National Security Strategy

[BERTRAM@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU]

From:	IN%"steveman@UMICH.EDU"  "Steve Mancuso" 28-APR-1996 08:54
To:	IN%"NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU"  "Multiple recipients of list NDT-L"
CC:	
Subj:	Proposal for National Security Strategy Topic

Return-path: <owner-ndt-l@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Received: from listserv.Arizona.EDU (listserv.Arizona.EDU)
 by CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU (PMDF V5.0-5 #2381)
 id <01I42I6HNTDC99DHSF@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU> for BERTRAM@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU; Sun,
 28 Apr 1996 08:54:12 -0700 (MST)
Received: from LISTSERV (listserv.Arizona.EDU [128.196.137.14])
 by listserv.ccit.arizona.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA30934; Sun,
 28 Apr 1996 08:54:09 -0700
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 10:19:10 -0400
From: Steve Mancuso <steveman@UMICH.EDU>
Subject: Proposal for National Security Strategy Topic
In-reply-to: Your message <199604221846.OAA29432@judgmentday.rs.itd.umich.edu>
Sender: National Debate Tournament <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list NDT-L <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
Reply-to: Steve Mancuso <steveman@UMICH.EDU>
Message-id: <199604281554.IAA30934@listserv.ccit.arizona.edu>
X-Envelope-to: BERTRAM
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Comments: To: IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Comments: cc: ccrensha@ua1vm.ua.edu, rchurch@frank.mtsu.edu,
 sjensen@mcneese.edu, debate@siu.edu, asnider@moose.uvm.edu, pls8@cornell.edu

As I was reading the WWW postings provided by Stefan Bauschard and Josh
Hoe's topic analysis it occured to me that a simple way to address Kate
Shuster's leigitmate concerns regarding the breadth of the terms
"National Security Strategy" would be to include sub-areas of NSS at the
end of the topic.  Such areas could include:

(these are all terms of art provided in the published documents)

nuclear force posture
conventional force posture
proliferation of weapons of mass destuction (or just nuclear weapons)
arms control
flexible and selective engagement and enlargement
commercial technology and science cooperation
export control policy (or) strategic trade policy
global and/or national information infrastructure

For instance we could have a topic that read:

The United States should substantially change its national security
strategy in one or more of the following areas:  nuclear force posture,
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, export control policy.

Stefan and Josh's  postings provide examples of issues which would fall
under each of the above categories.

This formulation also provides a paradigmatic example of the problem
area/topic wording dichotomy.  We could vote for the problem area of NSS
and then formulate various combinations of the above options as specific
topic wordings.

For example one topic could focus on WMD by including:  nuclear force
posture, arms control, prolif.

Another topic could focus on conventional strategies:  conventional
force posture, selective engagement and enlargement

Another topic could focus on economic security:  export control policy,
information infrastructure, commercial tech and science cooperation

I suppose even a sub-area on the environment would be possible.

Or a topic could offer a mixture of the above.

Then let the voters choose.

Very few of these sub-areas would overlap substantially with the CIC
topic.

Steve Mancuso

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Nat'l Security Affs
• Next by Date: National Security Strategy
• Prev by thread: Re: Mail-bombs?
• Next by thread: National Security Strategy
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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