Fear of violent outbursts of international violence overseas construct Others as

1NC

ISIS is planning a nuclear attack on American soil now—they’ll get wmd from Pakistan.

Blosser 6/3- internally cites ISIS magazines and US Gen. John Kelly (John, “ISIS Vows to Smuggle Nuke Over Mexican Border”, Newsmax, 6/3/15, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/ISIS-smuggle-nuclear-weapon/2015/06/03/id/648560/#ixzz3eC9BinqS)//WK

The Islamic State (ISIS) claims it has plans to buy a nuclear weapon from Pakistan and smuggle it into the U.S., using drug and human smuggling routes already in use by Mexican and South American drug cartels. In ISIS's online magazine Dabiq, in an article entitled, "The Perfect Storm," apparently written and narrated by British captive photojournalist John Cantlie, ISIS says that using "billions of dollars" it has banked, the group could purchase a nuclear device from corrupt Pakistani officials and send it on its way to explode in the U.S., the Daily Mail reports. The bomb could be smuggled overland through Libya into Nigeria along already active drug smuggling routes into Europe, using the ISIS-allied terrorist group Boko Haram. After that, the bomb would be transported by boat to Central America and then through Mexico, Breitbart News reports. From there, Cantlie said, "It’s just a quick hop through a smuggling tunnel and hey, presto, they’re mingling with another 12 million 'illegal' aliens in America with a nuclear bomb in the trunk of their car." With eerie prescience, Gen. John Kelly, at the time commander of the U.S. Southern Command, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, warned that ISIS could utilize Latin American drug smuggling networks to move personnel and weapons into the U.S., Breitbart News reported. "I am deeply concerned that smuggling networks are a vulnerability that terrorists could seek to exploit," Breitbart News reports Kelly said. "While there is not yet any indication that the criminal networks involved in human and drug trafficking are interested in supporting the efforts of terrorist groups, these networks could unwittingly, or even wittingly, facilitate the movement of terrorist operatives or weapons of mass destruction toward our borders, potentially undetected and almost completely unrestricted." "Perhaps such a scenario is far-fetched but it’s the sum of all fears for western intelligence agencies and it’s infinitely more possible today than it was just one year ago," Cantlie wrote, the Daily Mail reported. He noted that even if a nuclear weapon were not available, ISIS could use those routes to smuggle tons of conventional explosives into America. "The Islamic State make no secret of the fact they have every intention of attacking America on its home soil and they’re not going to mince about with two mujahidin taking down a dozen casualties if it originates from the caliphate. 'They’ll be looking to do something big, something that would make any past operation look like a squirrel shoot, and the more groups that pledge allegiance, the more possible it becomes to pull off something truly epic."

Surveillance is the best counter-terror strategy

Lewis ’14 [James Andrew Lewis is a senior fellow and director of the Strategic Technologies Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C., where he writes on technology, security, and the international economy, “Underestimating Risk in the Surveillance Debate,” http://csis.org/files/publication/141209_Lewis_UnderestimatingRisk_Web.pdf]

Broad surveillance of communications is the least intrusive and most effective method for discovering terrorist and espionage activity. Many countries have expanded surveillance programs since the 9/11 attacks to detect and prevent terrorist activity, often in cooperation with other countries, including the United States. Precise metrics on risk and effectiveness do not exist for surveillance, and we are left with conflicting opinions from intelligence officials and civil libertarians as to what makes counterterrorism successful. Given resurgent authoritarianism and continuing jihad, the new context for the surveillance debate is that the likelihood of attack is increasing. Any legislative change should be viewed through this lens.

Nuclear terror makes the US lash out—that kills billions.

Myhrvold 2014 (Nathan P [chief executive and founder of Intellectual Ventures and a former chief technology officer at Microsoft]; Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action; cco.dodlive.mil/files/2014/04/Strategic_Terrorism_corrected_II.pdf)

Technology contains no inherent moral directive—it empowers people, whatever their intent, good or evil. This has always been true: when bronze implements supplanted those made of stone, the ancient world got scythes and awls, but also swords and battle-axes. The novelty of our present situation is that modern technology can provide small groups of people with much greater lethality than ever before. We now have to worry that private parties might gain access to weapons that are as destructive as—or possibly even more destructive than— those held by any nation-state. A handful of people, perhaps even a single individual, could have the ability to kill millions or even billions. Indeed, it is possible, from a technological standpoint, to kill every man, woman, and child on earth. The gravity of the situation is so extreme that getting the concept across without seeming silly or alarmist is challenging. Just thinking about the subject with any degree of seriousness numbs the mind. The goal of this essay is to present the case for making the needed changes before such a catastrophe occurs. The issues described here are too important to ignore. Failing nation-states—like North Korea—which possess nuclear weapons potentially pose a nuclear threat. Each new entrant to the nuclear club increases the possibility this will happen, but this problem is an old one, and one that existing diplomatic and military structures aim to manage. The newer and less understood danger arises from the increasing likelihood that stateless groups, bent on terrorism, will gain access to nuclear weapons, most likely by theft from a nation-state. Should this happen, the danger we now perceive to be coming from rogue states will pale in comparison. The ultimate response to a nuclear attack is a nuclear counterattack. Nation states have an address, and they know that we will retaliate in kind. Stateless groups are much more difficult to find which makes a nuclear counterattack virtually impossible. As a result, they can strike without fear of overwhelming retaliation, and thus they wield much more effective destructive power. Indeed, in many cases the fundamental equation of retaliation has become reversed. Terrorists often hope to provoke reprisal attacks on their own people, swaying popular opinion in their favor. The aftermath of 9/11 is a case in point. While it seems likely that Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hoped for a massive overreaction from the United States, it is unlikely his Taliban hosts anticipated the U.S. would go so far as to invade Afghanistan. Yes, al-Qaeda lost its host state and some personnel. The damage slowed the organization down but did not destroy it. Instead, the stateless al-Qaeda survived and adapted. The United States can claim some success against al-Qaeda in the years since 9/11, but it has hardly delivered a deathblow. Eventually, the world will recognize that stateless groups are more powerful than nation-states because terrorists can wield weapons and mount assaults that no nationstate would dare to attempt. So far, they have limited themselves to dramatic tactical terrorism: events such as 9/11, the butchering of Russian schoolchildren, decapitations broadcast over the internet, and bombings in major cities. Strategic objectives cannot be far behind.4