Evidence Cards

Evidence Cards - Coms 250 Skiles 2 May 2010 Negative Arguments/Evidence 1 Inherency Take Out Obamas Nuclear Policy will force countries to comply

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Coms 250 Skiles 2 May 2010 Negative Arguments/Evidence 1. Inherency Take Out Obama’s Nuclear Policy will force countries to comply with the NPT. Sanger 2010 Sanger, David. “Mr. Obama’s Nuclear Policy.” New York Times (2010): 1-3. RAL In the Review, the US government will pledge to refrain from using nuclear weapons to attack any country in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) -- even if that country has attacked the US with chemical or biological weapons. “This is part of our effort to continue to incentivize nations to comply with the NPT, and to isolate those who don’t,” a senior administration official told ABC News. Nuclear states and those nations such as Iran and North Korea that are non-compliant with the NPT “get no assurance at all.” The idea is that by continuing to develop their nuclear weapons programs, Iran and North Korea are taking steps that make them less secure. 8. Significant Harm Take Out Proliferation of the NPT will pose major threats. Levy and Sidel 2007 Levy, Barry & Sidel, Victor. “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and Abolition.” American Journal of Public Health 97.9 (2007): 1589-1594. RAL The threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons has 3 major aspects: 1. The development of the capability for producing or acquiring nuclear weapons by countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons (horizontal proliferation), 2. The increase of weapon stockpiles by countries that currently have nuclear weapons. the improvement of technical sophistication or reliability of these weapons, and the development of new weapons, such as "mini-nukes" or battlefield nuclear weapons (vertical proliferation). 3. The acquisition of nuclear weapons or the materials and knowledge by individuals or nonstate entities, often termed "terrorists," to produce nuclear weapons (another form of horizontal proliferation). 11. Significant Harm Take Out The “Nuclear Black Market” is not as big of a threat as we think. Gavin 2009 Gavin, Francis. “Same As It Ever Was.” International Security 34.3 (2009): 7-37. RAL - According to terrorism expert Robin Frost, the danger of a “nuclear black market” and loose nukes from Russia may be overstated. Even if a terrorist group did acquire a nuclear weapon, delivering and detonating it against a U.S. target would present tremendous technical and logistical
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
difªculties.51 Finally, the feared nexus between terrorists and rogue regimes may be exaggerated. As nuclear proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione argues, states such as Iran and North Korea are “not the most likely sources for terrorists since their stockpiles, if any, are small and exceedingly precious, and hence well-guarded.”52 Chubin states that there “is no reason to believe that Iran today, any more than Sadaam Hussein earlier, would transfer WMD [weapons of mass destruction] technology to terrorist groups like al-Qaida or Hezbollah.”53 Even if a terrorist group were to acquire a nuclear device, expert
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 01/10/2011 for the course COMS 250 taught by Professor Skiles during the Spring '10 term at Cal Poly.

Page1 / 5

Evidence Cards - Coms 250 Skiles 2 May 2010 Negative Arguments/Evidence 1 Inherency Take Out Obamas Nuclear Policy will force countries to comply

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online