Jump to content
siegby

Withdraw Tactical Nuclear Weapons From Turkey

Recommended Posts

Kritiks are never a surprise. Foucault, Heidegger, and cap are run regardless of the topic every year

 

This misses the boat a little. I don't mean to say people will read the same junk, I mean the specific K literature is much better than the policy literature. There is an entire topic of K work on the college wiki that the affirmative has to be completely ready for.

 

On the affirmative side of the K debate, the firebreak mentality stuff UT had was really sweet at answering the impact and solvency portion of the K. Trinity HM had a TNWs aff that claimed a tit-for-tat reductions framework to establish global disarm, and defended that disarm strategy with evolutionary psychology - such a strategy is great for the "alt solves" debate, link defense, and some impact complication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it might have been hinted at a little bit, but what do you guys think about responding to "T - military presence" with an argument like, "If we withdraw TNWs, troops whose job is to maintain (or whatever) them will be withdrawn, too"

 

Ehhhh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it might have been hinted at a little bit, but what do you guys think about responding to "T - military presence" with an argument like, "If we withdraw TNWs, troops whose job is to maintain (or whatever) them will be withdrawn, too"

 

Ehhhh?

 

If the neg wins the argument that military presence is only troops, that argument would make your aff effects topical. It might be worth it as a throwaway we meet in the 2AC, but it's not a winner. It's probably better to just find evidence that says TNWs constitute military presence in Turkey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the neg wins the argument that military presence is only troops, that argument would make your aff effects topical. It might be worth it as a throwaway we meet in the 2AC, but it's not a winner. It's probably better to just find evidence that says TNWs constitute military presence in Turkey.

 

In reference to the issue of topicality of Turkey TNWs (and topicality in general).....I've included 9 definitions of military presence (technically only 8, because one is a definition of military involvement)

 

The first two big posts here have the 8 or 9 definitions (there is a short post in between the two with no definitions):

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=997648

 

I think if you can indicate that they are part of an agreement, alliance, or overall credibility--you get rid of much of the ground issue. (you're handing them a disad link). Also by being a component of an agreement or alliance with turkey you can win that as a way to be topical.

 

Further, if TNWs are part of the QDR--they are pretty predictable.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the neg wins the argument that military presence is only troops, that argument would make your aff effects topical. It might be worth it as a throwaway we meet in the 2AC, but it's not a winner. It's probably better to just find evidence that says TNWs constitute military presence in Turkey.

 

I think you're probably right, it's mostly a blippy argument. I think there could be an argument on it that just might be winnable, but it's more productive to put time elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone posted earlier, the Georgetown debate T file has over a page of definitions for "TNW's = military presence." There's no need to waste valuable time on non-round winning arguments, just go for what you know will win the argument for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T is one of the best strategic options a neg can have. I have won T rounds where the aff is probably topical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I hope that the definition of "military presence" will be like teh definition of "social services" last year, where I could pull a shell for it every round, no matter what aff it was

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly believe any TNWs 2AC should be able to spend less time on T than the 1NC. You have to read lots of cards to come close to a credible argument (i.e. on that is not dismissed in a few CX questions), and the 2AC likely only has to read 1-2 to make it nearly impossible for the negative to win a plausible standard. Is it still worth reading T when you lose time from the 1NC? By the end of the year people just stopped reading T against us all together because they knew it was such a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trinity had a good aff on the college topic last year but some other good schools esp. if focusing in the policy realm would be to look at both Liberty LT (Lacaze & Troxclair) and Illinois State HP they ran TNW's all year on the college topic last year and had pretty expansive sets of add ons. Most of these teams also focused on relations aspects and preventing Iranian nukes.

 

Besides having a large literature basis from two different college topics and every camp in the nation writing or planning on writing a TNW aff I would say that it would be a strategic in state option compared to a national case.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that Turkey maintains and operates US TNWs, and we basically loaned them the TNWs.

 

I could be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos. Several college teams read TNWs. Not a single round that I know of involved a debate over "its". They are the U.S.'s nukes, not Turkey's. Therefore they are our presence. If we remove the nukes we remove U.S. presence.

 

Not a hard concept. The aff doesn't remove the personal upkeeping the weapons, it removes the weapons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nukes are stationed at Incirlik Airfield, a US base that is operated (in terms of its military functions) by the US Air Force. The nukes are most definitely held and maintained by the US and if they are ever used they will be used by the US.

 

Edit- it might be the term nuclear 'sharing' that is confusing you. Nuclear sharing doesn't mean we literally share our nukes with NATO allies, rather it means that we station our nukes on bases in the countries of NATO allies for the purposes of defending NATO strategic interests.

Edited by -JD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Several college teams read TNWs. Not a single round that I know of involved a debate over "its".

 

We lost a round at UNT on "its", but in fairness the team was good enough to point out we dropped a definition.

 

I believe everything JD has said to be correct on the issue - no one should lose to this unless you drop it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This affirmative doesn't seem to be very strategic given the 6 countries the affirmative can work with. It is very simple to CP withdraw TNWs from other countries while accessing the same advantages and avoiding Middle East disads.

 

With the Turkey case produced at my camp, a very easy winning strategy was:

 

T: Military Presence

T: It's (NATO, Turkey, whatever. Just as long as you get a good time trade-off)

CP: Withdraw TNWs from Belgium, Italy, Germany, and Netherlands, excluding Turkey.

DA: Turkey Prolif (CP NB)

DA: Iran Prolif (CP NB)

DA: START Politics

K: Prolif (Either every country should be able to proliferate, or no countries should be able to)

Case

 

The T arguments are laughable (and shouldn't be able to get a time trade-off), a vast majority of TNWs are in turkey (and what Russia cares about), and the aff link turns to turkey, start, and iran prolif are all substantially better than the links. Prolif K maybe, but they'll definitely have good answers considering there's a whole wiki of 2ACs to nuclearism Ks.

 

Easy winning strategy, huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The T arguments are laughable (and shouldn't be able to get a time trade-off), a vast majority of TNWs are in turkey (and what Russia cares about), and the aff link turns to turkey, start, and iran prolif are all substantially better than the links. Prolif K maybe, but they'll definitely have good answers considering there's a whole wiki of 2ACs to nuclearism Ks.

 

Easy winning strategy, huh?

 

I think your being a bit dismissive. Granted "Withdraw TNWs from all ctrys except Turkey" probably links to all those NB, and doesn't solve the internal links to the affs advantage, but there are certainly good disad links to removing TNWs from Turkey.

 

NATO cohesion / stability (Yes... their are good link turns... there are also good links... its a credible debate in the literature)

Allied Proliferation - specifically Turkey (see above, good links / good link turns)

Israel nuclear declaration (without US TNWs providing a credible deterrent to Iran... they would declare their own arsenal)

Re-deployment / Foreign Politics are decent disads

and of course you have the generic politics / diplo cap disads

 

I think its more than viable to defend the status quo against this affirmative. Early in the year before you develop a credible CP threat, however, I might engage in the old consult CP trick (read NATO... let the aff make the "say no" arg, concede it, and go for the disad)

 

Advantages CPs are also powerful against this aff. There are certainly other actions the US can take to deal with Russia, NATO, and prolif that don't involve moving our nukes outta turkey. This is the part of the aff I'd be most worried with.

 

Good luck to those that read this aff. It certainly has its fair share of solvency advocates. But you are doing yourself a disservice if you think the only strong strategies you will hear will come from the far left.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think your being a bit dismissive. Granted "Withdraw TNWs from all ctrys except Turkey" probably links to all those NB, and doesn't solve the internal links to the affs advantage, but there are certainly good disad links to removing TNWs from Turkey.

 

NATO cohesion / stability (Yes... their are good link turns... there are also good links... its a credible debate in the literature)

Allied Proliferation - specifically Turkey (see above, good links / good link turns)

Israel nuclear declaration (without US TNWs providing a credible deterrent to Iran... they would declare their own arsenal)

Re-deployment / Foreign Politics are decent disads

and of course you have the generic politics / diplo cap disads

 

I think its more than viable to defend the status quo against this affirmative. Early in the year before you develop a credible CP threat, however, I might engage in the old consult CP trick (read NATO... let the aff make the "say no" arg, concede it, and go for the disad)

 

Advantages CPs are also powerful against this aff. There are certainly other actions the US can take to deal with Russia, NATO, and prolif that don't involve moving our nukes outta turkey. This is the part of the aff I'd be most worried with.

 

Good luck to those that read this aff. It certainly has its fair share of solvency advocates. But you are doing yourself a disservice if you think the only strong strategies you will hear will come from the far left.

 

I'm confident in my ability to beat those arguments at least on my circuit. I'm not sure the evidence available is up to the standard I would like for a 1AC advantage story, though. I think the answer to the advantage CP is just to have specific advantages. U.S.-Turkish relations probably would be good, I'm thinking.

 

I've done a little work, mostly just reading a ton and cutting a little. This seems like a solid affirmative, but I'm not convinced enough to cut an entire file. I'll probably wait until August until I decide for sure. If anyone has any particularly fantastic files that would be helpful, I'd be willing to trade (PM me for my email).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Everything comes down to the NATO debate and the turkish prolif debate. Does the plan collapse or sustain NATO/ is NATO good or bad? Does the plan cause turkey to proliferate?

 

Withdrawing TNW's from turkey would not cause Turkey to proliferate, beacaue Turkey REALLY wants in the EU, and nukes would hurt there chances.

 

And as for consult NATO, it will probably be a bigger concern is that the ninety nukes in Turkey violate the non-prolif treaty, so the impact is on a more global scale. This debate will most likely be boiled down to hegemony: withdraw destroys heg or failure to comply with NPT destroys heg.

 

Btw, why couldn't you just run consult Turkey?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Like I said, this was my opinion from the case that was put out at camp. I'll agree the T arguments may be laughable, and perhaps if TNWs were not T, it would kill the purpose of using Turkey in the resolution. That said, the T arguments are still debatable and could still give the neg a time trade off, making it strategic if you could read a short shell.

See my above post on how the 2AC can get a time trade-off from the 1NC because it takes substantially fewer arguments to make a credible defense against these Ts than to make a credible interp/violation with reasonable standards.

 

As for the disads, at best, the links would mitigate eachother, but if there is even the slightest risk that the disad could occur, the CP would still solve all, if not more than the aff. Again, this is from my experience with the file at our camp, which most of the solvency evidence wasn't specific to Turkey.

That's really too bad about the quality of camp you attended. May I suggest the Digital Debate Camp? (jk, jk)

Anyhoo - a majority of the TNWs are in Turkey and there is substantial evidence that Russia is primarily concerned with those. This means the CP solves very very little of the aff (likely none at all because Russia would still be able to justify an offensive nuclear policy to defend against TNWs in Turkey). Regardless, it's easy to cut evidence that says US removal of TNWs from Turkey would lead to total withdrawal from all of Europe - either via tit-for-tat reductions with Russia, momentum, or NATO influence.

 

Also, I forgot to mention another disad, Shift. Russia is more concerned about NATO expanding than our position in Turkey. Withdrawing TNWs won't solve relations or prevent proliferation because they have a huge fear that the TNWs the aff removes will be redeployed to Poland or Georgia.

 

Russia isn’t concerned with TNWs in Turkey, conventional weapons are perceived as a greater threat, plan doesn’t lead to Russian cooperation

William Potter- Prof and Director of James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies- ‘9

Miles A. Pomper, William Potter, and Nikolai Sokov, (research assistant / Professor and Director / research assistant) December 2009, Reducing and Regulating Tactical (Nonstrategic) Nuclear Weapons in Europe, James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies / Monterey Institute, http://cns.miis.edu/opapers/pdfs/tnw_europe.pdf

 

If a direct military threat to European NATO materializes in the future, it is far from obvious that the United States will resort to nuclear weapons at all, including tactical weapons. US and NATO conventional forces are the most advanced in the world and can address ever – or nearly every – imaginable contingency without crossing the nuclear threshold. In any event, it is difficult to envision a situation when nuclear weapons are engaged promptly after a conflict starts, because no threat on the horizon appears to be as overwhelming and immediate as the Soviet threat was perceived to be. Indeed, Russian military strategistsare more concerned about US/NATO advanced conventional arms than they are about a small number of TNW that remain probably on the European continent.

 

This card doesn't address the relocation to Poland, but I've seen such cards and will post as soon as I cut one.

 

The solvency evidence to the 1AC dismisses the mentality that the US would simply reallocate TNWs. There's primarily a question of how the US would reduce its nuclear presence in Turkey - I submit they would dismantle the nukes (or pit-stuff them) which makes the weapons unusable (thus no "shift).

 

Also, this evidence you have cites research assistants who failed to listen to much of the Russian General Staff's demands for US withdrawal of TNWs - I wouldn't trust those researchers.

 

I think your being a bit dismissive. Granted "Withdraw TNWs from all ctrys except Turkey" probably links to all those NB, and doesn't solve the internal links to the affs advantage, but there are certainly good disad links to removing TNWs from Turkey.

Calling me dismissive of a strategy because a completely unrelated (and much better) strategy exists does not make much sense to me, but whatever floats your boat.

 

NATO cohesion / stability (Yes... their are good link turns... there are also good links... its a credible debate in the literature)

I agree completely. I think the aff can say it saves NATO and thats good or it could say the plan destroys nato and nato is bad. The negatives ability to deal an effective case debate in that area may set the tone for a policy debate against TNWs.

 

Allied Proliferation - specifically Turkey (see above, good links / good link turns)

I think the defense on that is really good for the aff (more so than the link turns) - there is just tons of evidence that Turkey would never ever proliferate, and that evidence worked for us for an entire year.

 

Israel nuclear declaration (without US TNWs providing a credible deterrent to Iran... they would declare their own arsenal)

Insert aff evidence that they solve Irans motivation to proliferate. I'm also pretty sure Iran isn't proliferating, but I'm a minority in that camp (despite having science and a basic understanding of Uranium on my side ): )I like where your head's at though.

 

Re-deployment / Foreign Politics are decent disads

Meh. Likely that the aff outweighs substantially, but I don't think I debated a decent foreign politics DA after German elections at Kentucky

 

and of course you have the generic politics / diplo cap disads

Not if you read a courts version of TNWs :)

 

I think its more than viable to defend the status quo against this affirmative.

I think it's really hard to deal with the Russia advantage considering impact calculus cards on US-Russia war. Of course, the litany of 2-card add-ons to this case is absurd, and should give a strong 2A a huge leg up in a big case + DA debate.

 

Early in the year before you develop a credible CP threat, however, I might engage in the old consult CP trick (read NATO... let the aff make the "say no" arg, concede it, and go for the disad)

The aff would never say that. Either they have a NATO Good advantage and would claim multilat discussion about TNWs causes internal debates at NATO that fracture the alliance (Germany, France, Turkey, and Belgium have some disagreements), but unilateral US withdrawal solves. Or the aff would have a NATO Bad advantage, and then i doubt you would have consulted nato.

 

Advantages CPs are also powerful against this aff. There are certainly other actions the US can take to deal with Russia, NATO, and prolif that don't involve moving our nukes outta turkey. This is the part of the aff I'd be most worried with.

The uniqueness surrounding the importance of TNWs made these a non-issue for us throughout the year. The reverse causal nature of the solvency evidence also makes the case an alt-cause to the CP but the CP not an alt-cause to the case.

 

Good luck to those that read this aff. It certainly has its fair share of solvency advocates. But you are doing yourself a disservice if you think the only strong strategies you will hear will come from the far left.

It's the domestic process CPs that are most scary. Courts vs. Congress is a huge debate to get into both on the solvency level and the net benefit. I doubt the NPR will come back but there were a ton of similar CPs on the nukes topic which can all make a come-back (even things like pit-stuffing and "give the nukes to nasa")

 

 

Armenian Genocide Cp!! :D

Conditioning the plan upsets Russia. Also...turkey CP against a turkey aff? Cmonnnnnnnn

 

And as for consult NATO, it will probably be a bigger concern is that the ninety nukes in Turkey violate the non-prolif treaty, so the impact is on a more global scale. This debate will most likely be boiled down to hegemony: withdraw destroys heg or failure to comply with NPT destroys heg.

the IL evidence on NATO is fantastic, im not sure why you disagree. The deterrence/primacy DA (a more nuanced "heg" argument) against TWNs is kinda silly considering multilateral withdrawal is probably inevitable and the affs advantages are to unilateral withdrawal. The aff is just so absolutely ahead on the uniqueness issue that its implausible to me for the neg to win a deterrence DA.

 

 

Btw, why couldn't you just run consult Turkey?

1. doesn't solve the russia advantage because conditioning withdrawal causes russia to mistrust the US, strains relations, disrespects russia, and a few other ILs that were in the 1AC ev

2. doesn't solve the nato advantage - consulting with only Turkey would throw fire on the internal nato disputes and put a major damper on relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Btw, why couldn't you just run consult Turkey?

 

There is also very good evidence saying Turkey would say no, having the nukes makes them feel like valued member of NATO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a great case to me. It has lots of flexibility and (to me, at least) seems like it is in the middle of the topic.

 

I think what I like best is that teams will be carrying strategies which they think should be sufficient, but apparently the affirmative evidence is better. Whenever the affirmative can keep the debate on its ground, I like its chances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey, does anyone think that because it was run a lot on the college topic-that perhaps debaters shouldnt run it on the national circuit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...