Discover Discussion Debate - Nuclear Weapons Pros and Cons - A Debate

Discovery Discussion Debate Nuclear Arms Pros and Cons This is a script of a debate on nuclear arms. Though the topic is in the news more often today, interaction and discussion is very important in today’s culture. Discover the idea. Discuss and form your opinions. Challenge your opinions through debate. Dr. Paul R. Friesen

Discovery Discussion Debate

Design © Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Page 1 of 20

Original Story copyright of original author

Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Title:

Pros and cons

of new nuclear weapons

debated

Discover Ideas (Outline)

Discuss the Story

(3 Question Levels)

Create Opinions

Nuclear Weapons





Before you start

Look through the idea, front to back.

The ideas in red are just ideas. Students should add to these.

There is an outline page for Discovery.

There are graphic organizer pages for the Discussion and Debate sections.

The reason for the worksheets, at the end of the book, is to help you work

systematically through the material. Worksheets are helpers and can be a distraction

from the rhythm and sequence in your teaching. By putting them at the end they

become support pages versus places to stop, giving a smoother presentation.

Discovery

In the beginning of each story you will have a few questions to discover what you

know, or think you know about a story. The Title of the article/ story will be given

and you will be asked to discover the story by asking good questions.

In the second part of discovery you will be asked to find words which you do not

know. Some of these may be highlighted already in bold. Definitions will follow to

help you discover what the writer is talking about.

Discovery will help you form a plan for the discussion and debate.

Discussion

Discussion is not a debate, though it can quickly become one if there are strong

opposing ideas in the group.

Discussion can be a part of the discovery before you read the story. It may also come

after to discuss the ideas of the story. Sometimes a person’s views may change after

reading the article, which is a good way to start a discussion.

Discussion is interaction without a lot of structure. Be careful not to confuse

discussion with argument. Debate is about argument. Discussion is about sharing

your views and interacting with others’ who want to expand or give a differing

viewpoint.

Debate

Debate is a structured idea. It means that only one person speaks in turn, and with a

specific point to address. It also has a time limit, so the speaker must be precise in

their argument. In a debate the key is to listen and be prepared to oppose the other

team’s ideas. It takes research, a lot of work, and patience.

In the following story we want to begin with discovery ideas. What can you know

from a title, if you don’t know about the topic?





In discovery you will form ideas to create basics ideas for an outline. In discussion

you will ask questions to help you build an outline for your viewpoint. In debate you

will separate the outline into two sections, for and against. At each stage you will be

able to use what you have learned before, to expand on your ideas and understand

both sides of the issue.





Discovery

Title: Pros and cons of new nuclear weapons debated

By James Kitfield August 18, 2003

http://www.govexec.com/defense/2003/08/pros-and-cons-of-new-nuclear-weapons-debated/14783/

What can you know from the title?

①. ______________________________________________

②. ______________________________________________

③. ______________________________________________

④. ______________________________________________

⑤. ______________________________________________

What do I know about this topic?

①. __________________________________________

②. __________________________________________

③. __________________________________________

④. __________________________________________

What would make a better deterrent?

①. __________________________________________

②. __________________________________________

③. __________________________________________

④. __________________________________________

What do you think is a way to control the arms race?

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________





Now read the story.

①. Create an outline of the story / paragraphs.

②. There is a list of words on the side for you to find.

③. After you have found the words, look in the definitions, which

follow the story.

④. Discover the words you don’t know.

Nuclear Weapons

Pros and cons of new nuclear weapons debated

By James Kitfield /August 18, 2003

Even as anti-nuke demonstrators were organizing protests around the country to

commemorate the early-August anniversaries of the U.S. bombings of Hiroshima and

Nagasaki in 1945, the U.S. Strategic Command held a little-publicized meeting of

senior Bush administration officials on August 6 and 7 to advance plans for a new

generation of nuclear arms. Proponents of the plan argue that the United States needs

to tailor smaller, bunker-buster nukes in order to threaten underground nuclear

facilities that may be built by such nations as North Korea and Iran. Opponents

counter that manufacturing a new generation of nuclear weapons will deal a severe

blow to the international arms-control regime and break down the firewall separating

nuclear and conventional arms, leading to greater nuclear proliferation and the

increased possibility of a nuclear war. What both sides agree on, however, is that

nuclear proliferation is emerging as the single greatest threat to U.S. national security,

and that America is at a crossroads in determining how to deal with it. In recent

interviews, National Journal correspondent James Kitfield spoke with leading voices

on both sides of the argument. C. Paul Robinson is director of Sandia National

Laboratories, one of the nation's three primary nuclear weapons labs, and a former

chief negotiator at the U.S.-U.S.S.R. Nuclear Testing Talks in Geneva during the

1980s. Joseph Cirincione is director of the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie

Endowment for International Peace in Washington, and a co-author of Deadly

Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Following are edited excerpts of

their separate interviews.

NJ: The one point of agreement that emerges in the debate about the Bush

administration's 2002 Nuclear Posture Review is that the fundamental equation of

nuclear deterrence has been forever altered by the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the

proliferation of nuclear technology, and the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Is

that a fair assumption?

Robinson: Deterrence has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War, and

we're still sorting out what that means for our nuclear posture and the future. As





Russia becomes more of a friend than an enemy, we are no longer confronted with a

nation that threatens our very existence. I spent many sleepless nights during the Cold

War worrying about stability matrixes and first-strike, "use-them-or-lose-them"

calculations. That kind of Armageddon scenario is now a distant worry. I still worry,

however, about the proliferation of nuclear materials and technologies from Russia,

because in many respects it's a Third World nation now, and in the Third World

everything is for sale. I regret that as a nation we haven't been bolder in developing a

Marshall Plan for Russia, that would help it reach at least a minimum level of

prosperity, which is the best antidote to that kind of proliferation. That problem is

related, in turn, to what I believe is our greatest emerging threat -- rogue states armed

with nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction.

NJ: Given such seismic events as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the

September 11 terror attacks, doesn't it make sense to re-evaluate our strategic ability

to deter aggression?

Cirincione: Absolutely, and we should be taking a new look at our deterrence posture.

It's important for people to understand that this is not what the Bush administration is

doing. The January 2002 Nuclear Posture Review directed the departments of Energy

and Defense to begin development of new nuclear weapons, and to formulate new

policies to accommodate such weapons. As a result, the nuclear weapons labs have re-

established advanced-warhead concept teams to explore modifications of existing

weapons, and to develop low-yield weapons and nuclear earth-penetrators that can be

used against hardened targets. The Bush administration has already decided that we

need new nuclear weapons, and they are now going ahead implementing policies to

reach that goal step by step. They understand that this is a very controversial decision,

however, so they have adopted "salami" tactics -- they are slicing off a little bit at a

time.

NJ: Are the labs developing new nuclear weapons?

Robinson: That depends on how you define "new." If we take a warhead off the shelf

that we designed and tested in the past, and then put it on a new delivery vehicle, is

that a new nuclear weapon? We will probably have to manufacture new copies

because we produced only a few originally, but it is not a new design, nor will we

need to test it. I can categorically state that no one is proposing returning to nuclear

testing. The main point is that the world is not static. Over the past decade, nations

have gone to school on our conventional military capabilities, and many of them have

adopted a strategy of moving their high-value targets out of our reach by locating

them in deeply buried tunnels and inside mountains. If you want to know who the

main culprits are, just look at which nations are buying these huge tunnel-boring

machines. You'll find that North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya have all built a lot of

underground facilities. We keep having to relearn this lesson that the world is not

stupid, and potential adversaries will constantly take actions to better their strategic

position and counter our strengths. I would argue that the United States must respond





by maintaining a robust deterrent against whatever is hidden in those underground

facilities.

NJ: Does the United States need a low-yield, nuclear bunker-buster to hold an

enemy's underground facilities at risk?

Cirincione: This argument that we need mini-nukes as earth penetrators is based on a

lie. Every independent study done on this issue has concluded that for any target

buried more than 50 yards underground, you would still need a very large nuclear

warhead. Mini-nukes of a kiloton or less just don't get the job done. The big nukes

you would need in order to reach a truly deep underground bunker, meanwhile, would

kick up so much dirt that you would have a major problem with radioactive fallout.

More to the point, there are multiple ways of attacking underground facilities using

conventional weapons that would be more effective. With repeated precision strikes

using conventional earth-penetrating bombs, you can bore deeper and deeper until you

reach your target. You could use high-temperature thermo-baric weapons that have

the advantage of destroying biological and chemical agents and pathogens. You could

use precision-strike or Special Operations forces to seal the exit and entrance tunnels

to an underground facility.

NJ: Are there viable conventional alternatives to nuclear bunker-busters?

Robinson: Our primary focus is still to accomplish this with conventional weapons,

and we work hard on that problem. Nuclear weapons remain a blunt instrument of last

resort. We've conducted more than 4,000 penetrator tests, at Sandia, since the 1960s,

however, and we have a lot of data on the problem. Basically our tests show that

conventional penetrators don't work very well. In the aftermath of the bombing

campaign against Serbia, for instance, we discovered that we did very little to no

damage against buried targets. So if we can find ways to strike these buried targets

with conventional weapons, we will. If we can't, however, we need to look at what

can be accomplished with a nuclear earth-penetrator that causes the least possible

amount of collateral damage. That leads you away from two-stage, thermo-nuclear

weapons to smaller-yield, lighter weapons with high reliability. A national command

authority confronted in a crisis with the prospect of killing 40,000 people with a

thermo-nuclear weapon in order to take out a bunker is probably going to decide not

to. If we could design a bunker-buster that would kill an estimated 2,000 to 3,000

people, on the other hand, the answer would probably be yes if the situation was

critical. Those are the weapons the Bush administration gave us the OK to begin

researching about a year ago, because our scientists felt handcuffed by restrictions that

were in place at the time.

NJ: Would rogue nations be deterred from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, or

building underground bunkers, if they knew their facilities could be reached by

nuclear earth-penetrators?





Cirincione: The Bush administration has adopted this arrogant attitude that the

United States can take the dramatic step of developing these weapons, and there will

be no international repercussions or imitators. If the most powerful nation the world

has ever known says it needs a new class of nuclear weapon to defend itself against

weapons of mass destruction, however, why don't other countries also need them?

Why doesn't Iran, which has actually been attacked by chemical weapons? The real

danger of this concept is that it blurs the lines between nuclear and conventional

weapons, making nukes just another tool in the toolbox that could be used for tactical

battlefield purposes. In that sense, this argument is less about deterrence than war

fighting. We already have plenty of doomsday weapons in our arsenal if all we're

trying to do is scare people. They are planning on using these weapons. And if the

United States were to use them, it would cross a threshold that has not been breached

since the Truman administration. That in turn would encourage other nations to

develop and use nuclear weapons in a similar manner. That's not in the United States'

national security interests. Given that we have never accepted a nuclear weapon into

our arsenal without testing -- with the exception of the Hiroshima bomb -- the path the

Bush administration is on also greatly increases the likelihood that the United States

will return to nuclear testing, which would be a terrible blow to the non-proliferation

regime.

NJ: Will developing a nuclear bunker-buster likely lead to new testing?

Robinson: I don't think we will need new testing, because the warhead we are talking

about has already been tested. As I said earlier, we would need to start production of

new warheads again. I continue to abide by my statements that we're a long way from

going back to nuclear tests. Having said that, I helped write the safeguards that were

written into the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty ratification protocols, which

essentially stated that the President of the United States would withdraw from the

treaty and return to testing, if a serious problem developed in the U.S. nuclear arsenal,

that required testing for a solution. The point I'm making is, the United States has

been willing to abide by these treaties only as long as they do not conflict with our

essential security posture.

NJ: How do you respond to arms control experts who charge that remanufacturing a

new class of nuclear bunker-busters violates the Non-proliferation Treaty, which

commits the United States to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures

relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race" and "to nuclear disarmament?"

Robinson: I was in the Reagan administration when we debated what exactly was

meant by Article VI of the NPT, and it seems to me that the end state of total nuclear

disarmament that the treaty envisions will occur around the same time that the lamb

lies down with the lion. And I always argued that even at that point, the lamb still

won't get much sleep. In truth, I believe that the NPT was intended more as a

confidence-building measure than as a real arms control treaty that we were willing to

bet our country's survival on. We would never have negotiated an arms control treaty

with the ridiculous verification inspections by the International Atomic Energy





Agency prescribed in the NPT, which missed the programs in Iraq and Iran and even

Israel. Where has the IAEA spent the most money in terms of inspections? (In

Germany, Canada, and Japan. )Why? Because it is a confidence-building measure

among friendly countries eager to prove they are not violating it. It was never set up to

catch cheaters. That's why I disagree with people who infer that the NPT is a real

arms control treaty. It's not.

NJ: Is the NPT more a gentlemen's agreement than an arms control treaty?

Cirincione: That's just nonsense. President Bush just negotiated a treaty on strategic

nuclear weapons with Moscow that has no verification regime, yet he still insists that

it's vital to our national security. The NPT was the beginning of what became a

comprehensive, interlocking network of treaties, agreements, and enforcement

mechanisms designed to stop the proliferation of not only nuclear weapons, but also

chemical and biological weapons. It established a legal and diplomatic framework for

a non-nuclear future, and it has worked. Instead of the 20 to 25 nuclear nations that

President John F. Kennedy predicted, we now have eight worldwide. That's still eight

too many, but that's not a bad track record. As the nuclear states continue to move

toward ever-smaller arsenals as called for in the NPT, we will continue to devalue

nuclear weapons globally. That's the whole crux of the matter: Given our

overwhelming conventional military superiority, the United States is more secure in a

world where nuclear weapons are devalued and dwindling as opposed to a world

where we and others are developing new nuclear weapons for new uses. Now, there

are certainly enforcement problems with the non-proliferation regime, as there are

with all international and national laws. Does that automatically mean the laws are

useless? No, it means we need to get better at enforcement and adapting them to new

circumstances. There's no question that we need to toughen IAEA inspections and to

take a fresh look at some of the fundamental tenets of the non-proliferation regime.

Some people in the Bush administration think the first thing you do in such a

circumstance is tear down the bridge you're standing on. I argue instead that we need

to strengthen the bridge.

NJ: Do you credit the NPT for slowing the march of nuclear proliferation?

Robinson: I think the North Atlantic Treaty extending our nuclear umbrella to our

European allies did much more to prevent nations from going nuclear than the NPT,

and will do more in the future as more Eastern European nations join NATO. That's

why I argue that we should also extend that umbrella further from Japan to encompass

Southeast Asian nations such as South Korea, Thailand, Singapore, and the

Philippines.

NJ: Do you ever worry that the United States' aggressive strategy of pre-emption,

coupled with our overwhelming conventional military capability, might convince

some nations that nuclear weapons are their only deterrent against us?





Robinson: The National Security Strategy lays out very carefully the conditions that

might prompt pre-emption, which are basically limited to those instances when the

threat of many American deaths is imminent and you have the nexus of rogue states

with weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists. Having said that, a friend of

mine recently pointed out that the United States was not deterred from going to war

by Iraq's supposed arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. We haven't responded

nearly as quickly to North Korea's announcement that it has nuclear weapons. Some

people could draw the lesson that the United States can be deterred by nuclear

weapons, but not by chemical or biological ones. I can't argue with that conclusion.

Vocabulary Check

Find the colored words. Write a definition you can discover from the story if

possible.

__________

1. ______________________________________________________

__________

2. ______________________________________________________

__________

3. ______________________________________________________

__________

4. ______________________________________________________

__________

5. ______________________________________________________

__________

6. ______________________________________________________

__________

7. ______________________________________________________

__________

8. ______________________________________________________

__________

9. ______________________________________________________

___________

10. ______________________________________________________

__________

11. ______________________________________________________

__________

12. ______________________________________________________

__________

13. ______________________________________________________

__________

14. ______________________________________________________

__________

15. ______________________________________________________

__________

16. ______________________________________________________

__________





17. ______________________________________________________

__________

18. ______________________________________________________

__________

19. ______________________________________________________

__________

20. ______________________________________________________

__________

21. ______________________________________________________

__________

22. ______________________________________________________

__________

23. ______________________________________________________

__________

24. ______________________________________________________

__________

25. ______________________________________________________

__________

26. ______________________________________________________

__________

27. ______________________________________________________

__________

28. ______________________________________________________

__________

29. ______________________________________________________

__________

30. ______________________________________________________

___________

31. ______________________________________________________

__________

32. ______________________________________________________

__________

33. ______________________________________________________

__________

34. ______________________________________________________

__________

35. ______________________________________________________

__________

36. ______________________________________________________





Discovery What do I know about this topic?

List at least four (4) different ideas you have found in this story.

①. __________________________________________

②. __________________________________________

③. __________________________________________

④. __________________________________________

Use them when you make your outline.

Discussion

Level I

①. Who should start a nuclear war? Explain.

②. How can you put a value on nuclear weapons?

③. Where has the IAEA spent the most money in terms of inspections?

Level II

①. Is nuclear proliferation controllable?

②. If only the super powers had nuclear weapons would you feel safe?

③. Are bunker-busters really needed? Explain.

④. Do we really need a different style of nuclear weapons? Explain.

Level III

①. Should the USA stick to the treaties all the time, or just when they agree with

them? Explain.

②. Is it better to move from a two-stage, thermo-nuclear weapons to smaller-yield,

lighter weapons with high reliability?

③. Are nuclear weapons a good deterrent for any conflict? Explain.

You now have everything you need to fill out your outline.

Look at your answers, under Discussion, and fill it out to reflect the

new ideas.

These new ideas will help you form your debate ideas better.





In debate you will have a statement not a question. You have to react to the statement

with facts, not opinions.

Discussions are based a lot on opinions and answer questions. This is where

these two ideas, though similar, are different.

Debate is about facts and statements.

When you make a statement, from a story, you must consider what the core

issue is. If you have made a good outline, you will have this already

discovered.

This story is from ________. The core issue could be; (one word)

__________

__________

__________

__________

In today’s world the topics could range from;

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________

__________________

These are all good argument that you would want to research for your argument, or

write in your essay. Build the argument starting from “Why?” Once you have

determined the “Why?” you can find facts to support your idea.

Smaller is better in nuclear weapons.

Bunker busters are the only answer as a deterrent to nuclear weapons.

Nuclear weapons are just to scare other nations.

Before you start choose one of the above statements to focus on. Choose a

“for” or “against” position.

Research to find FACTS for your position.

List the facts.

Write out your argument in a long paragraph format. Include the opposite

position in your writing.





You need to write out both sides so you can understand the

other sides’ argument.

Discovery Outline Main topic ________________________

Find one (1) key idea in each paragraph. (3-5 words)

Paragraph 1 ______________________________

Paragraph 2 ______________________________

Paragraph 3 ______________________________

Paragraph 4 ______________________________

Paragraph 5 ______________________________

Write two things about the main paragraph idea.

Paragraph 1 ______________________________

A. ______________________________

B. ______________________________

Paragraph 2 ______________________________

A. ______________________________

B. ______________________________

Paragraph 3 ______________________________

A. ______________________________

B. ______________________________

Paragraph 4 ______________________________

A. ______________________________

B. ______________________________

Paragraph 5 ______________________________

A. ______________________________

B. ______________________________

In the introduction you use the 5 paragraph ideas to communicate the order of

your argument/ essay.

In the conclusion you repeat what you have said about the points of each

paragraph.





Graphic Organization ~

Main topic = 5 Paragraph Topics

Main topic

paragraph 1

________________________________________________

paragraph 2 ________________________________________________

paragraph 3

________________________________________________

paragraph 4 ________________________________________________

paragraph 5

________________________________________________





Discussion Graphic ~ Is this a problem / becoming a problem in today’s society?

Answer ~ I think nuclear weapons are (a / becoming a) problem because ……

Problem /

Pros and Cons

Bunker busters are a good deterrent to

nuclear arms.

Respond

Respond

Nuclear arms are just to scare people. We need to develop a better deterrent.

Respond

Respond

Treaties are only good if they agree with my

govenrment's policies.

Respond

Respond





graphic ~ choose one statement from the list

above.

Write it here _____________________________________________

________________________________________________________

To make your argument you should understand that they are connected.

In the next two charts (1) list your argument facts and ideas, (2) show how your

argument connects to both the center point and the other points.

Facts

For Against

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Add more if needed





graphic ~ choose one statement from the list

above.

Now start the .

As a team choose which points they will speak about.

Each person will listen for the opposite point and create a new

response to what the other person has said.

A: point 1

B: responds to the point and give a new point.

C: responds to B and give a new point.

After all persons have spoken each person can respond to any point given by the

opposite team, or add more points from their team which will need responding to from

the opposite team.

If this -- then

If this -- then

If this -- then

If this -- then

If this -- then

Write your statement position here.

________________________________________

________________________________________

________________________________________

______________________________





Dear Teacher/ Student,

After you have finished this please look for more in this series to challenge yourself.

This is only part of a curriculum. It starts with Dr. Roy’s Everything Grammar.

Dr. Roy’s Everything Grammar Volumes I and II will develop the skills of story and

essay writing, while at the same time building a foundation in grammar. The

repetition of grammar, combined with reason and speaking, culminating in a story or

essay will prepare students for this series.

Going beyond this book is a book to expand the outlines into essays. Good essays are

able to build and defend an argument. Building a structure for debate will springboard

off this skill set.

Dr. Paul R. Friesen

Documents

Discover Discussion Debate - Nuclear Weapons Pros and Cons - A Debate