10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Topic Analysis by Cameron Baghai
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Topic Analysis by Cameron Baghai States ought not posses nuclear weapons. Simple enough topic on first glance, but to be successful, debaters will need to understand the nuances in it. BACKGROUND Nuclear weapons were first developed during WWII by the US, Britain, and Canada via the Manhattan project. Two bombs were subsequently dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing approximately 220,000 almost immediately. Thousands more died from the radiation. Soon after the bombings, Japan surrendered. The Soviet Union eventually developed their own nuclear weapons, and they and the US then began building enormous arsenals of weapons. The Cold War was basically a staring contest between the two great powers both were ready to blast each other off the face of the planet. However, Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain the only two places that have been bombed by nuclear weapons for strategic purposes. Although the end of the Cold War reduced the fear of nuclear war, the threat is by no means nonexistent. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China are the five nuclear weapons states that are part of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel, a signatory to the NPT, is an undeclared nuclear power. India, Pakistan, and North Korea are three nuclear powers that are non-signatories of the treaty. Iran and Syria are accused of having nuclear weapons programs, but there is dispute as to their existence and progress. Treaties 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty US, USSR, and UK agreed to stop nuclear testing in the atmosphere, underwater, and in space. However, the treaty still permits underground testing. 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty US, USSR, UK, and 133 nonnuclear weapon states agreed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The three pillars of the treaty are nonproliferation, disarmament, and the right to peacefully use nuclear technology. Nuclear states are obligated to limit the spread of nuclear weapons, nonnuclear states cannot acquire nuclear weapons, and the goal is to eventually create an environment conducive to disarmament. However, states can have nuclear technology for peaceful civilian purposes. 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty The US and USSR limited the number of permissible strategic nuclear delivery vehicles and warheads. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 38 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty The US, CIS, UK and 90 other countries banned all nuclear explosions. 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty US and Russia agreed to lower the number of permissible deployed strategic nuclear warheads even further in seven years. FRAMEWORK The resolution seems unambiguous enough, right Six words. However, the simpler resolutions are often the ones that allow for the most framework debate. States No, the resolution is not talking about the individual states within the United States. As tempting as it might be to write an AC about why Texas should not have nuclear weapons, I think most can agree that that is not how the topic should be debated. However, there are still multiple legitimate interpretations of the word. First, the plural nature of states might imply that the resolution demands an abstract interpretation. Instead of taking the policy-esque/plan approach, maybe the generality of the term indicates the affirmative should make arguments that donʼt depend on anyone state taking the action. While there are textual reasons to prefer this interpretation, the vague nature such a debate demands might hamper education and depth of argumentation. It almost might limit ground for both sides for the same reasons. A deontological AC arguing that nuclear weapons are always immoral would work under this interpretation. A similar interpretation could be that the affirmative gets to choose two or more states and claim that those specific states should get rid of their nuclear weapons. This interpretation would allow the affirmative to make arguments as to why plan texts and policy approaches to debate are beneficial while also staying consistent with the text of the resolution. However, there could be theoretical objections to the affirmative being able to defend a plan involving two actors (for example The United States and Russia will completely disarm by 2020). This interpretation would allow the affirmative to sidestep some of the international relations issues with disarmament (like how other nuclear states would react if the US got rid of its nukes) while still remaining specific enough to have very detailed and nuanced advantages. A slightly different approach would be to claim that the affirmative only needs to defend that one state should disarm. For example, it would be sufficient to prove Israel ought to get rid of its 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 39 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com nuclear weapons. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that the resolution says states, which is plural, and not state. However, there are theoretical reasons why such an interpretation of nuclear weapons might be beneficial. It provides stable ground for both sides and permits an in-depth discussion of the issues. Finally, the affirmative could argue that the resolution is meant to be debated on-balance. In other words, the affirmative burden is to show that in general states shouldnʼt have nukes, even if there are some exceptions to that rule. The theoretical merits of this approach are similar to the first interpretation, but it makes the affirmatives job much easier. Ultimately, I think that any interpretation of states can be justified. The important thing for the affirmative to remember is to include framework analysis from the beginning. Few things areas frustrating fora judge as an AC that is ambiguous in terms of how it operates. Ought Not Lets start with ought. While most dictionaries define ought as some kind of moral obligation, some take it to mean desirability. However, its important to note that the two arenʼt mutually exclusive—what is moral might be determined by what is desirable. Either way, the definition you choose to defend could have implications for your case. An interpretation leaning toward desirability would probably best be suited fora plan-based case or at the very least one with some kind of consequentialist/utilitarian framework. Alternatively, an interpretation of ought as moral obligation is more inline with a deontological AC. The next thing to take note of is the negative phrasing. The resolution posits that states have amoral obligation (or it would be desirable) to not posses nuclear weapons. This is very different from saying that there isnʼt an obligation to possess nukes (that phrasing would be not ought. The affirmative must argue that it is not permissible for states to have nuclear weapons. As such, even though the resolution is negatively phrased, generic negative positions like states donʼt have moral obligations are arguably still negative ground. Posses This term is pretty straightforward. Although I suppose someone could come up with some wanky interpretations, I think the best road to go is to use the most intuitive definition of posses. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 40 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com One thing to think about though is whether the resolution is limited to a discussion of states that already have nukes. Can the affirmative make arguments dealing with countries that are in the process of acquiring them but havenʼt yet What about countries that want them but havenʼt started a nuclear program While allowing the affirmative to have advocacies tied to these countries would expand the scope of education, it would also seem to make it much more difficult for the negative to predict what arguments the affirmative will make. Nuclear Weapons Self explanatory. AFFIRMATIVE POSITIONS Nuclear Weapons Are Very, Very Dangerous This position is simple. It basically explains that nuclear weapons would really mess up the world if they went off, and says the risk of that happening is scary enough that we should get rid of nuclear weapons. So the entire position focuses on the effects of a nuclear weapon (blast force, the giant fireball, radiation, climate change, etc. etc. I do NOT recommend running this position. Absent analysis as to why possession leads to a nuclear detonation, the position is basically one big impact without a link. Which leads us to the second position Nuclear Weapons are Very, Very Dangerous and Will Go Off This is the first position plus the necessary link. It takes an abstract approach and just explains why possessing nuclear weapons results in a high risk that they will be detonated. Three of the most common arguments are that nuclear weapons will result in accidents (contamination leaks, misguided launch, etc, terrorists will steal the nuclear material and use it, and irrational leaders will launch the weapons. Of course, impact analysis explaining how bad it would be if a nuclear weapon went off is still necessary. This is one of those positions that people at camp tended to run without an explanation of what the affirmative burden is. Make sure that if you run this position, you explain what it is that youʼre arguing and must defend. Do you control the advantages of a nuclear-free zone Or are these reasons why any state should get rid of nuclear weapons, regardless of whether others do Plan There area lot of variations of the plan-based approach, but the theme is pretty simple. The affirmative makes some framework arguments about why it only needs to defend one (or some 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 41 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com finite number) of countries getting rid of nuclear weapons, and then the affirmative explains why that would be a good thing. The benefit of this position is that it allows for much more nuanced argumentation, better evidence, and deeper educational gains. However, its susceptible to theoretical objections. After all, the resolution doesnʼt specify a country—why should the affirmative be able to NEGATIVE POSITIONS Deterrence This position starts with the assumption that one state will not attack a state that has nuclear weapons. There are three main subdivisions of the argument. First, nuclear weapons decrease conventional warfare. The possibility of wars escalating into nuclear scale is so terrifying that nations would rather resolve their conflicts peacefully than risk annihilation. Second, thereʼs a lot of literature that talks about something called Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD. This is the idea that in a world with multiple nuclear powers, no one will use nuclear weapons because they fear retaliation from other nuclear powers. Third, some authors argue that the existence of nuclear weapons makes biological weapons and chemical weapons less necessary (and also deters their use. I think the best way to tackle this case would be to have a short framework, carded analytical arguments explaining why deterrence happens, empirics (ideally statistics) verifying your analytical argument, and then impact analysis explaining why deterrence is so important. Asteroids/Aliens Disadvantage This was a surprisingly common position at camp. The argument is pretty simple nuclear weapons are needed so that we can blast asteroids and hostile ships out of the sky. Seem pretty out there Yeah, I think so too. The lack of immediacy, the availability of alternatives, and the silliness of the argument make it more comical than persuasive. Also, if the affirmative is only talking about one country, or a specific group of countries, this position is sort of irrelevant because other countries could keep the nukes for these Independence Day scenarios. Specific Disadvantage This argument identifies a particular scenario and argues that if one nation gets rid of nuclear weapons in that scenario, really bad stuff goes down. For example, if the US got rid of its nukes, wed lose power, and a decrease in hegemony is terrible. Another argument is that if India gets rid of nuclear weapons, India-Pakistan relations will not be pretty. For this argument to work, the 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 42 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com affirmative must be discussing the nation youʼre talking about. In other words, if the affirmative says Israel should disarm, and your negative is about India disarming, the disadvantage wont apply. FINAL THOUGHTS 1/ Know what you think the affirmative burden is. Know why you think that. And know how to defend what you think. 2/ Learn how to weigh arguments very effectively A lot of debates will comedown to weighing for example, does the small risk of a devastating nuclear explosion outweigh the larger risk of a less devastating conventional war. Some terms to think about Scope—how many people are affected Scale—how theyʼre affected Probability—how likely it is that you can access your impacts The default weighing formula is Magnitude (which is scope multiplied by scale) multiplied by Probability. So Scope x Scale x Probability. However, thereʼs a lot of good literature out there that argues we should analyze risk differently. Read it. 3/ Look into international relations theory. Knowing how states interact with each other will give you the upper hand in rounds. Some terms to lookup are realism, liberalism, neoliberalism, and constructivism. 4/ Keep rounds clean. With a topic as broad as this one, rounds can get very messy. Your judge will be happier if you clean them up. If thatʼs not a good enough reason to keep things clean, your judge will also probably give you higher speaker points. 5/ Have fun Theresa lot of potential for good debate on this topic. Donʼt waste it. Here are some places to start researching, in no particular order http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/22534/51-3_12_Sagan_author_proof.pdf http://reason.com/archives/2003/02/01/learning-to-love-the-bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/ Topic Analysis by Fritz Pielstick I like that this topic is short. I like that it is about nuclear weapons. I like that there area lot of really good arguments that can be made. On the other hand, I dislike that there area lot of really bad arguments that inevitably will be made. I feel that on topics that deal with lots of people dying, 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 43 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com the arguments that debaters tend to make are extreme—in their size, their goodness, and their badness. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|