[eDebate] New Proposed version of the nuclear weapons topic.

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Mon May 18 11:57:33 CDT 2009


First, credit, where credit is due, Jud Eldredge turned my to the  
source from t he Carnegie Endowment. This source provides the  
blueprint for the version of the debate topic I propose. And, if you  
take the time to read it, you will see why this is a pretty good  
idea...at least a good starting point. I do not see how member sof the  
Topic Committee can draft an adequate nuclear weapons topic without  
first reading this tome:  
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/abolishing_nuclear_weapons_debate.pdf

Regradless of the Topic COmmittee's decsion, this article will become  
the textbook for my introduction to debate class this year. I think  
this, and the orginal topic paper, can serve as a touchstone for the  
entire debate community.

Based on my reading of the Delphi Paper, here is my suggested topic wording.

Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substanitally  
increase its efforts to abolish all nuclear weapons.

I think this provides affirmatives with enough flexibility and  
provides the negative with stable ground.



Here are some relevant excerpts of the Carnegie Foundation's Debate  
over the abolition of nuclear weapons:

"In the past few years, horizontal and vertical proliferation have collided.
That is, the need for significant strengthening of the nonproliferation regime
in the wake of nuclear developments in North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan
is now absolutely clear. So too, however, is growing unwillingness
among non?nuclear-weapon states to even consider additional measures
in what they see as the absence of serious progress by the nuclear-armed
states toward disarmament....

...Few, if any, top-tier issues attract as much simplistic analysis, as many
verbal red herrings, and as little serious work by governments as does
the feasibility of nuclear disarmament. As was pointed out in Abolishing
Nuclear Weapons, none of the nuclear-weapon states ?has an employee,
let alone an inter-agency group, tasked full time with figuring out what
would be required to verifiably decommission all its nuclear weapons.?
Our endeavor, launched with Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, advanced in
this volume, and continuing into the future, is to jump-start a broad and
deep international debate, based on serious analysis, of what it would take
to achieve the immensely important and equally difficult goal of nuclear
disarmament. Like this volume, that debate will have to include active
participation by all states ? non-nuclear as well as nuclear armed."

"What appears to have motivated much of this interest is the belief
that it will be impossible to curtail nuclear-weapons proliferation without
serious progress towards nuclear disarmament. In the absence of sufficient
action on disarmament by the nuclear-weapons states, leaders of
many non-nuclear-weapons states are increasingly resistant to efforts to
strengthen the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) system....  
They also insist that they will not accept
any new discriminatory constraints on their access to nuclear technology.
Resistance to stronger non-proliferation measures is especially worrying
given the expectation of a significant global expansion in nuclear-energy
production. Ultimately, if it is to be sustainable and acceptable to  
the majority
of states, any new nuclear order must be equitable and not perpetuate
the disparity between the states that possess nuclear weapons and those
that do not."

"The need for non-nuclear-weapons states to join a debate over the
details of nuclear disarmament is great. The global diffusion of the  
technology
and know-how to produce fissile materials threatens to overwhelm
the existing regime to prevent the ?diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful
uses to nuclear weapons?.6 Fear of nuclear proliferation is motivating
some nuclear-weapons states to take nuclear disarmament more seriously,
7 but neither non-proliferation nor the abolition of nuclear weapons
can be achieved without the active cooperation of non-nuclear-weapons
states. Nuclear abolition would require much more than the dismantling
of all nuclear weapons in the nine states that now possess them. To make
abolition feasible and to enable the detection of rearmament,....."

Just a thought.




More information about the Mailman mailing list