nat sec. is the way to go.

[wipeout@siu.edu (j griffith)]

hmmm...this is an interesting idea.  i dont really see why that is a major
problem with the topic area.  it is surely a reciprocal problem with the
environment and mass media proposals.  moreover, as stated in the media
topic paper, things rapidly change in many areas of our lives.  surely our
national security posuturing is changing as quick as any, yet is in a
transitional stagnation right now.  as for the likeness to the ndt topics,
i dont know about the c-i-c topic, but i think what the national security
strategy paper is all about is the actual strategy (ie the big picture)
behind our actions - not the specific actions.  i'm not sure if you debated
a lot of realism or liberalism on your topic, but that's what i, and a few
others see as national security 'strategy.'  its not single intervention
but the reason to intervene or to isolate.  the ground is good, the
literature is better, the vote is simple.

>2. Just from a personal point of view, the thought of debating about
>missiles and tanks and troops makes me slightly ill.

hmmm...well you could conceivably argue your personal opinion on the
affirmative and negative.  if we are to change the strategy it could be to
focus on a more human centered national security posture.  the security
critique would be a prime example of an affirmative critiquing the warrior
mindset.  and that doesn't mean that the topic is unlimiting.  as long as
teams would be topical by the term national security strategy i think the
topic would be excellent in terms of education, limits and literature.

as for that quasi-ambiguous term 'strategy'  you'll find that its not as
ambiguous as it looks.

the american heritage dictionary defines strategy as:

 "The science and art of using all the forces of a nation to execute
approved plans as effectively as possible during peace or war."

key term - all forces.  unless you put all of our forces in algeria to stop
terrorism you are NOT topical.  this definition also gives creedence to the
environmental crossover.  even if we dont get to debate the environment -
it doens't detract from the original value of the national security topic.


>3. The topics seem to be way broad. What exactly does changing the
>national security strategy mean? Moving the 5th fleet outside of the
>Persian Gulf to the mouth of it? Can't advantages be basically any
>conflict that is currently going on in the world?

incorrect.  above.

>4. The environment is a national security issue? I know the body of
>literature on this is pretty limited, especially for an entire year's
>worth of debating. This seems just like a natural debate that will come
>under the environment topic.

ok.  i doubt that your claim of a lack of literature is entirely true.  the
liberalism/idealism authors speak alot of integration of national security
and domestic/non traditional security concerns.  if you doubt this then the
second topic proposal is fine as well.

simply put, it seems to me as if we debate impacts on positions from a
dominantly realist perspective without questioning very much if that
perspective is correct.  this topic area would allow us to delve into the
question at hand and not only be an excellent topic, but would prepare us
for futher debate topics as well.


jason


-----salukis-----

no equality - no opportunity - no tolerence for the progressive alternative.



                                                bad religion

---

• Prev by Date: Reply re Reply to Kloster re new math
• Next by Date: bell and nat sec.
• Prev by thread: Re: Reply re Reply to Kloster re new math
• Next by thread: bell and nat sec.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page