Jump to content
Snarf

Alliances Security K Link

Recommended Posts

Probs links best to relations affs/advantages, but the argument is applicable to making two nations closer in general.

 

Entanglements and engagement intensify the security dillema and lead to uncontrolled conflict spirals

Vasquez, John [God.] "What do we know about war?" p29

In contrast to the realist literature and orthodoxy linking alliances to peace, other scholars maintain that alliances are more likely to result in war because alliances generate and aggravate the spiral effect of the security dilemma. Alliances increase the security of signatories but can make others outside the alliances insecure. In other words, forming alliances with one state leaves other states outside the alliance feeling vulnerable and thus makes them seek counteralliances (Kaplan 1957: 24). That is, although a state’s initial purpose in forming alliances is to enhance its own security, alliances end up heighten- ing the threat perceptions of opposing states and the level of hostility, which generates the spiral effect of the security dilemma. This intensified hostility aggravates the situation and makes war more likely. Therefore, alliances are thought to increase the probability of war rather than to preserve peace through power (Vasquez 1993).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"the security dilemma" links to the security k

 

 

it is, in fact, one of the foundational links to the security k

 

Sure. Vasquez uses realist terminology to refute realist ideas because he wants to speak to the mainstream. The argument that "making alliances net aggrevates international security concerns" is consistent with a security k.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, its more international relations theory about how alliances = entanglements.  But it certainly does seem to be philosophically in line with the K.

 

If you search "alliances" and "entanglements"  as well as "alliances" and "treadmills of war" you will also find other quotes.

 

Its ironic that this framework is overall isolationist & arguably a bit zenophobic.  "Nations shouldn't have friends or lovers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure. Vasquez uses realist terminology to refute realist ideas because he wants to speak to the mainstream. The argument that "making alliances net aggrevates international security concerns" is consistent with a security k.

 

The security K is not "you make international relations more unstable." That is more of what we might call the "security DA" or more specifically the "alliances bad DA" in this case. The security K is "you make assumptions about international relations that are bad." Nothing about this card makes claims about discursivity or ontology. Nothing about this evidence is interrogative of the assumptions underpinning the security dilemma. This evidence, in fact, takes the basis of the security dilemma as true and goes from there. A few good litmus tests for whether the ev links to the security K:

 - Does it presume "security" is the goal of policymaking?

 - Does it presume IR is fundamentally competitive?

 - Does it presume states are the fundamental actors of IR?

Saying this evidence is compatible with the security K is like saying the politics DA is compatible with the security K.

 

A good illustration of this claim is the fact that this argument is basically what neorealism says about alliances. And please don't tell me neorealism is compatible with the security K.

 

Even if the author believes in their heart of hearts that the security K is true, using the terminology of realism is pretty much what the security K says is bad. That terminology brings with it a bunch of ideological baggage that reinforces problematic notions like national identity and global order. Regardless, I'm not sure why switching to another discipline's technical jargon would lead to better penetration of mainstream audiences.

 

Another good way to tell that this arg is inconsistent with the security K -- the author begins the chapter echoing an assertion made in the introduction by Vasquez: that IR should be done scientifically (i.e. positivistically). One of the foundational tenets of the security k is its post-positivism.

 

Also, you've incorrectly cited this evidence. Vasquez is the editor of the text, not the author.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone! New to cross-x.com, tell me if i'm doing it wrong. 

 

I really like the piece of evidence that "snarf" has presented to us. I am really glad to see it. It is specific to the outcome of the plan, the way the plan functions, and the advantages of the plan, all in one. It creates an excellent link&impact for a potential security K, and I think that many high schoolers would do well if they utilized this evidence as part of the discussing the security K. It can add to the greater "buffet" of security K cards!

The security K is not "you make international relations more unstable." That is more of what we might call the "security DA" or more specifically the "alliances bad DA" in this case. The security K is "you make assumptions about international relations that are bad." Nothing about this card makes claims about discursivity or ontology. Nothing about this evidence is interrogative of the assumptions underpinning the security dilemma. This evidence, in fact, takes the basis of the security dilemma as true and goes from there. A few good litmus tests for whether the ev links to the security K:

 - Does it presume "security" is the goal of policymaking?

 - Does it presume IR is fundamentally competitive?

 - Does it presume states are the fundamental actors of IR?

Saying this evidence is compatible with the security K is like saying the politics DA is compatible with the security K.

 

A good illustration of this claim is the fact that this argument is basically what neorealism says about alliances. And please don't tell me neorealism is compatible with the security K.

I think there's a fundamental difference between "qritiks" and other arguments that you might be more used to reading for your negative strategies. Kritiks are meant to call into question the representations of the affirmative. The card that snarf so KINDLY posted clearly is about the representations of the affirmative. It calls into question JUST HOW desirable the REPRES of international policy making, SPECIFICALLY the alliance system is in terms of the impacts of the 1AC. 

 

Also, I really think that neorealism as wikipedia has it probably fits in with the aesthetics alt that authors like dr derian and neoclus and vasquez advocate for in their scholarly work--disproving this last argument you have made :)

 

 

Even if the author believes in their heart of hearts that the security K is true, using the terminology of realism is pretty much what the security K says is bad. That terminology brings with it a bunch of ideological baggage that reinforces problematic notions like national identity and global order. Regardless, I'm not sure why switching to another discipline's technical jargon would lead to better penetration of mainstream audiences.

 

Another good way to tell that this arg is inconsistent with the security K -- the author begins the chapter echoing an assertion made in the introduction by Vasquez: that IR should be done scientifically (i.e. positivistically). One of the foundational tenets of the security k is its post-positivism.

Very funny joke--i'm not TOO OLD to not get that one. 

 

I talked about this earlier--it's not about the "terminology," it's about the discrouse, the plan, the advantages, and the way the affirmative conducts themselves in relation (pun intended) to security. You're misunderstanding the way that the K functions inside and outside of the debate space. 

 

Additionally, I think that most K authors still believe in the real terminology here. K lit isn't TOO far out there philosophically. That's one common misconceptions amongst younger K debaters on my team.  :S:

 

Just because the introduction of the article is about "bad thought" (I don't think science is synonymous with security but since you think you may know more than me about this we'll just let that one slide  :Yoda ) doesn't means that the entire article is bad or doesn't "penetrate the mainstream audiences" :)

 

 

Also, you've incorrectly cited this evidence. Vasquez is the editor of the text, not the author.

 

That's just a blatant lie--i know you WANT MORE CONSULT japan so you might like lies but come on, let's not fabricate here.  :Bow

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone! New to cross-x.com, tell me if i'm doing it wrong. 

 

I really like the piece of evidence that "snarf" has presented to us. I am really glad to see it. It is specific to the outcome of the plan, the way the plan functions, and the advantages of the plan, all in one. It creates an excellent link&impact for a potential security K, and I think that many high schoolers would do well if they utilized this evidence as part of the discussing the security K. It can add to the greater "buffet" of security K cards!

I think there's a fundamental difference between "qritiks" and other arguments that you might be more used to reading for your negative strategies. Kritiks are meant to call into question the representations of the affirmative. The card that snarf so KINDLY posted clearly is about the representations of the affirmative. It calls into question JUST HOW desirable the REPRES of international policy making, SPECIFICALLY the alliance system is in terms of the impacts of the 1AC. 

 

Also, I really think that neorealism as wikipedia has it probably fits in with the aesthetics alt that authors like dr derian and neoclus and vasquez advocate for in their scholarly work--disproving this last argument you have made :)

 

 

Very funny joke--i'm not TOO OLD to not get that one. 

 

I talked about this earlier--it's not about the "terminology," it's about the discrouse, the plan, the advantages, and the way the affirmative conducts themselves in relation (pun intended) to security. You're misunderstanding the way that the K functions inside and outside of the debate space. 

 

Additionally, I think that most K authors still believe in the real terminology here. K lit isn't TOO far out there philosophically. That's one common misconceptions amongst younger K debaters on my team.  :S:

 

Just because the introduction of the article is about "bad thought" (I don't think science is synonymous with security but since you think you may know more than me about this we'll just let that one slide  :Yoda ) doesn't means that the entire article is bad or doesn't "penetrate the mainstream audiences" :)

 

 

 

That's just a blatant lie--i know you WANT MORE CONSULT japan so you might like lies but come on, let's not fabricate here.  :Bow

BRB, scanning mutual friends to see which one of you did this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The security K is not "you make international relations more unstable." That is more of what we might call the "security DA" or more specifically the "alliances bad DA" in this case. The security K is "you make assumptions about international relations that are bad." Nothing about this card makes claims about discursivity or ontology. Nothing about this evidence is interrogative of the assumptions underpinning the security dilemma. This evidence, in fact, takes the basis of the security dilemma as true and goes from there. A few good litmus tests for whether the ev links to the security K:

 - Does it presume "security" is the goal of policymaking?

 - Does it presume IR is fundamentally competitive?

 - Does it presume states are the fundamental actors of IR?

Saying this evidence is compatible with the security K is like saying the politics DA is compatible with the security K.

 

A good illustration of this claim is the fact that this argument is basically what neorealism says about alliances. And please don't tell me neorealism is compatible with the security K.

 

Even if the author believes in their heart of hearts that the security K is true, using the terminology of realism is pretty much what the security K says is bad. That terminology brings with it a bunch of ideological baggage that reinforces problematic notions like national identity and global order. Regardless, I'm not sure why switching to another discipline's technical jargon would lead to better penetration of mainstream audiences.

 

Another good way to tell that this arg is inconsistent with the security K -- the author begins the chapter echoing an assertion made in the introduction by Vasquez: that IR should be done scientifically (i.e. positivistically). One of the foundational tenets of the security k is its post-positivism.

 

Also, you've incorrectly cited this evidence. Vasquez is the editor of the text, not the author.

You're right - the cite "Vasquez, John [God.] "What do we know about war?" p29" is incomplete. As cited, its purpose is to help people find the book, which is under Vasquez's name - but they should certainly recut the cite. 

 

On the merits - your characterization of the "security kritik" is inconsistent with its discussion in the literature. There are lots of way to run the security kritik, and not all of them are post-positivist or post-structural. The security kritik deals with the ways in which threat perception contributes to conflict. There are different intellectual frameworks that analyze threat (mis)perception and explain conflict in IR. It's both inconsistent with the literature - for example, with Feminist Security Studies - and inconsistent with the deployment in debate to argue the security kritik is only post-positivism. 

 

A good example is your question "does it presume 'security' is the primary goal of policymaking?". Human Security Studies and Critical Security Studies both criticize the way in which security is traditionally defined and defended, arguing that the problem is important concerns (the environment; structural human suffering; human flourishing) are not included in the definition of security. For theorists like Booth and Sen, security is a fine end-goal - perhaps the only end goal? - but the problem is the way in which security has been defined to exclude environmental concerns, or to only focus on certain types of war (ignoring civil wars, interventions, and genocide because 'war' is defined as two states fighting). 

 

Fundamentally, the Vasquez evidence is about the epistemological approach states should(n't) take to international relations, explaining that data supports the claim that alliances increase threat perception. The problem isn't "the security dilemma" - even Alex Wendt (the FOUNDER of Constructivist IR) argues that the security dilemma is accurate, but realists are wrong for why its accurate. Constructivists (and critical security theorists generally) argue that the security dilemma is accurate because of the way states approach IR, not because of the inherent nature of IR (neorealists) or human nature (classical realists). 

 

The term "the security dilemma" (which merely means that strength AND weakness can lead to conflict) itself isnt a term that only realists use - and the underlying concept is something every school of IR uses, from the farthest left to the farthest right.

 

I think your reading of the security kritik is probably accurate for the way a lot of debaters use and engage with the literature, but there is certainly more engagement and reading to be had than that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right - the cite "Vasquez, John [God.] "What do we know about war?" p29" is incomplete. As cited, its purpose is to help people find the book, which is under Vasquez's name - but they should certainly recut the cite. 

 

On the merits - your characterization of the "security kritik" is inconsistent with its discussion in the literature. There are lots of way to run the security kritik, and not all of them are post-positivist or post-structural. The security kritik deals with the ways in which threat perception contributes to conflict. There are different intellectual frameworks that analyze threat (mis)perception and explain conflict in IR. It's both inconsistent with the literature - for example, with Feminist Security Studies - and inconsistent with the deployment in debate to argue the security kritik is only post-positivism. 

 

A good example is your question "does it presume 'security' is the primary goal of policymaking?". Human Security Studies and Critical Security Studies both criticize the way in which security is traditionally defined and defended, arguing that the problem is important concerns (the environment; structural human suffering; human flourishing) are not included in the definition of security. For theorists like Booth and Sen, security is a fine end-goal - perhaps the only end goal? - but the way in which security has been defined to exclude environmental concerns, or to only focus on certain types of war (ignoring civil wars, interventions, and genocide because 'war' is defined as two states fighting). 

 

Fundamentally, the Vasquez evidence is about the epistemological approach states should(n't) take to international relations, explaining that data supports the claim that alliances increase threat perception. The problem isn't "the security dilemma" - even Alex Wendt (the FOUNDER of Constructivist IR) argues that the security dilemma is accurate, but realists are wrong for why its accurate. Constructivists (and critical security theorists generally) argue that the security dilemma is accurate because of the way states approach IR, not because of the inherent nature of IR (neorealists) or human nature (classical realists). 

 

The term "the security dilemma" (which merely means that strength AND weakness can lead to conflict) itself isnt a term that only realists use - and the underlying concept is something every school of IR uses, from the farthest left to the farthest right.

 

I think your reading of the security kritik is probably accurate for the way a lot of debaters use and engage with the literature, but there is certainly more engagement and reading to be had than that.

 

 

Well put, Snarf. IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT REALISM, it's about the representations of realism. 

 

Thank for evidence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"consult japan"...if you have any more questions about the way the security K is run, or anything about the world of real-ism or kritiks, PLEASE message me. I am a human resource for YOU! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...