The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

01-28-2008, 7:24 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat This was my experience as a judge for a debate on whether or not the U.S should use force to prevent other countries from becoming a nuclear threat: The Lincoln-Douglas debate proposition was: Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat. The affirmative read her prepared constructive speech which contended that 1. nuclear weapons are a threat to us, 2. we have a right to self-defense, and 3. non-proliferation treaties have failed. She supported the first two contentions by stating that we have, at this time, no defense against a nuclear attack initiated by another nation against us. During negative cross-questioning of the affirmative, the negative asked for clarification and definitions. When it was her turn to present her constructive, she stressed that security for the United States would be better served by not making others feel threatened by us. Soft power is a better way to secure peace than being trigger-happy. The United States should not initiate an attack if it is concerned with self-defense. The affirmative, then, during her cross-question period, also just asked for restatements and clarification of what the negative said. During the rebuttals, the affirmative said that nations bring on their own harm when posing a threat to the U.S. She reiterated that soft power has failed, and pointed out a just war theory when our safety is involved. The negative responded that other nations are not really a threat to the United States and that self-defense should be fighting back, not initiating a pre-emptive strike. And she mentioned that covert maneuvers and bargaining are better ways to gain security than using military force against other nations. In the last affirmative speech, the girl mentioned Hiroshima and said that was an effective way to end the war, much more effective than bargaining and covert maneuvers and such. Then, the debate was over and it was my turn to critique it a little. I said I was disappointed that each debater used her cross-questioning period only for clarification and reviewing what was already said. I thought this was a great opportunity for attacking the opponent’s case. For example, after the affirmative said that nuclear powers pose a threat to the U.S. and that justifies our using force against them, I would have asked if other countries should consider us a threat and be just in using force against us. It’s a bit hypocritical for us to have this double standard, that it is okay for us to attack other countries but not okay for them to attack us. This would have put the affirmative immediately on the defensive and given the negative something more to elaborate on in her constructive speech. The affirmative, also, could have attacked the negative on the self-defense defense. She did say that there was no defense against a nuclear attack, so how could we fight back without allowing severe damage, perhaps fatal damage, to us first? The girls said other judges said that they did not flow augments across cross-questioning periods, that such periods were only for clarification and review, not for attacking the other’s case. This really amazed me. Cross-questioning is an important part of debate. It is where one uses a Socratic skill of questioning and catching the other in a contradiction. It is where one can set up an opponent. This is what good lawyers do in cross-examinations. Wasting this period on reviewing things they should have already heard and remembered is ridiculous! Some judges are not very good debate coaches. Then, I also told both debaters that they dropped points toward the end, seeming to bring up new points in the rebuttals rather than summarizing the arguments with which they started. The thing about other countries not being a threat should have come up before, and the thing about Hiroshima, in the last speech, was not fair at all. The negative would not have a chance to respond to such an inflammatory reference. Plus, I was offended by it and told the girl I was Japanese, even though my father fought for America in WWII, and didn’t think Hiroshima was justified. I also told her I thought she was coming off a bit cold and ethnocentric, that America can violate the rights of others but not let others violate its rights. Anyway, I told her I wouldn’t let my personal biases get in the way of who I thought should win the debate. I did ultimately give the win to the affirmative because she did make a case which the negative did not adequately refute. Even if I thought her case was weak or disagreed with it, the negative had to point out the flaws. I don’t think the negative did that adequately. I thought, though, both debaters were really only going through the motions and didn’t really care about the issue. What do you all think? Bis bald, Nick    Report

01-30-2008, 12:43 AM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat I would agree with you neither did a very good job... I think you just got an education in the downfall of education... seems some of the basics of debate that you are familiar with have been deemed no longer practical in the course... or maybe the teachers are just getting bored, and want more 'personal time' with some of the more attractive students. Sorry for being flip, but teachers haven't impressed me since I was in high school, and they've only gotten worse with time. I don't think it hypocritical at all for the U.S. to use force against a nation that is trying to gain nuclear weapons. First, what nations are we talking about, Iran and North Korea, two nations that have a recent history of either using military force against their neighbors, and/or sponsoring terrorism, particularly terrorism against the U.S. and its allies. If NK did not make threats against the U.S. or its neighbor countries, then I wouldn't have that much of a problem with them, but they have, and that makes them a threat and we cannot permit them to gain nuclear weapons. Nukes in the hands of any Islamic country is unacceptable, they simply are not stable enough to allow it to happen. As for other nations viewing us as a threat because we have nukes, they already view us as a threat for so many other reasons; our freedom, our econimc power, our industial strength, our technological advances, and our soceity as a whole, who cares what they fear us for? The simple fact is that we do not go around invading other nations without provocation, no matter what the liberal mind thinks.    Report

01-30-2008, 3:01 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat "I don't think it hypocritical at all for the U.S. to use force against a nation that is trying to gain nuclear weapons." You don't think it is a double standard to think the U.S. has a right to have nuclear weapons but other countries don't? Not all counties are like Iran and North Korea. They could be just as free as we are. If we have a right to be armed with nuclear weapons, why don't they? BTW, we have used nuclear weapons before, and we do have a habit of invading other countries and staying there. The provocation for WWI was questionable. We blamed it on German U-boats. The provocation for Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin affair, probably did not happen at all. And, we now know there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. bis bald, Nick    Report

01-30-2008, 10:51 PM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat As I said, if those countries looking to acquire nuke weapons or nuke energy haven't displayed aggression towards their neighbors, then I'd rather watch them close and consult them often. If they are aggressive, then they can't have them. You play nice, or you go home. And no, I don't know that wmds weren't in Iraq... there was far too much time for Saddam to get those he had out, there were no inspectors on the ground, and when they were there, they reported being constantly obstructed from doing their jobs; what had been there was gone, transported to Syria or elsewhere, or is still concealed in Saddams hiding places. Congress, and the UN, made the call, and we acted upon it. No regrets. Just admiration and respect for those that did the job. And the same goes for all the others conflicts as well. I'm proud of my country, but I still fear what the government can do to me if it really wants to. As there are so many claims as to the truth behind 9/11, so many conspiracy theories that are just loony BS, and it's only been six years, imagine how it will be looked upon in 40 years, if we're going to start reinterpreting history. Then again, just imagine how it will be portrayed if the terrorist win.    Report

01-31-2008, 12:10 AM kasualkafe_com Joined on 12-08-2007 Posts 6 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat I agree with Nick. It is Absolutely hypocritical that the US pursues a policy of "nuclear denial" to other countries. But I applaud it nonetheless. There are many areas of policy that we pursue where the "double standard" attack would be fitting and would not cause any such happy exclamation from myself. Reading some of the pro-force apologist posts here , I see a number of assumptions that I absolutely disagree with but will leave it at that for now. Its been my observation that most right vs left stances are usually equal and opposite reactions to the most extreme positions of either party. Non-security -example Left - Be fair to everyone Right- Be fair to those who deserve it Left - react - Hand out welfare -Income redistribution Right- Cut Taxes for corporations-Protect the wealthy even at the expense of non-wealthy I agree with the right for the most part , but due to the Right`s many excesses....have no choice but to look to the Left to balance. Then the Left wins a battle , and the Right reacts... ad nauseum    Report

01-31-2008, 2:13 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat Wow! There are some interesting opinions here. This board hasn't had this much action in a long time. With regard to WMD's, the 60 Minutes interview with the FBI agent who interviewed Sadam convinced me that Sadam was trying only to preserve the perception he had WMD's to keep Iran from invading. He did want to rebuild his arsonal, though. We made mistakes in our policy with Iraq. They had an Army and revolutionary guard willing to work with us to keep the peace and put down insergents. We disbanded them and forced some of those soldiers to become insergents, themselves. We could have ended the war a long time ago if not for arrogant mistakes. I can't agree with the double standard thing, kasualkafe, but that's okay. Yes, I agree there are extreme views on the right and left. Middle of the road views are the ones the presidential candidates are trying to champion now. They don't want to seem extreme. It's just us crazy people on discussion boards and third parties that float extreem views out there, but sometimes we have an impact on the mainstream. Ronald Reagon was once considered extreme. Perhaps Ayn Rand will have an impact. Perhaps NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism will have an impact. bis bald, Nick    Report

02-01-2008, 1:07 PM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat Mistakes were made, no doubt.  Primarily, not doing enough in the initial assaults.  We should have obliterated the military structure of Iraq, but it was thought unwise to leave it unable to protect itself from Iran, Turkey, and Syria.  And we didn't want to look like we were imperialist, or on a crusade, so we wimped out, like we did the first time, and took a more moderate approach after defeating Iraq.  That enabled the terrorist to move in, create havoc, and ultimately we ended up being there longer and losing more, then sending in more to do what should have been done in the first place, only in a much more hostile environment.  We probably should have allowed Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kuwait and Syria to carve up Iraq afterwards; let them deal with each other and their friends the terrorist after we thoroughly inspected every inch for any weapons, then got out and moved back over to Afghanistan and did the same there.  I thought we learned this lesson in Viet Nam.  Defeat your enemies, completely, then negotiate the terms of their surrender.  We didn't do it the first time, as we allowed the government of Saddam to remain (because that is what the UN wanted, if you remember), and we had to go back in to finish it when he failed to comply with the UN sanctions and inspections. Ayn Rand is probably still considered extreme, even by the right.  But then, they're not right that much any more.    Report

02-02-2008, 11:37 AM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat Well, that's not exactly my take on our mistakes in Iraq. I don't think we should have disbanded the Iraqi military. Without their leader, they could have worked for us and help keep peace in their country. Instead, we gave them no choice but to join resistance groups and use their skills to cause disruption. Then, we spend resources to try to train and put into place another police force to keep the peace in Iraq. We already had one. What a waste! We basically stepped on our own *** over there and prolonged the war. bis bald, Nick    Report

02-04-2008, 12:06 PM marantaz Joined on 01-10-2008 Posts 19 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat Well, the previous 'police force' was not exactly a bunch of admirable public servants... they were torturers and murderers, Saddams 'elite' guards, who almost universally ran in the face of overwhelming forces, then tried to ennamor themselves with the victors, and those that were succesful in that then betrayed our soldiers and lead them to their deaths.  Nothing there was to be trusted... no the military, the police, the people, or the records kept.  Once the decision was made to attack, the victory should have been complete, and the nation of Iraq should have been carved up and served to its neighbors.  I think they would have learned a lot from that, and we wouldn't have lost as many as we did, nor would we still be there.    Report

02-20-2008, 12:20 AM Brian Joined on 07-23-2007 Posts 5 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat This exact issue came up in a recent Republican "debate."  Did anyone else watch it?  I'm curious to hear your thoughts about that.  Unfortunately, the arguments made by these high school students were as good - or better - than those offered by the candidates.  The double-standard issue is a serious problem for the positive position.  We have shown our willingness to invade other nations, and we are nuclear, so doesn't it follow that other nations are justified in initiating a first-strike against us?  I agree with the negative's statement that we are ultimately served better by not making such hostile actions.   Besides being unfair, as Nick pointed out, the Hiroshima argument did not support the positive position.  It was not a US first-strike, and it was not to prevent Japan from becoming a nuclear threat.  I don't know much about national security measures, so I'll just pose my suggestions as questions.  We're not really worried about another nation using nukes against us - we're worried about terrorist groups acquiring nukes from a government, right?  Is it reasonable to max-out our intelligence gathering resources and work with other nations to track nuclear weapon developments in "rogue" nations and terrorist organizations?  As I understand it, we had more than enough information to foresee and prevent 9/11.  It seems plausible that, with a real, strong alliance with other nations, we could prevent a nuclear attack.  After all, we're not the only nation that has reason to fear a terrorist nuclear attack.   Brian    Report

02-21-2008, 4:57 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat I agree that we need to work with other countries and our intellegence sources. Our intellegence wasn't all that great at the beginning of the Iraqi invasion. I'm glad there are people on this board who will not call me anti-American and other vile names for suggesting that America could be a threat to other nations and that the bombing of Japan was wrong. It hasn't been possible for me to have a civil conversation the Objectivists on SOLOPassion. I even said that if ARI, SOLOPassion, Objectivist Living, and The Atlas Society forums would all be different nations with atomic weapons, I'd be concerned. They all supposedly believe similar things, yet there is so much animosity among them, I would not feel safe in a world where they all had atomic weapons. This caused one prominant Objectivist, one of the sources of some animosity among the different groups, to say he was offended. Well, I don't care. I think it is rational, not paranoid, to be concerned about highly strung, judgmental people, people prone to calling those who disagree with them immoral, having the ability to destroy those people. bis bald, Nick    Report

03-26-2008, 5:16 AM David George DeLancey Joined on 07-06-2007 Posts 48 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat I do realise one thing being out spokin can hurt one's self, though sometimes it has to be done, recognition as a truck driver i see alot of empty space,. My torture is my self we all may have this option. For instence i may enjoy being the president, now what do i do Be calm and allow others to quickly say o no in some sort. Why is this jelousy sure i'm not the greatest speller or well that may be all, though my standard for accupying time is unque and of carrector. For this matter the distribution of money, the fundimentals aquired by it such as College personal a group gets together and decides about a large erea for a cow pasture. More milk meat and cheese less exspence how did it happen they were tortured by they're equity of money distribution wich allowed them to establish foundation somewhere instead of being condemned in one location they were available yes who is doig it every one. Distribution ofsource a fundimental amd then again a regulated challenge for our Government at hand. Alteration . Being in sight of space whom may arive at this location. Availabilty meaning accupied territory look up wikipedia on D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass Usertalk Territory just for laughs. Whos who now How does it get done I will hire you to live on my founded Island as soon as i get it you will now Challenge the task of distributing funds as to when they are used the taxing which is called a taxing from the region all everything tax to adjust everywhere this means with it's bounderies a state deal for sure this island is just an example though since it is, where would the money go, researves for adding and or counting a time consuming venture at that posibly could be at War with ones self since it just keeps on comeing in and then theres the collecting through the origin every three months or fiscal yes indeed muney is fun a fundimental oportunity without it the other guy can't ask that stupid question excuse me partner may i borrow fifty million dolars ,wow i'm sorry embray fellow companion with snow ball we just do not have it. But how come your people live so well. Step inside walk this way boom boom bam bam up goes the shades check this out a printing press boom bam rush through the clearing see there people distribution also a standard here for the counting  make me ich but do not you have some place to go , The End by Yours truly David George DeLancey and i am serious hows that for debate i realy would like to KNOW how was the steady thought of that missel. till next time be happy be observant and watch the weather safty is the highest Perogative.5:08 A.M. E.S.T.                                 I guess for the missle it must be the position    Report

09-03-2008, 1:59 AM David George DeLancey Joined on 07-06-2007 Posts 48 Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat And i think it's gonna be a long long time. 1:58 a.m. e.s.t. Good thing for the Government 9-3-2008    Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: A debate on the justification of using force to prevent a nuclear threat

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU