[eDebate] Nuclear Wording
Mon May 18 09:08:28 CDT 2009
One potential edit to that: "That the United States federal
government should significantly limit its use of its nuclear weapons"
Changing "the" to "its" focuses the debate on governmental action, as
opposed to trying
to restrict others from using the USFG's weapons
On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:29 AM, Michael Antonucci
<antonucci23 at gmail.com> wrote:
> "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.
> Michael Antonucci
> Debate Coach
> Georgetown University
> Mobile: 617-838-3345
> Office: 202-687-4079
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
More information about the Mailman