Discovery Discussion Debate

Nuclear Arms Cut-off

How many is too many? Do we really need nuclear arms as a deterrent? Discover the idea. Discuss and form your opinions. Challenge your opinions through debate. Dr. Paul R. Friesen

Discovery Discussion Debate

Title:

A cut-off point for nucle ar weapons?

Discover Ideas
(Outline)

Discuss the Story

(3 Question Levels)
Create Opinions

Nuclear Weapons
Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 1 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate 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 persons 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 teams 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 dont know about the topic?

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 2 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

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.

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 3 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

Discovery
Title: A cut-off point for nuclear weapons?
What can you know from the title? . . . . . ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________

What do I know about this topic? . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ What makes me nervous about nuclear weapons? . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ What do you think is a good model for countries to choose when choosing a deterrent to war? ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 4 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

. Now read the story. . Create an outline of the story / paragraphs. . There is a list of words on the side for you to find. . After you have found the words, look in the definitions, which follow the story. . Discover the words you dont know.

Nuclear Weapons
A cut-off point for nucle ar weapons?
http://tribune.com.pk/story/545745/a-cut-off-point-for-nuclear-weapons/ By Ejaz Haider The Express Tribune, May 7, 2013 Some days ago, at the Islamabad Literary Festival yes, literature has finally reached the Margallas I chanced to sit through a session dubbed Nuclear Pakistan: An Overview of the Strategic Dimensions. It was a monumental disappointment. There was nothing strategic about the session. It wasnt even a poor rehash of an introductory class on nuclear strategy and the trajectory older nuclear powers took, and which was found wanting, in almost all its facets. The first problem always is the old and stale debate between deterrence optimists and pessimists. Nuclear weapons are good. They secure states. They are a cheaper option. No, they are bad. They can be stolen. They dont secure anything. The United States and the Soviet Union lost wars despite nuclear weapons. In the case of Pakistan, theres greater danger of their falling in the hands of the terrorists, blah, blah. These are not strategic assertions. These are polemical positions. Like most polemical positions, they select their own facts and ignore the rest. The fact is that nuclear weapons are bad, as are all weapons or anything that can be turned into a weapon. But nuclear weapons can cause mass destruction, unlike most other weapons, regardless of the fact that conventional gravity bombing killed more civilians in World War II than the two atomic bombs dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And those bombs were nothing compared to what the nuclear-weapon states possess now. So, we have a problem and that problem is not just Pakistan-specific. It relates to all the states that have nuclear arsenals. So, why do we have nuclear weapons? Do they help in winning wars? No. You do not take a knife to a gunfight and you dont take a nuclear weapon to an irregular war. A pistol cant perform the function of a sniper rifle and vice versa. The function of nuclear weapons has then to be placed properly. If a war does happen, despite nuclear weapons, then the weapons have already failed. Their only use is to prevent wars. They are not war-fighting weapons. This is why the concept of tactical nuclear weapons is bollocks. The United States, during the Bush
Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 5 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

era, had begun talking about forward deterrence, which meant using tiny yields in areas of actual fighting. It was and remains a stupid theory not only because it strikes a blow to the normative standard that a nuclear-weapon state will never use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear one, but because such use is useless even operationally. Laying an area waste can be good revenge but it doesnt translate into a strategic victory. Deterrence is the primary and only function of nuclear weapons. And in that, the best mode is counter-value targeting. Adversaries know that both or all can kill millions in a city and, therefore, none will come to blows. One speaker at the session advised Pakistan to have offensive deterrence and talked about counter-force targeting and TNWs. It surprises me that some of us are still flaunting ideas that have been debated and buried in the West. Counter-force targeting relied on the argument that nuclear weapons could actually be used against enemy forces selectively, which would pressure the enemy into showing the same restraint. Developed by Robert McNamara as a supplement to the broader, three-phased Flexible Response doctrine, this came to be called the No-Cities doctrine. Today, no one takes this seriously. Even McNamara offered a mea culpa, much before his death. In any case, this kind of targeting strategy would demand a developed and deployed second strike capability. That has immense cost. Also, counter-force targeting relies on offence rather than defence. Speakers in Pakistan are also fond of citing the stability-instability paradox, another concept that has no physical and psychological space in the context of South Asia. The paradox relied on the fact that the Centre will hold (Germany, which was to be the main battle ground) while the periphery can remain unstable. In other words, while the rest of the world fights the proxy, ideological wars between the United States and the Soviet Union, central Europe will remain stable. How does this work in South Asia? The only argument that proponents can come up with is that Pakistan and India can fight sub-conventional wars. Kargil is cited as an example. (Its a bad example but thats another topic.) After the Kargil conflict, India began its own studies of how to punish Pakistan without escalating a conflict. Later, after the 2001-02 stand-off fiasco in which India lost over 700 soldiers without fighting a war with Pakistan and realized it couldnt gain any advantage, it started developing the Cold Start Doctrine (CSD): combining the twin features of fast surgical strikes with forward deployment of self-sustained Independent Battle Groups (IBGs). While we make much of CSD, its more a wish than reality. Theres no space for the famed stability-instability paradox in South Asia except to keep conferences alive. Neither sub-conventional war nor surgical strikes is a strategic option. Neither can, if at all, go beyond tactical gains that can only accumulate strategic losses. Quite apart from our inability to develop a doctrine for the placement of nuclear capability as one component of state policy, which essentially means we dont know what the hell to do with them apart from arguing for them in and through dead
Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 6 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

theories, we have also shown an utter lack of thought apropos of the changing nature of war itself. Cyber-war is a reality. It means the keyboard and the internet. It means the issue of safety and security of nuclear weapons is not just about someone stealing a weapon or nuclear materials or even attacking a facility. Those possibilities are largely pass. The new threat is someone getting into the command and control systems. Thats the new game. I am not sure we or any of the nuclear-weapon states are prepared for that. Nothing can be foolproof. As someone said, for every proof theres always a fool. Theres also the issue of technologies that can neutralize the adversary from the air, even from space. Finally, as Charles Perrow noted in his seminal work, accidents and incidents are inevitable in high risk technologies. And disasters are not just man-made. They can also be natural. Fukushima is a good example. The idea should be to debate these issues objectively and without acting as polemicists. Nuclear weapons were important and will remain so for some time to come. But is there a cut-off point for that?

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. ______________________________________________________ __________
Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 7 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

13. ______________________________________________________ __________ 14. ______________________________________________________ __________ 15. ______________________________________________________ __________ 16. ______________________________________________________ __________ 17. ______________________________________________________ __________ 18. ______________________________________________________ __________ 19. ______________________________________________________ __________ 20. ______________________________________________________ __________ 21. ______________________________________________________ __________ 22. ______________________________________________________

Discovery
What do I know about this topic?
List at least four (4) different ideas you have found in this story.

. __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________ . __________________________________________

Use them when you make your outline.

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 8 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

Discussion
Level I . Are nuclear weapons good/bad? Explain. . Why does a country want/need nuclear weapons? . Should there be a group of countries that controls all the nuclear weapons? Level II . What are some good ways to turn nuclear weapons into peaceful ideas? . Would you feel more comfortable if your country had nuclear weapons? . Would you feel comfortable if all nations had nuclear weapons? . Is the choice was to go to war or push a button to destroy the enemy, which would you choose? Explain. Level III . Do you think your country should have/pursue nuclear weapons research? . What role does democracy play in control of nuclear arms? . Are nuclear arms the worst deterrent a country can have? 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.

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 9 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

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 todays 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.

All countries should have nuclear weapons. Equality is less threatening. Nuclear weapons are a cheap alternative to a big army. We should have many. Nuclear weapons take too much money, and may never be used. We should get rid of them. 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.
Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 10 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

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.
Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 11 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

Graphic Organization ~ Main topic = 5 Paragraph Topics

paragraph 1 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ paragraph 5 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ paragraph 2 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Main topic

paragraph 4 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

paragraph 3 ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 12 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

Discussion Graphic ~ Is this a problem / becoming a problem in todays society? Answer ~ I think nuclear weapon are (a / becoming a) problem because

Problem / Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear weapons are the only and best deterrent needed to avoid war.

All countries should have nuclear weapons.

Decomissioning nuclear weapons is necessary, so we can develop nuclear power.

Respond

Respond

Respond

Respond

Respond

Respond

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 13 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

graphic ~ choose one statement from the 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. list

Facts
For 1 Against

Add more if needed

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates Page 14 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

graphic ~ choose one statement from the above. list

If this -- then

If this -- then

Write your statement position here. ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ______________________________

If this -- then

If this -- then

If this -- then

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.

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 15 of 16

Discovery Discussion Debate

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. Roys Everything Grammar. Dr. Roys 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

Design Dr. Paul R. Friesen 2013 Original Story copyright of original author Graphic organizers from MS Office templates

Page 16 of 16