MGW10-LCP-A2-Invasion-ADV - MGW Debate Camp Emilio...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MGW Debate Camp 1 Emilio Lozano/Grant Wu Invasion Frontline Invasion Frontline Invasion Frontline ............................................................................................................................ 1 Invasion Frontline(1/2) ..................................................................................................................... 2 Invasion Frontline(2/2) ..................................................................................................................... 3 Deterrence key to prevent Invasion ................................................................................................ 4 Deterrence key to prevent Invasion ................................................................................................ 5 Deterrence key to prevent Invasion ................................................................................................ 7 Deterrence key to prevent Invasion ................................................................................................ 8 No Risk of War ................................................................................................................................. 9 No Risk of War ............................................................................................................................... 10 No Risk of War ............................................................................................................................... 11
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
MGW Debate Camp 2 Emilio Lozano/Grant Wu Invasion Frontline Invasion Frontline(1/2) 1. Military presence provides the deterrence which prevents a North Korean invasion Kang professor at the Tuck school of Business at Dartmouth college 03 (David C., Sept. 03, Associate professor of government and adjunct associate professor at the Tuck school of Business at Dartmouth college, “International Relations Theory and the Second Korean War”, International Studies Quarterly, Ever since the first Korean war in 1950, scholars and policymakers have been predicting a second one, started by an invasion from the North. Whether seen as arising from preventive, preemptive, desperation, or simple aggressive motivations, the predominant perspective in the west sees North Korea as likely to instigate conflict. Yet for fifty years North Korea has not come close to starting a war. Why were so many scholars so consistently wrong about North Korea's intentions? Social scientists can learn as much from events that did not happen as from those that did. The case of North Korea provides a window with which to examine these theories of conflict initiation, and reveals how the assumptions underlying these theories can become mis-specified. Either scholars misunderstood the initial conditions, or they misunderstood the theory, and I show that scholars have made mistakes in both areas. Social science moves forward from clear statement of a theory, its causal logic, and its predictions. However, just as
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.

Page1 / 11

MGW10-LCP-A2-Invasion-ADV - MGW Debate Camp Emilio...

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