[eDebate] Reduce "reliance"

Stefan Bauschard stefan.bauschard
Sat May 16 20:13:15 CDT 2009


Does reducing "reliance" really require the Aff to link to the deterrence
DA?

It seems that U.S could reduce "its reliance" on "its" nuclear weapons in
Europe to deter a Russian invasion by substantially augmenting its
conventional forces and/or changing its force structure there. Without
making a single significant change in its nuclear posture in Europe, the
U.S. would still be reducing its "reliance" on nukes to stop a Russian
invasion because it would now be more heavily relying on these conventional
forces.   What's the "nuclear deterrence good" link in this instance? I
suppose you could spin a story about how if we increased our conventional
force strength it would be perceived as us giving up on nuclear deterrence,
but that seems to be quite a stretch.  And it probably wouldn't be a
terribly unique link story.

This isn't just same made up thing. I'm sure you could find proposals to
increase our conventional strength in various parts of the world so that we
would be "less reliant" on nuclear retaliation.

The cards in the topic paper on pages 40 & 41 do suggest that an expansion
of conventional forces is possible, though they do talk about reducing
reliance on nuclear forces AND shifting to greater conventional strength
through various means. The cards do not say that you *have* to do nuclear
cut-backs to reduce reliance on them. And it just seems kind of intuitive
that substantially improving our conventional force capabilities would
reduce the reliance we place on our nuclear weapons to deter and retaliate.

The word "reliance" does seem to appear a lot in the literature, but that
doesn't mean it's the best way to divide ground for the purposes of a
debate. And unless this reading is unreasonable, it seems that increasing
conventional force strength (without nuclear reductions) could be a very
good and strategic area of affirmative case ground.  Was this intended?  Is
this what we want?

ok, back to poverty and social services :(


-- 
Stefan Bauschard

President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Founder & Editor, Politicsarguments.com


(c) 781-775-0433
(fx) 617-588-0283
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090516/fdac4534/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list