cost to the overall success of the mission. Although Iran would undoubtedly publicize any human suffering in the wake of a military action, the majority of the victims would be the military personnel, engineers, scientists, and technicians working at the facilities The alternative to strikes is prolif or strikes later, comparatively worse options ‘07 (Louis Rene, professor @ the University of Purdue, May 8, pg. http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070508/cm_csm/yberes) A more important reservation about preemption involves tactical difficulties. Due to delays, the success of strikes against certain key Iranian targets may already be in doubt. Worse, such strikes would probably entail high civilian casualties because Iran has deliberately placed military assets amid civilian populations – an international crime called "perfidy." But further delay will only multiply the number of casualties from any future operation, or – in the worst-case scenario – allow Iran to become fully nuclear.
A2 Stuxnet Stuxnet failed and future cyberattacks won’t work Farwell and Rohozinski, ’11 (James P. Farwell is an expert in strategic communication and information strategy who has served as a consultant to the US Department of Defense, the US Strategic Command and the US Special Operations Command, Rafal Rohozinski is the CEO of The SecDev Group and a Senior Scholar at the Canada Centre for Global Security, Munk School of Global Affairs, University of Toronto, “Stuxnet and the Future of Cyber War” Survival, 53(1), February-March, pp. 23-40) This approach comes at a cost. Despite its relative sophistication, Stuxnet was quickly and effectively disarmed. Within months its technical characteristics and components were well known. Iran was able to quickly harness the intellectual capital of the global computer security community through effectively crowdsourcing solutions to the worm, casting some doubt on the conventional wisdom and hype surrounding the efficacy of computer network attacks. Stuxnet’s rapid neutralisation also raises the question of why this approach, rather than a more stealthy or direct one, was chosen to target Tehran’s nuclear programme. The answer depends upon the strategic and political goals the Stuxnet attackers aimed to achieve.