Analyzing Nuclear Arms Funding in the United States

Objective:

By the end of the lesson, students will be able to analyze how an author unfolds an analysis of the debate surrounding the U.S nuclear weapons program in order to write letters that communicate their positions on funding the nuclear triad.

Warm-up:

1. Write a short response to the following questions:

• What country do you think currently has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons? Why do you think that country continues to have nuclear weapons?
• What do you think is the role of nuclear weapons today?
• How do you feel about potential cuts to the U.S. nuclear program? What about increases?

2. Read the attached project description for "Rearming: America's New Nuclear Arsenal" and consider the following:

• What arguments support continued funding of the nuclear program?
• What are the arguments against it?

3. Predict how you think the author may feel about the issue. Make a list of people you think the author will likely interview to investigate both sides of the argument.

Introducing the Lesson:

Today's lesson will explore how an author unfolds an analysis of a complicated issue: The funding of a nuclear weapons program that would cost nearly $30 trillion over 30 years.

As part of the lesson, you will review five videos from PBS NewsHour.

1. First, watch "As Pentagon Overhauls Nuclear Triad, Critics Advise Caution" and answer the questions attached.
2. Watch the other four videos in any order you choose.
3. For all four resources, create a chart that reviews the following:

• Who is interviewed as part of this resource?
• What do the people interviewed think about funding nuclear weapons?
• Based on the structure of resource, do you think the author presents an opinion? Which side of the argument is most convincing to you? Keep track of the evidence that is interesting to you.

Here is an example of a chart you can use:

Reflection:

Write a short analysis of how the authors unfold their analysis of the project. Address the following in your analysis:

1. Do you think the piece offered equal amounts of evidence supporting both sides of the argument?
2. Why do you think the authors structured the order of the interviews the way they did?

Extensions:

Option 1. Write a letter to a member of Congress in your state that uses evidence from "Rearming: America's New Nuclear Arsenal" to articulate whether or not you agree with funding to support the nuclear triad.

Option 2. Create an outline for a television news piece that structures the interviews in a different way. Consider the following:

1. How could you reorder the interviews to communicate a different point?
2. How would you order the interviews to present an argument fully for or against funding the nuclear arms project?