"Assuming too much" in a Controversial debate

*Last question for today, I SWEAR.*

I don't know if there are any real fallacies here; just an interesting question on argumentation. It's a sort of 'kick-the-can-down-the-road' strategy, where, in policy debate, a person effectively argues that, since policy X will come as part of a package of policies, these will readily address any shortcomings of policy X, and thus problems A, B and C (if brought up) are irrelevant.

That sounds confusing and I'm a shit communicator. So...let's give an example.

Nora: We should abolish the police force. Society cannot be free until we are rid of all unjust authorities, including those that have the power to curb our civil liberties and imprison us against our will - and especially when that authority is founded and predicated on racism.

Noel: There are problems with this, though. How would a police-less society tackle crime? How about revolutions? What about the possibility of militias breaking away from the commune? Terrorism?

Nora: Police abolition will be part of a broader set of radical reforms in society, including socialising the means of production, such that crime will no longer be an issue - we'll tackle the socioeconomic factors that push people towards criminal behaviour, and dismantle the patriarchal power structures that promote sex crimes.

Nora doesn't really answer the question, but on another hand, she does - she doesn't believe the problems Noel raised are even relevant because, in a society where the police can be abolished, they won't even be needed.

Here's the logical form:

P1) There are A, B, C...etc problems with abolishing the police

P2) But society will be reformed such that A, B, C...etc are irrelevant

Implicit P) Said society will no longer need a police force

P3) Therefore there are no problems with abolishing the police

Implicit P) The police do more harm than good

C) We should abolish the police

I could charge the argument isn't sound because Nora doesn't support her premises. Policy X rests on the success of preceding policies Y and Z (economic and social reform making crime non-existent), for which no evidence is given. Furthermore, Y and Z being any degree of successful does not automatically imply that policy X is a good one - so we could contest the implicit P that the police "do more harm than good", as well.

Begging the question seems the closest fit.