[eDebate] Nuclear Wording
Mon May 18 08:29:45 CDT 2009
"That the United States federal government should significantly limit the
use of its nuclear weapons"
"Nuclear use" has a pretty specific meaning in the literature, as does
"nuclear use policy." It means 'sploding stuff with big boom boom boom.
One might interpret the sample resolution more broadly, as you suggest, to
include deterrence as a potential "use," and thereby let in cuts.
I dislike such interpretations because they're at odds with the available
literature. "Nuclear use" clearly describes force posture, not force
structure. It means "when we make the boom" not "how many boomsticks we
have at our disposal."
If you have to contort the available lit to let in the core, it's much more
difficult to make credible T arguments against the periphery. The
periphery, in this case, would include numerous safeguards against nuclear
terrorism and, perhaps even more problematically, critical cases that merely
claimed to reconstitute our relationship to nuclear weapons. The critical
cases could just change the "use" of nuclear weapons in our dreams, hopes
and symbolic order.
I'm all for these sorts of critical advantages, but an aff should have to
attach them to a more concrete action for the purposes of negative ground.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman