[eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me

Josh jbhdb8
Mon Jul 6 15:38:16 CDT 2009


An addendum, my whine about the CTBT was not the point of the post....yes, I
realize it is certainly topical under topic one for sure.

Thanks to Joshua G for making me clarify.
Josh
On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Josh <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am traditionally a list lover, however, I have to admit to having a TON
> of problems with this topic the more I do research on the area.
> **
> *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.*
> **
> My first objection is that parts are accidental (the list isnt bound by a
> common generic theme) and certain parts of this topic are different enough
> to make a squad looking for common generics to have problems.  I have always
> believed that lists are good when they are unified and debate out poorly
> when they are an attempt to shoe horn "cases" into a list.  This is the
> latter IMHO.  I supect you will say Deterrence DA applies to all of these
> things and thats probably so although I suspect operational readiness might
> have some interesting holes to expose in that one.
> **
> Second, the declartory policy arm arguably makes sense but is kind of
> confusing and certainly not using a term of art
> **
> *Adoption of a nuclear declaratory policy substantially reducing and
> restricting the use of its nuclear weapons *
>
> Reductions are force structure policy NOT declatory policy.  Declatory
> policy is NOT reductions....Even establishing NWFZones is not a reduction in
> the weapons or the use of weapons per se. I get that the topic says reducing
> the use of its weapons...but what the hell does that mean.  Either all
> declarations are a use of nuclear weapons meaning all changes of declatory
> policy reduce and restrict that use....OR it means actual reductions and
> restrictions of deployments.  In other words, its a confusing and
> unnecessary distinction (I assume you didnt want people to be able to
> increase uses of weapons through declatory policy but if the current policy
> is a use I am not sure if that is a meaningful distinction).
>
> Third, this is the real big problem:
>
> *Negotiation and implementation of a bilateral agreement with Russia that
> at least includes a substantial reduction in nuclear weapons *
>
> Guess what, the real life version of this was announced in principle as
> agreed to yesterday, minor modification affs become pretty sweet and hard to
> beat I suspect.
>
> I also had more than enough CTBT and its never ending sack of add-ons that
> were each more absurd than the one before (testing causes the center of the
> earth to warm accounting for global warming was one such gem)
>
> Anyway, just thinking out loud and there hasnt been much topic discussion
> going on......
>
> Josh
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090706/ad0f1934/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list