[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Ethics and Morons
>
> THERE IS NO MILITARY THREAT IN THE POST COLD WAR WORLD
>
> CHRISTOPHER `95 [FOREIGN POLICY, SPRING, PG 6]
>
> "The Soveit empire is gone, and with it our primary security imperative of the
> past half century--to contain communist expansion while preventing a nuclear
> holocaust. Today, no great power views any other as an immediate military
> threat. And the triumph of democracy and free markets is transforming
> countries form Europe to Latin America, and from Asia to Africa."
I think this card is out of context when tagged in the manner that it
is. I think the card says two things. 1) The U.S.'s major military
threat is gone, not that a military threat does not exist. 2) Great
powers do not perceive a military threat to themselves.
Based on the rest of the article I think the author clearly concludes
that military threats exist all over the globe. This contradicts the
claim being made by the team using the evidence.
> "In this new era, we face heightened threats that spill across borders,
> The breakup of the Soviet Union brought risks that nuclear material could fall
> into the wrong hands, just as advances in technology and the diffusion of
> expertise could place weapons of mass destruction within reach of an increasing
> number of states..."
>
In addition I think this part of the card answers Aaron's argument that
the tag implies the United States. THe author states that we (the United
States) are clearly in danger.
I think that Ken Broda-Bahm did an excellent job of explaining why the
card is out of context. My opinion mirrors his if any of you have me in
the back of the room and are wondering whether or not to make a context
challenge.
Thanks for giving us a specific scenario to discuss Sean.
Jan Hovden
SMS Debate
Follow-Ups:
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page