[eDebate] Topic Three is problematic to me
Mon Jul 6 16:11:18 CDT 2009
Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing in favor of #3, just making an un-
clever aside. That having been said, I'm not arguing against topic #3
either...I haven't done enough research yet to have an opinion that I
would be comfortable defending.
other Josh (Wake)
On Jul 6, 2009, at 3:38 PM, Josh wrote:
> 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
> Thanks to Joshua G for making me clarify.
> 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
> --A substantial decrease in the operational readiness of its nuclear
> 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......
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman