Jump to content
framework

Military Ocean Terminals

Recommended Posts

I went to look up specific facilities to see if there was a possibility of a PIC based on a biodiversity argument or something. Do we only have two of these facilities in existence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Ocean_Terminal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Naval_Weapons_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Ocean_Terminal_Sunny_Point

(Actually, maybe just one? Ownership of the Concord one is currently being transferred to the local city? http://www.concordreuseproject.org/)
 

That could bolster arguments about T, or maybe allow an "in = throughout" version that they won't be as prepared for. It will probably outdate a lot of their 2 decade old solvency and link evidence, which assume the existence of 3 additional terminals. I imagine there are interesting reasons that the earlier ones were closed, as well. Look at the external links on this page and you might find something interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Base_Realignment_and_Closure_Commission

This case seems like a good candidate for the security K. I almost think that reading a form of the Security K that didn't criticize hegemony but rather just overzealous attempts at maintaining it might be a strategic path to take, assuming you could find good impact literature. I imagine that since their affirmative is rather small, they usually just have to engage with the impact level debate and off case arguments. Challenging the specifics of their approach towards hegemony would be interesting and catch them off guard. Their card about how overinvestment is better than underinvestment, specifically, seems like it could link them into a lot of interesting criticisms of their position.

If you're not looking to put a lot of work in, I think that case and a K and a T would be a good idea. The problem is that they probably debate that every round, so you're going into it with a strategic disadvantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Security, borders (probably a lot of overlap between those 2), T= throughout like a mofo, Privatization CP with a biopower/coercion NB, crap ton of heg on case, with an emphasis on alt causes. If there's evidence that says that air deficiencies kill heg as an alt cause arg, then this aff is toast (Camps that put out Nextgen heg advantages probably have stuff on this).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I went to look up specific facilities to see if there was a possibility of a PIC based on a biodiversity argument or something. Do we only have two of these facilities in existence? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Ocean_Terminal

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concord_Naval_Weapons_Station

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Ocean_Terminal_Sunny_Point

 

(Actually, maybe just one? Ownership of the Concord one is currently being transferred to the local city? http://www.concordreuseproject.org/)

 

That could bolster arguments about T, or maybe allow an "in = throughout" version that they won't be as prepared for. It will probably outdate a lot of their 2 decade old solvency and link evidence, which assume the existence of 3 additional terminals. I imagine there are interesting reasons that the earlier ones were closed, as well. Look at the external links on this page and you might find something interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Base_Realignment_and_Closure_Commission

 

There are only two active terminals but the teams I've heard run it claim to reactivate at least two of the inactive MOT's. That's not really a game changer, but something to be aware of. I would definitely run (and have ran) in = throughout. I'd consider pairing it with T-substantial - it doesn't have to be a great definition but it's a good hedge against shady counterinterps on the T-in flow.

 

I'm honestly pretty skeptical of the magnitude of their internal links to heg - I've opted for the impact turn every time I've faced MOTs but delay in sealift doesn't seem like a fulcrum for any real sort of power projection. The nuclear arsenal doesn't need to be sealifted and has a much more potent deterrent effect than sealift. They probably have some uniqueness problems on the USPACOM advantage - I'm sure the army has brought in more troops since North Korea escalated their threats, which (1) proves that current sealift works well enough, and (2) means the US already has a large deterrent in the Pacific. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about an imperialism K linked to the heg like the military topic two years ago, and a terror talk K because its a good link on their advantage. Then just some more generic type DAs like political capital and spending, I could right a DA that says any further increase in heg will trigger a nuclear war with north korea?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about an imperialism K linked to the heg like the military topic two years ago, and a terror talk K because its a good link on their advantage. Then just some more generic type DAs like political capital and spending, I could right a DA that says any further increase in heg will trigger a nuclear war with north korea?

 

Imperialism is a good option as long as you have a strong alternative for it. I personally think the security K has a stronger/better link story just based on their power projection reps, but this aff links to just about every kritik. I might run terror talk as a case turn rather than a full-out kritik though; your time could be better spent somewhere else in the 1nc and you can always blow it up in the block if it becomes a more attractive option. I'd be careful with what disads you run with this type of strategy. Most politics/spending disads claim econ collapse as their impact scenario, and you leave yourself vulnerable to a double turn if you also read heg impact turns. Most policy positions won't be consistent with the kritiks but you can at least minimize your inconsistencies. As far as a North Korea disad, I'd just throw a card on case that says heg encourages North Korea. The file you linked already has a North Korea scenario in the 1ac so you'd just be link turning it rather than wasting time reading impacts they already read.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terror talk as a case turn actually sounds like an amazing idea thanks! Because then I could probably win on the security and imperialism k, still having enough time to throw in whatever else that links in the 1nc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm honestly pretty skeptical of the magnitude of their internal links to heg - I've opted for the impact turn every time I've faced MOTs but delay in sealift doesn't seem like a fulcrum for any real sort of power projection. The nuclear arsenal doesn't need to be sealifted and has a much more potent deterrent effect than sealift. They probably have some uniqueness problems on the USPACOM advantage - I'm sure the army has brought in more troops since North Korea escalated their threats, which (1) proves that current sealift works well enough, and (2) means the US already has a large deterrent in the Pacific. 

 

That, and I think their delay link is fairly weak anyway. Most of their evidence is speculative or old. If they pointed to recent examples of shipments being delayed that would be one thing, but they don't and that makes me suspicious. The problem is that I doubt there's much modern literature on this issue which the negative could use to refute their outdated assumptions. I suppose Iraq as well as Korea could be used to prove that the US can move large volumes of military supplies whenever it needs to, even in the status quo? But there's not much specific to MOTs to go on, I expect, and that will make the negative on case strategy less persuasive.

 

Also, if ever Virilio linked to something well, this would be it. You could argue all the generic impacts, and specific to the affirmative advantages, on a less technological but still related rationale, you could argue that the ability to rapidly commit our troops to war is a bad thing because we should make those decisions slowly. I'm not really a huge Virilio fan, but since he's fallen out of popularity this year he might be able to surprise them while allowing OP to easily gather a bunch of relevant literature.

 

The Fogleman 94 card that claims it's best to err on the side of caution really bugs me. Whatever K is chosen should definitely criticize that card like crazy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey.. Virilio does have a strong link, I didn't even notice that. On my side of the country virilio is actually somewhat popular this year so I guess I hear it so much that the thought never struck me. Thanks for the advice

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found this mediocre article that seems relevant to what jgorman was saying and to my point about readiness being bad: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/military-readiness-for-what/. The article doesn't commit fully to the point of view that I was arguing, since my argument would be that making us ready for war allows the government to more easily use (rapidly shifting) public opinion as an excuse to invade other countries (Hilberg 10 claims that the US needs to easily be able to engage in "humanitarian" interventions, that kind of thing). I think it's worth reading, though.

Also, in one article on strategic planning I read the rhetorical question "how much readiness is enough", I think this might be a good thing for you to ask in cross examination, since we've got bases around the globe and can get anywhere fairly quickly. That would work well with a Security K type argument.

This article is somewhat related but not entirely. It offers an amazing K of the idea of "asymmetric warfare" which is mentioned a few times by the case cards and it touches on the related idea of military readiness a few times as well. I'm not sure how many cards in it are usable against this case, but if I didn't give it to you, it'd just go to waste. At the very least, it's good background reading. I love it when people who understand the military write articles that criticize parts of its ideology, those arguments are almost always awesome.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ssi/asymetry2.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...