MGW10-MS-Deterrence-SUPP

MGW10-MS-Deterrence-SUPP - MGW 10 SMITH/MCFARLAND/PRYOR...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MGW 10 DETERRENCE DEBATE SMITH/MCFARLAND/PRYOR DETERRENCE DEBATE US extended deterrence good—European security. ................................................................................................ 2 US extended deterrence good--stops prolif. ............................................................................................................ 3 US Extended deterrence good--prolif. ..................................................................................................................... 4 Us extended deterrence good--alliances. ................................................................................................................. 5 us extended Deterrence solves conflicts. ................................................................................................................. 6 Deterrence good—First use policy good--conflict. ................................................................................................. 7 us extended Deterrence doesn’t solve war. .............................................................................................................. 8 Us extended Deterrence fails. .................................................................................................................................. 9 link—nuclear weapons key to deterrence. ............................................................................................................. 10 link Nuclear Weapons decreases hurts US extended deterrence . ........................................................................ 11 1
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 10 DETERRENCE DEBATE SMITH/MCFARLAND/PRYOR US EXTENDED DETERRENCE GOOD—EUROPEAN SECURITY US nuclear weapons in Europe key to security Sheridan, writer for Washington Post, 2010 (Mary Beth, “NATO seeks limits”, Washington Post , April 23, lexis, 6-23-10, RH) During a dinner with her NATO colleagues, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made clear that the United States is in no rush to remove the bombs. She echoed the traditional rationale for keeping them in Europe, saying it is "fundamental" for NATO to share nuclear responsibilities, according to excerpts of her remarks distributed by her office. She also emphasized that any reductions should be linked to verifiable cuts in Russia's short-range nuclear weapons. Advocates of withdrawing the weapons say they are vulnerable to theft by terrorists because of their relatively small size and the security gaps at European military bases. In addition, they argue that the U.S. military can provide security more effectively with its long-range ballistic missiles and weapons on submarines, which can respond quickly. But a senior U.S. official acknowledged that there is a "widely shared feeling" among allies that "they are more comfortable knowing the nuclear weapons are in Europe" and not deployed offshore. He spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private meetings. The arsenal of American short-range, or "tactical," nuclear weapons in Europe has shrunk from about 2,500 two
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 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at Berkeley.

Page1 / 11

MGW10-MS-Deterrence-SUPP - MGW 10 SMITH/MCFARLAND/PRYOR...

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