[eDebate] The Russia Problem

Josh jbhdb8
Mon Jul 6 18:22:44 CDT 2009


Hey,

Hmmm, so 3 for sure makes modifications to the US Russia Proposal T

-- Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that
at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons
but it would have to include whatever a substantial reduction in nuclear
weapons "is."

The question then becomes if either Topic One or Two creates any meaningful
limit to affirmatives that do modifications to the new Russia agreement.

*Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its
nuclear disarmament commitments. *

Resolution 1 would allow any modification that made US posture more
consistent with disarmament committments T (as long as you could win that
the modification was a substantial change in our posture).  So this becomes
a procedural question about what will be included in the new agreement
 *Resolution 2: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or
substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear
weapons arsenal. *

Resolution 2 would allow modifications that either reduced the size of the
arsenal or went beyond the agreement to restrict roles and or
missions....this seems MUCH more likely to allow small modifications
affirmatives - As long as you could claim that the modification reduced and
restricted the roles and/or missions of the US nuclear weapons arsenal you
are probably T.

I think this means its fairly easy depending on what roles and missions
means in its most limited form.

So, now that I think about it its possible one and three are the most
limited in regards to the Russia agreement.  I am sure this came up at the
topic committee (that the renegotiation of START could happen etc) what did
everyone conclude in regards to the resolutional wordings on the question of
"what if it happens"

Josh




On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> *First, what are the possible areas of the topics:*
> * *
> *1. Force Structure Policy *
>
> This is types of weapons and numbers of weapons - areas of concern would be
> numerical reductions, eliminating classes of weapons etc.
>
> *2. Declaratory Policy*
>
> Its what we declare we will do with weapons - negative security guarantess
> in general, no first use or no first strike pledges, Nuclear Weapons Free
> Zones etc.
>
> *3. Operational Policy *
>
> This is nuclear safety and targeting and level of alert
>
> *4. Non-proliferation Policy*
>
> Includes all arms control agreements (ctbt, fissile material cut offs, NPT
> negotiations), Disarmament, and BMD
>
> **** As an aside, I would STRONGLY suggest you start thinking about each
> area as our goal by GSU is to have a generic approach that covers each area.
>
> *So when you look at the topics:*
>
> *Resolution 1: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
> substantially change its nuclear posture to be more consistent with its
> nuclear disarmament commitments. *
>
> **The first question for this is what are our nuclear disarmament
> committments.  Article 4 of the NPT is clearly one - how was this
> operationalized at the topic committee Whit and AK?
>
> *Resolution 2: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
> substantially reduce the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal, and/or
> substantially reduce and restrict the role and/or missions of its nuclear
> weapons arsenal. *
>
> **This is Force Structure (size) ONLY or Force structure and Declatory
> Policy and Operational Policy or Declatory and Operational Policy (roles
> and/or missions)...I am pretty sure this excludes Non Prolif policy
> (although advantages might deal with non proliferation credibility.
>
> * Resolution 3: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
> substantially change its nuclear posture in one or more of the following
> ways:
> -- Ratification and implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
> Treaty
> -- Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and
> restricting the use of its nuclear weapons
> --A substantial reduction in the size of its nuclear weapons arsenal
> --Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that
> at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons
> --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear
> weapons.*
>
> ** I will be honest, I hate this topic, first its totally accidental why
> all these cases/areas are together.  Second, declartory policy doesnt reduce
> weapons it restricts the ways in which weapons are used.  Third, why are arm
> two and three any different since reductions are forced into declatory
> policy.  Fourth, negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement
> with Russia just happened.  I guess this topic most directly engages
> operational policy but those are the cases that I think will have NOTHING to
> do with the rest of the cases (GENERIC ground doesnt apply across all of
> these).
>
> I personally would likely vote for two because its more limited...but I
> like one ok as long as there are good definitions of what the US nuclear
> disarmament committments are.
>
> Obviously, everyone needs to discuss and vote, eventually send me your vote
> and I will tally and send in the ballots as usual,
>
> Josh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/14706127/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list