basically this is the new resolution for LD debate for January/February. this is also the resolution used for the tournament of champions. i already have somewhat of an idea of what to do.
so anyone have any ideas on it?
my value is national security. need help think of a criterion.
also, what would be some good contentions?
what kind of warrants can i use?
any thoughts on this would be welcome.
thanks.
2007-12-15 06:41:26 · 6 answers · asked by as 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
wait, but aren't preemptive wars more often to be justified?
2007-12-15 07:54:28 · update #1
No one is going to invade Iran for now.
If they test a device that would likely see a change in language on a Security Council resolution including the phrase "serious consequence". I would suspect Russia and China would support that as they do not want those SOB's to have nukes either. They are potential targets just like everyone else.
Should Iran be foolish enough to pull a stunt with their Navy in international waters then retaliatory strikes are perfectly OK. As they have not pulled out of the non Proliferation Treaty they have legal obligations to uphold. We all know what eventually happened to Saddam for ignoring the UN.
For now they will strut their stuff and talk big, just like Baghdad Bob.
Debate away. Once the phrase "serious consequence" is used the boxing gloves are on.
2007-12-15 07:50:55 · answer #1 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There are certain countrys that simply should not have nukes at all ever. If it takes a country like the USA to stand up and say something about it then so be it. But we should not be alone we are part of the allies right? Well where are our allies? As stated before what can be done with a enemy that has nothing to loose? some certain things i do find to be very suspicious. Such as a country that is bombarded by sun asking for nuke power over a sophisticated solar array.
2016-05-24 02:23:59 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, nuclear weapons are a serious threat and need to be highly regulated in the world community. There is no need for any other countries in the world to gain such capabilities.
2007-12-15 06:49:09 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Pre-emptive attacks are illegal under International law The only legal just cause is in defence when under attack by another nation
2007-12-15 06:59:59 · answer #4 · answered by keny 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Here's what I think. Give each country ONE nuclear bomb. That way any attacker will be extremely hesitant and world peace will be achieved.
2007-12-22 17:44:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
lol what state are you competing in? Hehe my forensics team will be doing the same topic.
2007-12-21 05:29:47 · answer #6 · answered by Ragriav 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋