Saliba-Hood Aff

 *INHERENCY*
There’s no government or private sector interest in thorium at the moment
Hargraves and Moir, Expert in Energy Policy at Dartmouth College and Nuclear Engineer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 10
(Ralph and Robert, “Liquid fluoride thorium reactors: an old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined,” American Scientist, July/August 2010, accessed 8-21-12, p. Academic One File) 

There are two major designs under consideration, the pebble bed and prismatic core reactors, which are much advanced versions of solid-fuel designs from the 1970s and 1980s. In both designs, tiny, ceramic-coated particles of enriched uranium are batched in spheres or pellets, coupled with appropriate designs for managing these fuels in reactors. These fuel designs feature inherent safety features that eliminate meltdown, and in experiments they have set the record for fuel burnup in solid designs, reaching as high as 19 percent burnup before the fuel must be replaced. Thorium is not currently under consideration for the DOE's development attention. If the DOE is not promoting thorium power, who will? Utilities are constrained by the most prosaic economics when choosing between nuclear and coal, and they are notoriously risk averse. The utilities do not have an inherent motive, beyond an unproven profit profile, to make the leap to thorium. Furthermore, the large manufacturers, such as Westinghouse, have already made deep financial commitments to a different technology, massive light-water reactors, a technology of proven soundness that has already been certified by the NRC for construction and licensing. Among experts in the policy and technology of nuclear power, one hears that large nuclear-plant technology has already arrivedthe current so-called Generation III+ plants have solved the problems of safe, cost-effective nuclear power, and there is simply no will from that quarter to inaugurate an entirely new technology, with all that it would entail in research and regulatory certificationa hugely expensive multiyear process. And the same experts are not overly oppressed by the waste problem, because current storage is deemed to be stable. Also, on the horizon we can envision burning up most of the worst of the waste with an entirely different technology, fast-neutron reactors that will consume the materials that would otherwise require truly long-term storage. But the giant preapproved plants will not be mass produced. They don't offer a vision for massive, rapid conversion from fossil fuels to nuclear, coupled with a nonproliferation portfolio that would make it reasonable to project the technology to developing parts of the world, where the problem of growing fossil-fuel consumption is most urgent. The NGNP project is not the answer. There is little prospect that it can gear up on anything close to the timescale needed to replace coal and gas electricity generation within a generation or two. Yet its momentum may crowd out other research avenues, just as alternative nuclear technologies starved support of Alvin Weinberg's Molten Salt Reactor Project. We could be left asking, What if? Or we can take a close look at thorium as we rethink how we will produce the power consumed by the next generation. 'These issues and others are being explored at the online forum http://energyfromthorium.com, an energetic, international gathering of scientists and engineers probing the practical potential of this fuel.
Thorium revival is inevitable—the only question is whether the U.S.
(Richard, “Is Thorium A Magic Bullet For Our Energy Problems?,” Talk of the Nation is a follower or a leader
Martin, Pike Research Editorial Director, 5-4-12
Science Friday, National Public Radio, accessed 8-20-12, p. Lexis) 

Richard Martin: Sure. I think Arjun has brought up a very important point, which is that this is not going to happen in the United States because of the licensing issues he just mentioned. It is happening in China. It is happening in India. It is happening in certain countries in Western Europe. And so our choice in this country is whether we are going to be left behind on the next big energy technology, or whether we are going to take advantage of a technology that was developed right here at Oak Ridge and that has been proven out. And that's really the choice before us. And the thorium revival is inevitable. The question is whether the United States is going to be a follower or a leader.
Licensing issues doom thorium development in the U.S.
Martin, Pike Research Editorial Director, 12
(Richard, Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, page 181)

Peterson, however, is a realist. He had good news and bad news for the thorium fans in the audience: The bad news is that reactors that use new materials or new fuels will require multiple decades, at least in the United States, to be funded and licensed. The earliest that a commercial thorium-based reactor could come online, in Peterson’s view, would be 2032. That’s not soon enough to solve the energy crisis. And it’s not soon enough for thorium advocates like Kirk Sorensen, who wants to see a LFTR built before 2020. 

*SOLVENCY*
A federal matching funds program solves for the development of thorium as a nuclear fuel
Martin, Pike Research Editorial Director, 12
(Richard, Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, page 232)

While a new Manhattan Project is not going to happen, some form of government support is necessary. Transforming the energy sector is too large a project for the private sector alone. That’s the fundamental dilemma that faces the thorium movement. However, there is a middle way, involving higher levels of federal support, a conscious industrial policy to foster advanced nuclear power, and broad incentives to harness the entrepreneurial energy of the private sector. Congress and the White House should establish a matching funds program, aimed exclusively at two or three technologies, including thorium power, to drive the creation of a Generation IV reactor industry that would swiftly—within this decade—build prototypes and then small commercial versions, first to supplement and later replace the current collection of outmoded plants, then to replace existing coal plants. The government should overhaul the NRC to streamline the licensing process and favor Generation IV designs over incremental, halfhearted advances. It should explicitly benefit start-ups, like TerraPower and Flibe Energy, not just established vendors and manufacturers like GE, and it should promote homegrown technologies like the LFTR. And it should be conditional on not just submitting new designs for licensing but brining reactors into commercial production in the shortest time possible. With matching investments coming from the private sector, the program should provide at least $2 billion a year and no more than $5 billion, for a total of $4 billion to $10 billion a year.

Licensing reform is vital to development of thorium as a nuclear fuel
Martin, Pike Research Editorial Director, 12
(Richard, Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, page 235)

These are ambitious goals. What, then, must we do to pull them off? To create a thorium energy economy in the next decade, three things must happen at once: funding, licensing, and R&D. I have already described the funding mechanism that must be put in place quickly, by the end of 2013. Licensing reform and R&D—including the development and procurement of the needed materials and fuel—must occur in parallel. The president should order the NRC to expedite its licensing process so that the period from application to final approval is no more than five years. That means that by 2015, while a prototype LFTR is being built (at the Savannah River Site, Idaho National Laboratory, or Oak Ridge), companies will begin submitting applications.  

                                         Thorium AFF—Plan Text—1AC 

The United States Federal Government should establish a matching funds program and initiate licensing reform within the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to promote the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel. 

Advantage 1: Economic Competitiveness

Thorium will vastly alter the energy landscape in the world – It will take over the energy sector
Evans-Pritchard, International Business Editor-The Daily Telegraph, 11+
(Ambrose, March 20, “Safe Nuclear Does Exist and China is Leading the Way with Thorium,” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html, accessed 8-25-12, hec)

A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium. This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mold. If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption. China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say. Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster. “The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert. “If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said. “They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.” Thorium is a silvery metal named after the Norse god of thunder. The metal has its own “issues” but no thorium reactor could easily spin out of control in the manner of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or now Fukushima. Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said. Dr Cywinski, who anchors a UK-wide thorium team, said the residual heat left behind in a crisis would be “orders of magnitude less” than in a uranium reactor. The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years. I write before knowing the outcome of the Fukushima drama, but as yet none of 15,000 deaths are linked to nuclear failure. Indeed, there has never been a verified death from nuclear power in the West in half a century. Perspective is in order. We cannot avoid the fact that two to three billion extra people now expect – and will obtain – a western lifestyle. China alone plans to produce 100m cars and buses every year by 2020. The International Atomic Energy Agency said the world currently has 442 nuclear reactors. They generate 372 gigawatts of power, providing 14pc of global electricity. Nuclear output must double over twenty years just to keep pace with the rise of the China and India. If a string of countries cancel or cut back future reactors, let alone follow Germany’s Angela Merkel in shutting some down, they shift the strain onto gas, oil, and coal. Since the West is also cutting solar subsidies, they can hardly expect the solar industry to plug the gap. BP’s disaster at Macondo should teach us not to expect too much from oil reserves deep below the oceans, beneath layers of blinding salt. Meanwhile, we rely uneasily on Wahabi repression to crush dissent in the Gulf and keep Arabian crude flowing our way. So where can we turn, unless we revert to coal and give up on the ice caps altogether? That would be courting fate. US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation. The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner. Dr Cywinski is developing an accelerator driven sub-critical reactor for thorium, a cutting-edge project worldwide. It needs to £300m of public money for the next phase, and £1.5bn of commercial investment to produce the first working plant. Thereafter, economies of scale kick in fast. The idea is to make pint-size 600MW reactors. Yet any hope of state support seems to have died with the Coalition budget cuts, and with it hopes that Britain could take a lead in the energy revolution. It is understandable, of course. Funds are scarce. The UK has already put its efforts into the next generation of uranium reactors. Yet critics say vested interests with sunk costs in uranium technology succeeded in chilling enthusiasm. The same happened a decade ago to a parallel project by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research). France’s nuclear industry killed proposals for funding from Brussels, though a French group is now working on thorium in Grenoble. Norway’s Aker Solution has bought Professor Rubbia’s patent. It had hoped to build the first sub-critical reactor in the UK, but seems to be giving up on Britain and locking up a deal to build it in China instead, where minds and wallets are more open. So the Chinese will soon lead on this thorium technology as well as molten-salts. Good luck to them. They are doing Mankind a favour. We may get through the century without tearing each other apart over scarce energy and wrecking the planet.

U.S. economic is competitive now
Sharma, Head of Emerging Markets at Morgan Stanley, 12
(Ruchir, August 3, “Comeback Nation: Why the U.S. Economy is Stronger than You Think,” http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/08/comeback-nation-why-the-us-economy-is-much-stronger-than-you-think/260634/, accessed 9-3-12, hec)

Usain Bolt is the most dominant sprinter the world has seen in a century, perhaps more, so when he runs at the London games, anything less than victory by a blistering margin will be greeted as a disappointment. Results are always relative to expectations, and this as true for global economic competition as for the 100-meter dash. These days, the United States is an underestimated underdog, while China is still widely seen as something more like Bolt.  The expectations gap is crucial to parsing the confused public discussion of the American recovery, and what it means for America's future. Since the crisis of 2008, most Americans have come to expect gloom rather than gold in the near future. The long-term US growth rate is now burdened by our huge debts, and is slowing to 2.5 percent, down from 3.4 percent between 1950 and 2007. This fall is stoking a premature sense that American preeminence is already over. Polls show that a majority of Americans think China is already the worlds "leading" economy, even though it is still about one third the size of the U.S. economy. The reality is that, at 2.5 percent growth, the US remains the fastest-growing rich economy, and is in fact regaining some of the recent ground lost to newcomers like China. America's performance should be measured against the current competition, not against the records it set in the 1990s or 2000s. All the big emerging markets are slowing, most notably China, which has lowered its growth target to under 8 percent for the first time in many years and may well fall under 7 percent. It is hard to grow at a sprinter's pace when you are hitting middle age, growing careful and a bit fat. China is all three, having recently reached an average real income of more than $5,000, with a total GDP of more than $7 trillion, and a new taste for welfare state programs. Every "miracle economy," from Japan in the 1970s to South Korea in the 1990s, slowed at this real income level. Unhappily, for those who like to imagine that globalization can produce "win-win" finishes, China's slowdown will be America's gain. The story of American growth slipping by a point will pale in comparison to the three or even four point slip in China. If the U.S. grows 2.5 percent this year, and China slips to 7 percent, the United States should regain the title it lost to China in 2007: that of the single largest contributor to global growth. This year, the United States will also grow faster than the global average for the first time since 2003, the year an unprecedented boom in emerging market growth began. For the next four years, emerging market growth doubled to over 7.0 percent, creating the widespread perception that the rich nations of the West were being overtaken by the rise of the poor. Now, the historic norm is reasserting itself  the big emerging nations are slowing dramatically, and the coming years are once again likely to produce more laggards than winners. As of 2007 the emerging markets were on average growing three times faster than the United States; now they are growing only twice as fast. Evidence of an American revival, against both developed and emerging world competition, is mounting, driven by the traditional strengths of the American economyits ability to innovate and adapt quickly. America's worst worries  heavy debt, slow growth, the fall of the dollar and the decline of manufacturing  will look much less troubling when compared to its direct rivals. While US growth has slowed by a full point so has growth in Japan and Europe, leaving the United States on top of the league of rich nations. In a global economy that is increasingly shaped by competing forms of capitalism, the American brand appears to be winning. Consider the key challenge of "deleveraging" or digging out from debt. A new study from the McKinsey Global Institute shows that the United States is the only major developed economy that is even loosely following the path of countries that successfully negotiated similar debt-induced recessions, like Sweden and Finland in the 1990s. Total debt as a share of GDP has fallen since 2008 by 16 percent in the United States, while rising in Germany and rising sharply in Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Spain. As in Sweden during the 90s, the fall in total US debt is due entirely to sharp cuts in the private sector, particularly the finance industry and private households. The weak link in the U.S. response to the debt crisis is the government. The Scandinavian cases show that government needs to start cutting spending and debt roughly four years after the downturn  exactly the stage where the US is today. Washington has so far failed to put in place a plan for long-term debt reduction, in part because some politicians and pundits are still pushing for more borrowing to ward off "depression." The Scandinavian cases suggest this is exactly the wrong worry right now. The public debt is a big reason that long-term US growth is likely to slow, but even then, it is important to keep America's debt problem in perspective. China is arguably worse off, with total debt equal to 180 percent of GDP. The more wealthy you are, the more debt you can carry, so America's total debt (350 percent) is actually less of a challenge. The most dramatic signs of a US revival are in manufacturing. Even as it was losing out to emerging manufacturing powers in the last decade, the U.S. was reacting much more quickly than other rich nations, by restraining wage growth, boosting the productivity of remaining workers with new technology, allowing a steady fall in the dollar that has made US exports much more competitive, particularly relative to Euro nations, and incorporating inexpensive new foreign sources into its supply chains. The result was that China's rise came largely at Europe's expense. Since 2004 China has gained market share in the export of goods and of manufactured goods, while Europe's share is falling and the US share has held steady. After losing 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last decade, the US gained half a million in the last 18 months while Europe, Canada and Japan lost jobs or saw no change. Energy is also rapidly emerging as an American competitive advantage. After falling for 25 years, the share of the US energy supply that comes from domestic sources has been rising since 2005, from 69 percent to around 80 percent, due to increasing production of oil and particularly natural gas. This is pushing US natural gas prices to the lowest rates in the world, inspiring manufacturers to relocate to the United States. Textiles was one of the first industries to leave the developed world, but recently Santana Textiles moved from Mexico to the US due to energy costs. The big danger in the U.S. remains that the government will fail to attack the debt problem. Just as it makes no sense to analyze emerging markets in terms of generic rubrics like BRICs, developed markets also need to be analyzed as individual stories. The dramatically different approaches of the developed nations to the basic challenges  deleveraging and maintaining strength in manufacturing  is going to put them on very different growth paths. And if you compare the United States to its rich peers, it has the best chance to be a Breakout Nation, particularly if Washington can get its game together and attack the public debt.

China investing in thorium now- trades off with US competitiveness
Martin, Wired Science Contributing Editor, 11
(Richard, February 1, “China Takes Lead in Race for Clean Nuclear Power,” http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/, accessed 8-23-12, hec)

China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source. The project was unveiled at the annual Chinese Academy of Sciences conference in Shanghai last week, and reported in the Wen Hui Bao newspaper (Google English translation here). If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy. “President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Hart, a retired semiconductor researcher and frequent commenter on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.” While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown. In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume. In the 1960s and 70s, the United States carried out extensive research on thorium and MSRs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. That work was abandoned — partly, believe many, because uranium reactors generated bomb-grade plutonium as a byproduct. Today, with nuclear weapons less in demand and cheap oil’s twilight approaching, several countries — including India, France and Norway — are pursuing thorium-based nuclear-fuel cycles. (The grassroots movement to promote an American thorium power supply was covered in this December 2009 Wired magazine feature.) China’s new program is the largest national thorium-MSR initiative to date. The People’s Republic had already announced plans to build dozens of new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, increasing its nuclear power supply 20-fold and weaning itself off coal, of which it’s now one of the world’s largest consumers. Designing a thorium-based molten-salt reactor could place China at the forefront of the race to build environmentally safe, cost-effective and politically palatable reactors. “We need a better stove that can burn more fuel,” Xu Hongjie, a lead researcher at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, told Wen Hui Bao. China’s program is headed by Jiang Mianheng, son of the former Chinese president Jiang Zemin. A vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the younger Jiang holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Drexel University. A Chinese delegation headed by Jiang revealed the thorium plans to Oak Ridge scientists during a visit to the national lab last fall.The official announcement comes as the Obama administration has committed itself to funding R&D for next-generation nuclear technology. The president specifically mentioned Oak Ridge National Laboratory in his State of the Union address Jan. 25, but no government-funded program currently exists to develop thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel. A Chinese thorium-based nuclear power supply is seen by many nuclear advocates and analysts as a threat to U.S. economic competitiveness. During a presentation at Oak Ridge on Jan. 31, Jim Kennedy, CEO of St. Louis–based Wings Enterprises (which is trying to win approval to start a mine for rare earths and thorium at Pea Ridge, Missouri) portrayed the Chinese thorium development as potentially crippling. “If we miss the boat on this, how can we possibly compete in the world economy?” Kennedy asked. “What else do we have left to export?” According to thorium advocates, the United States could find itself 20 years from now importing technology originally developed nearly four decades ago at one of America’s premier national R&D facilities. The alarmist version of China’s next-gen nuclear strategy comes down to this: If you like foreign-oil dependency, you’re going to love foreign-nuclear dependency. “When I heard this, I thought, ‘Oboy, now it’s happened,’” said Kirk Sorensen, chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering and creator of the Energy From Thorium blog. “Maybe this will get some people’s attention in Washington.” While the international “Generation IV” nuclear R&D initiative includes a working group on thorium MSRs, China has made clear its intention to go it alone. The Chinese Academy of Sciences announcement explicitly states that the PRC plans to develop and control intellectual property around thorium for its own benefit. “This will enable China to firmly grasp the lifeline of energy in its own hands,” stated the Wen Hui Baoreport.

Chinese domination of the thorium market dooms U.S. economic competitiveness – plan solves
Halper, Smart Planet Contributing Editor: Energy, 12
(Mark, June, 29, “Two & a Half Nations Start Thorium Nuclear Power Research,” New Energy and Fuel, http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/06/29/two-a-half-nations-start-thorium-nuclear-power-research/, accessed 8-23-2012, hec)

According to a March presentation at the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) on thorium molten salt reactors, Peter Lyons DOE’s assistant secretary for nuclear energy is co-chairing the partnership’s executive committee, along with Jiang Mianheng from the CAS. CAS is a Chinese government group overseeing about 100 research institutes. The CAS and the DOE have established what CAS calls the “CAS and DOE Nuclear Energy Cooperation Memorandum of Understanding.” The CAS presentation describes a China that’s keenly interested in thorium as a future CO2-free source of power in a country choking on the emissions of its coal fired power plants. One prime reason for China’s interest in thorium is it has an ample supply of thorium, which occurs in monazite, a mineral that also contains rare earths, the metals that are vital for industrial production of most high tech products. China dominates the world’s rare earth market and is believed to be sitting on substantial stockpiles of thorium that it has already extracted from the rare earth mining and processing. China is said to be developing at least two thorium reactors, and is looking at molten salt technology as well as at another approach that triggers a thorium reaction by using a particle accelerator – a technique pioneered by Nobel Prize winning physicist and former CERN director Carlo Rubbia. The deal with the DOE is an effort to better understand the workings of the molten salt variety, which the U.S. has already build, run, and tested – over 40 years ago.  No industrial espionage needed – the information and technical advice seems to be part of the deal. What isn’t known is what the U.S. gets from the deal.  So much for an open and accountable government – again.  Oddly, the U.S. could have chosen to commercialize thorium-fueled reactors and by now would be a massive leading exporter of reactors. It looks like a one-way technical flow for now.  At least China can get going and offer the world a better reactor than uranium fueled light water designs.  When that happens weapons proliferation worries could be reduced. Meanwhile in India, at about the same time, came the announcement India is planning to establish a nuclear power plant that uses thorium.  Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) chairman R K Sinha said, “It is natural for India to go for thorium reactors given the abundance in its supply in the country. We are in the process of selecting an appropriate site for establishing one.”  Sinha said the country already has the technological know-how to use thorium. However, for large-scale use of thorium, the country will need two decades adding, “We have to assess the thorium-powered reactor on various aspects in the long-term before replicating similar models in bigger ways.” India may seem to be going much slower than the Chinese.  Since the international embargo after the 1974 Indian nuclear test, India has developed almost 100% indigenous technology for their nuclear program, making India self-reliant on nuclear energy. India could very well choose to accelerate their effort, most of the U.S. materials are available either though a government deal or from private concerns looking for a partner.  They could catch up and surge ahead very quickly. Both China and India are energy hungry and have capital to allocate. The U.S. has debt and intellectual property.  But there is little hope the current U.S. government realizes what a boon they offer. There is also competition.  Russia has also run its early research and could offer their intellectual property, too.  However getting paid might be a very difficult proposition. Two countries are heading into thorium-fueled reactors.  A third is playing along with its load of old knowhow and one can bet the competition will be on site soon as well. This bodes well for thorium reactors getting underway.  It doesn’t bode well for America.  The U.S. investment is being lost to others for their economic benefit.  Still, over the coming decades thorium reactors could get very small, low cost and quite safe. With the U.S. government deeply regulating and delaying every part of nuclear power it comes as no surprise that up and coming countries would seize the opportunity.  Thorium will get going, in a cheap mass produced way, operating much like what the U.S. ran over 40 years ago. Since then a lot of intellectual property on liquid fluoride cooled thorium fueled reactors has been developed privately and will likely go on sale soon.  Too bad those high tech jobs, the new innovations and the sales, profits and taxes will all occur in other countries. But that’s what happens when the leadership is political and regulatory instead of creative and entrepreneurial.

Falling behind on thorium would be an economic disaster for the U.S.
Westenhaus, Editor of New Energy and Fuel, 6-29-12
(Brian, “Two & a Half Nations Start Thorium Nuclear Power Research,” accessed 8-20-12, http://newenergyandfuel.com/http:/newenergyandfuel/com/2012/06/29/two-a-half-nations-start-thorium-nuclear-power-research/) 

Both China and India are energy hungry and have capital to allocate. The U.S. has debt and intellectual property.  But there is little hope the current U.S. government realizes what a boon they offer. There is also competition.  Russia has also run its early research and could offer their intellectual property, too.  However getting paid might be a very difficult proposition. Two countries are heading into thorium-fueled reactors.  A third is playing along with its load of old knowhow and one can bet the competition will be on site soon as well. This bodes well for thorium reactors getting underway.  It doesn’t bode well for America.  The U.S. investment is being lost to others for their economic benefit.  Still, over the coming decades thorium reactors could get very small, low cost and quite safe. With the U.S. government deeply regulating and delaying every part of nuclear power it comes as no surprise that up and coming countries would seize the opportunity.  Thorium will get going, in a cheap mass produced way, operating much like what the U.S. ran over 40 years ago. Since then a lot of intellectual property on liquid fluoride cooled thorium fueled reactors has been developed privately and will likely go on sale soon.  Too bad those high tech jobs, the new innovations and the sales, profits and taxes will all occur in other countries. But that’s what happens when the leadership is political and regulatory instead of creative and entrepreneurial.

Chinese domination of the thorium power sector ensures U.S. economic collapse—now is our one and only chance to prevent it
Martin, Pike Research Editorial Director, 12
(Richard, Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, page 212)

In chapter 10, I will examine the imperial decline aspects of the race for thorium power. Briefly, Kennedy’s argument went like this: the United States has ceded not only its manufacturing industries and its long-term fiscal stability to other countries, most notably China, but also its technological leadership. China already controls the rare earths industry, monopolizing the production of materials crucial to high-tech products as well as the green energy sector; if it’s allowed to control the emerging thorium power industry as well, the space for U.S. manufacturing, technology R&D, and energy innovation will be essentially closed. The U.S. economy will continue to decline, energy prices will skyrocket, and the value of the dollar will collapse. General chaos and misery will ensue. That’s the Black Swan version. “This is the last and only opportunity that America will ever have at doing this,” Kennedy told me. “If we miss it, we’re toast.” 

Competitiveness is key to economy- exports and trade
Raidt, senior fellow, Atlantic Council, 12
(John, “SERIES: The Eight Factors of American Competitiveness - Chapter Two: Open Markets,” 3-23-12, http://www.freeenterprise.com/economy-taxes/series-eight-factors-american-competitiveness, accessed 9-8-12, ara)

Bottom line: Despite the complex challenges our economy faces, America has more going for it than any country on earth. We remain a hotbed of innovation with a long track record of invention and a world-leading capacity for problem solving. We have sophisticated global companies and fertile small businesses. We are the best in the world at logistics and supply chain management. We have plenty of what the world needs and desires: food, energy, innovative products of every kind, and highly sought-after arts, entertainment, and culture. We have a political and economic system the world is imitating. Yet, if we are to remain an example to the world, achieve the greatness to which we aspire; and assure job creators we can deliver the demand they need and keep the cycle of American prosperity churning strong, we also have much work to do. We must end political gridlock and right the nation’s economic ship to restore consumer and business confidence and demand. This includes fixing our broken budget and instituting competitive tax policies that promote purchasing power, investment, and hiring. We must embark on an ambitious, job-creating trade promotion program that vanquishes trade barriers, strengthens mechanisms to protect U.S. rights, ensures that trade terms are enforced, and clarifies incoherent international rules and standards that impede the sale of U.S. goods and services overseas. We must expand programs to mentor and assist U.S. small and medium-sized companies to seize foreign trade and procurement opportunities and to help them navigate foreign customs procedures and regulations. We must remodel U.S. export controls and procedures to enhance U.S. competitiveness and protect national security; and modernize U.S. transportation infrastructure to keep American commerce humming and our goods on the move. Through it all we must remain responsive to job creators’ need for access to growing vibrant markets at home and abroad if they are to perform their essential functions in a free and prosperous society.

Decline causes war
Royal, director of Cooperative Threat Reduction at the U.S. Department of Defense, 10
(Jedediah, Economics of War and Peace: Economic, Legal, and Political Perspectives, pg 213-215, ldg)

Less intuitive is how periods of economic decline may increase the likelihood of external conflict. Political science literature has contributed a moderate degree of attention to the impact of economic decline and the security and defense behavior of interdependent states. Research in this vein has been considered at systemic, dyadic and national levels. Several notable contributions follow. First, on the systemic level, Pollins (2008) advances Modelski and Thompson’s (1996) work on leadership cycle theory, finding that rhythms in the global economy are associated with the rise and fall of a pre-eminent power and the often bloody transition from one pre-eminent leader to the next. As such, exogenous shocks such as economic crises could usher in a redistribution of relative power (see also Gilpin, 1981) that leads to uncertainty about power balances, increasing the risk of miscalculation (Fearon 1995). Alternatively, even a relatively certain redistribution of power could lead to a permissive environment for conflicts as a rising power may seek to challenge a declining power (Werner, 1999). Separately, Pollins (1996) also shows that global economic cycles combined with parallel leadership cycles impact the likelihood of conflict among major, medium and small powers, although he suggests that the causes and connections between global economic conditions and security conditions remains unknown. Second, on a dyadic level, Copeland’s (1996, 2000) theory of trade expectations suggest that “future expectation of trade” is a significant variable in understanding economic conditions and security behavior of states. He argues that interdependent states are likely to gain pacific benefits from trade so long as they have an optimistic view of future trade relations. However, if the expectations of future trade decline, particularly for difficult to replace item such as energy resources, the likelihood for conflict increases, as states will be inclined to use force to gain access to those resources. Crises could potentially be the trigger for decreased trade expectations either on its own or because it triggers protectionist moves by interdependent states. Third, others have considered the link between economic decline and external armed conflict at a national level. Blomberg and Hess (2002) find a strong correlation between internal conflict and external conflict, particularly during periods of economic downturn. They write, The linkages between internal and external conflict and prosperity are strong and mutually reinforcing. Economic conflict tends to spawn internal conflict, which in turn returns the favor. Moreover, the presence of a recession tends to amplify the extent to which international and external conflicts self-reinforce each other. (Blomberg and Hess, 2002, p. 89) Economic decline has also been linked with an increase in the likelihood of terrorism (Blomberg, Hess and Weerapana, 2004), which has the capacity to spill across borders and lead to external tensions. Furthermore, crises generally reduce the popularity of a sitting government. “Diversionary theory” suggests that, when facing unpopularity arising from economic decline, sitting governments have increased incentives to fabricate external military conflicts to create a “rally around the flag” effect. Wang (1996), DeRouen (1995) and Blomberg, Hess and Thacker (2006) find supporting evidence showing that economic decline and use of force are at least indirectly correlated. Gelpi (1997), Miller (1999), and Kisangani and Pickering (2009) suggest that the tendency towards diversionary tactics are greater for democratic states than autocratic states due to the fact the democratic leaders are generally more susceptible to being removed from office due to lack of domestic support. De DeRouen (2000) has provided evidence showing that periods of weak economic performance in the United States and thus weak Presidential popularity are statically linked to an increase in the use of force. In summary, recent economic scholarship positively correlates economic integration with an increase in the frequency of economic crises, whereas political science scholarship links economic decline with external conflict at systemic, dyadic and national levels. This implied connection between integration, crises and armed conflict has not featured prominently in economic-security debate and deserves more attention. This observation is not contradictory to other perspectives that link economic interdependence with a decrease in the likelihood of external conflict, such as those mentioned in the first paragraph of this chapter. Those studies tend to focus on dyadic interdependence instead of global interdependence and do not specifically consider the occurrence of and conditions created by economic crises. As such the view presented here should be considered ancillary to those views. 

Thorium AFF—Advantage—U.S. Clean Energy Leadership
U.S. leadership in clean energy markets is key to the economy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 08
(“Strengthening U.S. Leadership  of International Clean Energy Cooperation,” December 2008, accessed 8-20-12, http://www.nrel.gov/international/pdfs/44261.pdf)

Climate change, the growing demand for fossil fuel resources, energy security, and sustainable development issues are recognized worldwide as critical challenges that require immediate attention. These concerns have helped create a growing consensus that global energy systems need to undergo a fundamental transformation toward clean energy technologies in the coming decades. At the same time, U.S. leadership in global clean energy markets has declined and economic opportunities are being lost to other countries. Through revitalized international clean energy programs, the United States can reap substantial economic, energy security, environmental, and global sustainable development benefits. These benefits include: o Providing direct economic benefits to the United States—jobs, price reductions, economic stability, and enhanced trade balance o Speeding the rate of development and market introduction of advanced clean energy technologies o Enhancing the competitiveness of U.S. industry o Tackling climate change and energy security through international cooperation These benefits are summarized in Table 2 and presented in quantitative terms in the opportunity and benefits assessment section that follows.

U.S. leadership in clean energy markets are key to the overall economy
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 08
(“Strengthening U.S. Leadership  of International Clean Energy Cooperation,” December 2008, accessed 8-20-12, http://www.nrel.gov/international/pdfs/44261.pdf)

Economic and Market Benefits U.S. leadership in clean energy markets will result in three types of direct economic benefits. First, U.S. clean energy businesses could increase their exports by up to $40 billion per year in 2020 and by $40-200 billion in 2050. Decreased oil global consumption will reduce oil prices relative to the baseline, saving U.S. consumers $10-50 billion in 2020 and $75-$200 billion in 2050. By improving the U.S. balance of trade and strengthening the dollar, the increased exports and decreased costs of oil imports will create up to $25 billion per year of additional savings in 2020 and up to $60 billion per year in 2050. Increased Clean Energy Exports U.S. leadership in promoting clean energy internationally would enable U.S. manufacturers to dramatically increase their exports, with gains of up to $40 billion in 2020 and $40-$200 billion per year in 2050. A robust U.S. clean energy industry will create significant new employment in the United States, between 250,000 and 750,000 jobs in 2020 and between 3 million and 8 million in 2050. Figure 1 illustrates the total growth in global renewable energy and energy efficiency markets and the corresponding increases in U.S. exports2 resulting from a global clean energy market transformation
Access to modern energy services is key to reduce global poverty
International Energy Agency, 11
(“Energy For All: Financing access for the poor,” October 2011, accessed 9-2-12, http://www.iea.org/Papers/2011/weo2011_energy_for_all.pdf) 

Energy is a critical enabler. Every advanced economy has required secure access to modern sources of energy to underpin its development and growing prosperity. While many developed countries may be focused on domestic energy security or decarbonizing their energy mix, many other countries are still seeking to secure enough energy to meet basic human needs. In developing countries, access to affordable and reliable energy services is fundamental to reducing poverty and improving health, increasing productivity, enhancing competitiveness and promoting economic growth. Despite the importance of these matters, billions of people continue to be without basic modern energy services, lacking reliable access to either electricity or clean cooking facilities. This situation is expected to change only a little by 2030 unless more vigorous action is taken. 

Global poverty kills tens of millions each year
Abu-Jamal, Social Activist, 9-19-98
(Mumia, “A Quiet and Deadly Violence,” accessed 9-3-12, http://www.angelfire.com/az/catchphraze/mumiaswords.html#quiet) 

The deadliest form of violence is poverty. –Ghandi It has often been observed that America is a truly violent nation, as shown by the thousands of cases of social and communal violence that occurs daily in the nation. Every year, some 20,000 people are killed by others, and additional 20,000 folks kill themselves. Add to this the nonlethal violence that Americans daily inflict on each other, and we begin to see the tracings of a nation immersed in a fever of violence. But, as remarkable, and harrowing as this level and degree of violence is, it is, by far, not the most violent features of living in the midst of the American empire. We live, equally immersed, and to a deeper degree, in a nation that condones and ignores wide-ranging "structural' violence, of a kind that destroys human life with a breathtaking ruthlessness. Former Massachusetts prison official and writer, Dr. James Gilligan observes; By "structural violence" I mean the increased rates of death and disability suffered by those who occupy the bottom rungs of society, as contrasted by those who are above them. Those excess deaths (or at least a demonstrably large proportion of them) are a function of the class structure; and that structure is itself a product of society's collective human choices, concerning how to distribute the collective wealth of the society. These are not acts of God. I am contrasting "structural" with "behavioral violence" by which I mean the non-natural deaths and injuries that are caused by specific behavioral actions of individuals against individuals, such as the deaths we attribute to homicide, suicide, soldiers in warfare, capital punishment, and so on.  (Gilligan, J., MD, Violence: Reflections On a National Epidemic (New York: Vintage, 1996), 192.) This form of violence, not covered by any of the majoritarian, corporate, ruling-class protected media, is invisible to us and because of its invisibility, all the more insidious. How dangerous is itreally? Gilligan notes: [E]very fifteen years, on the average, as many people die because of relative poverty as would be killed in a nuclear war that caused 232 million deaths; and every single year, two to three times as many people die from poverty throughout the world as were killed by the Nazi genocide of the Jews over a six-year period. This is, in effect, the equivalent of an ongoing, unending, in fact accelerating, thermonuclear war, or genocide on the weak and poor every year of every decade, throughout the world. [Gilligan, p. 196]

                                                   Advantage 3: Hegomony

1. Multipolarity won’t solve the turns-US power is necessary.
   Brooks and Wohlforth, government professors at Dartmouth, 2002
   (Stephen and William, “American Primacy in Perspective”, Foreign Affairs; Jul/Aug2002, Vol. 81 Issue 4, p20-33, 14p, ebsco, ldg)

Some might question the worth of being at the top of a unipolar system if that means serving as a lightning rod for the world's malcontents. When there was a Soviet Union, after all, it bore the brunt of Osama bin Laden's anger, and only after its collapse did he shift his focus to the United States (an indicator of the demise of bipolarity that was ignored at the time but looms larger in retrospect). But terrorism has been a perennial problem in history, and multipolarity did not save the leaders of several great powers from assassination by anarchists around the turn of the twentieth century. In fact, a slide back toward multipolarity would actually be the worst of all worlds for the United States. In such a scenario it would continue to lead the pack and serve as a focal point for resentment and hatred by both state and nonstate actors, but it would have fewer carrots and sticks to use in dealing with the situation. The threats would remain, but the possibility of effective and coordinated action against them would be reduced. 

2. Multipolarity causes nuclear war.
Arbatov, corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2007
(Alexi, “Is a New Cold War Imminent?”, 8-8, http://eng.globalaffairs.ru/number/n_9127, ldg)

However, the low probability of a new Cold War and the collapse of American unipolarity (as a political doctrine, if not in reality) cannot be a cause for complacency. Multipolarity, existing objectively at various levels and interdependently, holds many difficulties and threats. For example, if the Russia-NATO confrontation persists, it can do much damage to both parties and international security. Or, alternatively, if Kosovo secedes from Serbia, this may provoke similar processes in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria, and involve Russia in armed conflicts with Georgia and Moldova, two countries that are supported by NATO. Another flash point involves Ukraine. In the event of Kiev’s sudden admission into the North Atlantic Alliance (recently sanctioned by the U.S. Congress), such a move may divide Ukraine and provoke mass disorders there, thus making it difficult for Russia and the West to refrain from interfering. Meanwhile, U.S. plans to build a missile defense system in Central and Eastern Europe may cause Russia to withdraw from the INF Treaty and resume programs for producing intermediate-range missiles. Washington may respond by deploying similar missiles in Europe, which would dramatically increase the vulnerability of Russia’s strategic forces and their control and warning systems. This could make the stage for nuclear confrontation even tenser. Other “centers of power” would immediately derive benefit from the growing Russia-West standoff, using it in their own interests. China would receive an opportunity to occupy even more advantageous positions in its economic and political relations with Russia, the U.S. and Japan, and would consolidate its influence in Central and South Asia and the Persian Gulf region. India, Pakistan, member countries of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and some exalted regimes in Latin America would hardly miss their chance, either. A multipolar world that is not moving toward nuclear disarmament is a world of an expanding Nuclear Club. While Russia and the West continue to argue with each other, states that are capable of developing nuclear weapons of their own will jump at the opportunity. The probability of nuclear weapons being used in a regional conflict will increase significantly. International Islamic extremism and terrorism will increase dramatically; this threat represents the reverse side of globalization. The situation in Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Middle East, and North and East Africa will further destabilize. The wave of militant separatism, trans-border crime and terrorism will also infiltrate Western Europe, Russia, the U.S., and other countries. The surviving disarmament treaties (the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) will collapse. In a worst-case scenario, there is the chance that an adventuresome regime will initiate a missile launch against territories or space satellites of one or several great powers with a view to triggering an exchange of nuclear strikes between them. Another high probability is the threat of a terrorist act with the use of a nuclear device in one or several major capitals of the world.
Chinese and Indian development of thorium is inevitable—lack of corresponding U.S. thorium development dooms the economy, international leadership efforts and military strength
Martin, Pike Research Editorial Director, 12
(Richard, Super Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, page 237-239)

They are right about one thing: the United States is not likely to be at the center of the thorium power revolution. Here’s a more likely scenario. Discovering the advantages of thorium technology, the Chinese accelerated their program to build a dozen LFTRs in the next 15 years. They recruit the top thorium talent in the world and co-opt the nascent Japanese program, signing lucrative contracts with the top nuclear suppliers in Japan and South Korea, thus compressing further the R&D timeline. By 2030 China is the leading source of LFTR technology—and of raw thorium fuel—in the world. India, watching its Asian rival move rapidly to the fore in advanced nuclear power, shifts its three-stage program to a more accelerated development schedule based on solid fuel technology from TerraPower and Lightbridge. Using its huge reserves of thorium as leverage with other emerging thorium power nations, such as the United Arab Emirates, India builds a thriving thorium power sector, building reactors at a slower pace than China but, by 2030, becoming a leader in its own right. Enhanced energy security, and the economic power and diplomatic prestige that come with it, allow India to reach a lasting détente with its perennial foe, Pakistan. Farther east, on the Pacific Rim, both Japan and South Korea rapidly build thorium reactor technology sectors, supplying China and India with the advanced materials and components they need while starting to build thorium reactors of their own. By 2030 the fastest-growing source of electricity in Asia is thorium power; by 2050 liquid fluoride thorium reactors are supplying a significant fraction of the power not only in China, India, Japan, and Korea but also in secondary, technology-importing countries like Vietnam, Taiwan, Singapore, and Indonesia. Watching this transformation unfold in Asia, the nations of Western Europe—led by France, Norway, and the Czech Republic, already in 2012 the home of significant thorium R&D efforts—belatedly underwrite their own thorium power programs. While the European Union attempts to establish its own thorium power technology, low-cost equipment and fuel from Asia prove irresistible, and China becomes the Saudi Arabia of the new nuclear-powered world. And the United States? Saddled with debt, paralyzed by wooden-headed political opposition to taking action to reverse climate change, and bound to powerful fossil fuel and nuclear power sectors and their well-funded lobbyists, the United States enters an irreversible cycle of declining living standards, diminishing international stature, and ravaged cities. Civil unrest ensues, and the collapse of our political institutions accelerates. Our top graduates, unfulfilled by their professional prospects at home, emigrate to booming technological centers like Shanghai, Singapore, and Seoul. Our vaunted military, unable to procure energy for its far-flung overseas missions, contracts. As in fourth-century Rome, the roads decay, harbors silt up, the legions become disaffected, and the elite retreat into their marble palaces. All because we failed to capitalize on a technology that we once held in our hands. 

U.S. hegemony is vital to preventing great power war and decreasing overall levels of conflict and violence globally
Kagan, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 12
(Robert, The World America Made, page 48-51) 

We now know this judgment, which seemed so sensible at the time, was mistaken. The outbreak of World War I, the most deadly and destructive war in history, a mere four years after Angell’s best seller, revealed a failure of imagination on the part of an entire generation. They simply were not able to imagine that national leaders would behave irrationally, that they would sacrifice economic interests, even bankrupt their treasuries, out of a combination of ambition and fear, that they would view territory as a worthy object of war, that they would use all the horrible weapons at their disposal without a second thought—in violation of international agreements whose ink had barely dried—and that in all this they would have behind them the enthusiastic support of their people stirred by a very un-cosmopolitan nationalist pride. Today we suffer from a similar lack of imagination. Once again the conventional wisdom is that great-power conflict is “literally unthinkable.” Even the arguments are the same: economic interdependence, globalization, the irrelevance of territory, the spread of democracy, the unthinkable destructiveness of war in the nuclear age, the belief that nations and peoples have become “socialized” to favor peace over war, that they value life more and feel greater empathy for others—all these have made great-power war irrational and therefore impossible. And, adding force to these arguments, once again, is the long peace we have enjoyed, the remarkable six decades without great-power conflict. Yet we have less excuse than our forebears to believe that humankind has reached a new level of enlightenment. The optimists of the early twentieth century had not witnessed two world wars, the genocides, and the other horrors of our supposedly advanced era. They had not witnesses the rise of Nazism and fascism. We have seen it all and, in historical terms, quite recently. It was just seven decades ago that the United States was at war with imperial Japan, Nazi Germany, and fascist Italy. It was just thirty-five years ago that Henry Kissinger asked Americans to accommodate themselves to the permanent reality of Soviet power, with its thousands of nuclear warheads aimed at American and European cities and thousands of American warheads aimed at Russia. The twentieth century was the bloodiest in all history, and we are but a dozen years into the twenty-first. It is premature for us to conclude, after ten thousand years of war, that a few decades and some technological innovations would change the nature of man and the nature of international relations. People are right to point to the spread of democracy and the free-market, free-trade economic system as important factors in the maintenance of great-power peace. Where they err is in believing these conditions are either sufficient or self-sustaining. In fact, these are more the consequence of great peace than the cause. In 1914, democracy and prosperity did not put an end to great-power war, but great-power war certainly helped put an end to them. Pinker traces the beginning of a long-term decline in deaths from war to 1945, which just happens to be the birth date of the American world order. The coincidence eludes him, but it need not elude us. The power of the United States has been the biggest factor in the preservation of great-power peace. It has also been a major factor in the spread of democracy and in the creation and maintenance of a liberal economic order. But America’s most important role has been to dampen and deter the normal tendencies of other great powers in the system to compete and jostle with one another in ways that historically have led to war. It is hard to measure events that don’t happen, to guess what wars might have broken out had the United States not played the role it has played during the past sixty-five years. The only guide we have is history and a general understanding of the way great powers normally behave. We know, for instance, what Europe and Asia looked like before the United States entered the picture and changed the power equations in both regions. Germany after its defeat in World War I sought to rearm, to regain lost territory and lost honor, to protect itself against former enemies, and to restore itself as a great power. Japan from the late nineteenth century onward sought regional hegemony and coveted territory on the Asian mainland. But when American power was added to these equations after World War II, both nations took entirely different paths, as did the nations around them. Had the American variable been absent, the outcome would have been different. American power also shaped Soviet behavior throughout the Cold War. The extent of the Soviet reach into Europe was determined by the disposition of military forces at the end of World War II, not nu the modesty of Soviet ambitions. Soviet probes in Berlin from 1948 through 1961, had they not been met by the implicit and explicit threat of American force, would have changed the situation in Germany profoundly. The lack of Soviet aggressiveness in Europe thereafter, as well as in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf, was a response to red lines drawn by the United States and its allies. Even today, the continuing large gap in power between the United States and the other great powers tends to dampen natural competitive rivalries and deters attempts to establish regional hegemonies by force. 

The timeframe is quick—perception of loss of U.S. hegemony instantly starts to unravel the liberal world order
Kagan, Brookings Institute Senior Fellow, 12
(Robert, The World America Made, page 139)

What has made the United States most attractive to much of the world has not been its culture, its wisdom, or even its ideals alone. At times these have played a part; at times they have been irrelevant. More consistent has been the attraction of America’s power, the manner in which it uses it, and the ends for which it has been used. What has been true since the time of Rome remains true today: there can be no world order without power to preserve it, to shape its norms, uphold its institutions, defend the sinews of its economic system, and keep the peace. Military power can be abused, wielded unwisely and ineffectively. It can be deployed to answer problems that it cannot answer or that have no answer. But it is also essential. No nation or group of nations that renounced power could expect to maintain any kind of world order. If the United States begins to look like a less reliable defender of the present order, that order will begin to unravel. People might find Americans in this weaker state very attractive indeed, but if the United States cannot help them when and where they need help the most, they will have to make other arrangements