What is Erika Gregory’s main argument? What is the conflict that her argument is responding to? What does the way she establishes the context/issue suggest about her underlying assumptions about nuclear weapons?
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to all life on the planet and future generations need to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to reduce the threat of nuclear war. The conflict is that although the cold war is over the threat of a nuclear attack occurring is still very possible and needs to be corrected. To establish the context the presenter points out that either you or someone you know would be affected if there were a nuclear attack in the United States in the future. I would assume that her underlying assumptions about nuclear weapons …show more content…
For starters the risk of cyber threats and how i could lead to further escalation, appealing to more of a value claim. Then there is the black market for nuclear materials, this one is more fact driven as it points to the actual arrest of two taxi drivers who attempted to sell nuclear material. One more claim is on the risk of accidental nuclear war, this one provides fact with some value added because she brings up the Black Brant incident and assumes what the outcome could have been. I feel that it is the claim of accidental nuclear war that is most effective because it beings with logic and carries over into emotion. The claim beings with a true event occurring and this takes a turn for a shocking hypothetical that attempts to draw out an emotional …show more content…
These words seem sort of appropriate given the topic of the presentation but I feel that they still rely on a bit of shock value. The claims that support her argument are mainly presented in a way that nearly everything except the hopeful “Generation Possible” is the problem to her argument. When she talks about the cost of nuclear weapons she is a little more reserved with the way she describes the situation, she uses “a trillion dollars could go a long way to feeding and educating and employing people,” but when it comes to a topic such as what happens in a nuclear attack she claims all life would be wiped out.
With this understanding, how does Gregory address nuclear deterrence? What is her tone and treatment of this counter position? Does her discussion of nuclear deterrence rely on logic, emotion, or credibility? Overall, does her assessment of nuclear deterrence strengthen or weaken her argument, and
Nuclear weapons pose a threat to all life on the planet and future generations need to reduce the number of nuclear weapons to reduce the threat of nuclear war. The conflict is that although the cold war is over the threat of a nuclear attack occurring is still very possible and needs to be corrected. To establish the context the presenter points out that either you or someone you know would be affected if there were a nuclear attack in the United States in the future. I would assume that her underlying assumptions about nuclear weapons …show more content…
For starters the risk of cyber threats and how i could lead to further escalation, appealing to more of a value claim. Then there is the black market for nuclear materials, this one is more fact driven as it points to the actual arrest of two taxi drivers who attempted to sell nuclear material. One more claim is on the risk of accidental nuclear war, this one provides fact with some value added because she brings up the Black Brant incident and assumes what the outcome could have been. I feel that it is the claim of accidental nuclear war that is most effective because it beings with logic and carries over into emotion. The claim beings with a true event occurring and this takes a turn for a shocking hypothetical that attempts to draw out an emotional …show more content…
These words seem sort of appropriate given the topic of the presentation but I feel that they still rely on a bit of shock value. The claims that support her argument are mainly presented in a way that nearly everything except the hopeful “Generation Possible” is the problem to her argument. When she talks about the cost of nuclear weapons she is a little more reserved with the way she describes the situation, she uses “a trillion dollars could go a long way to feeding and educating and employing people,” but when it comes to a topic such as what happens in a nuclear attack she claims all life would be wiped out.
With this understanding, how does Gregory address nuclear deterrence? What is her tone and treatment of this counter position? Does her discussion of nuclear deterrence rely on logic, emotion, or credibility? Overall, does her assessment of nuclear deterrence strengthen or weaken her argument, and