[eDebate] Reduce "reliance"
Sat May 16 23:35:19 CDT 2009
A T card for what I sent earlier:
recognizes that, so long as the United States
maintains adequately strong conventional forces,
it no longer needs to rely on nuclear weapons
to deter the threat of a major conventional attack.
On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Stefan Bauschard <
stefan.bauschard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Does reducing "reliance" really require the Aff to link to the deterrence
> 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
President & Co-Founder, PlanetDebate.com
Debate Coach, Harvard Debate
Director of Debate, Lakeland Schools
Founder & Editor, Politicsarguments.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman