AFF
“Today every inhabitant of this planet must contemplate the day when this planet may no longer be habitable. Every man, woman and child lives under a nuclear sword of Damocles, hanging by the slenderest of threads, capable of being cut at any moment by accident or miscalculation or madness.”
-John F. Kennedy
“If the Third World War is fought with nuclear weapons, the fourth will be fought with bows and arrows.” -Louis Mountbatten, 1st Earl Mountbatten Of Burma
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Definitions from the Random House Dictionary 2010
States: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like
Possess: to have as belonging to one; have as property; own
Nuclear weapon: an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.
Value: Humanity, as in the human race and its values.
Criterion: Cosmopolitanism, as in, we need to rise above the needs of one nation and look at what is best for the world and its various civilizations.
Contention 1
One Leader, One Apocalypse
With the existence of nuclear weapons, world safety dramatically decreases. No matter how rational world leaders are, it takes only one with nuclear weapons to cause a nuclear apocalypse. Even if 99% of nuke possessing countries are trustworthy, it takes only 1% of nuclear countries to destroy human civilization. Whether they actually do all the destroying or they simply start a chain reaction, it is irrelevant. Statistically, this is going to happen eventually unless nuclear disarmament occurs. This principle applies to my entire case. We only need to have one nuclear war to end the world, one nuclear bomb to start a chain reaction, and only one lax guard or corrupt official to lose a bomb. It is far too perilous, and while it might not happen in our lifetime, it will doom our descendants and humanity.
Contention 2
Rogue Nuclear Weapons
Subpoint
a) Terrorism-Not only can rogue leaders destroy civilization, but any random group that gets its hands on a nuke. While it might not end the world, these rogue organizations could destroy cities and kill millions. There are many terrorist organizations that would love to do so, as well as many unsecure or missing nuclear material, such as in the former Soviet Union. Corruption or lax security could put a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists, extremists, or a random insane person. “It took only two nuclear bombs to get Japan to surrender-- and the Japanese of that era were far tougher than most Americans today. Just one bomb-- dropped on New York, Chicago or Los Angeles-- might be enough to get us to surrender."- economist and prolific author Thomas Sowell Known nuclear missile break-ins have occurred in both South Africa and Belgium.
b) Defense Unreliability- Our defense systems are highly unreliable. Both ICBM defenses and dirty bomb detectors lack high reliability. On our ICBM missile defenses, “The failure of the latest test in July suggests that any NMD umbrella will have gaping holes - assuming the umbrella can be made to open at all. Where nuclear weapons are concerned, 70 or 80 per cent protection is not enough. If the shield is not 100 per cent effective, forget it. Add to this Russian and Chinese threats of a massive new arms build-up if NMD goes ahead, and the drawbacks of the scheme would seem to outweigh any conceivable advantage.”- The Independent (08). The dirty bomb detectors around our borders aren’t much better, having a measly 17-53 percent.
c) Hackers-Another danger is hackers. Internet warfare is along these same lines, and hackers have previously broken into critical government systems. If an unstable, suicidal or criminally insane individual were to hack into the nuclear launch protocol, they could remotely trigger multiple nuclear launches and destroy humanity. “A computer worm called Stuxnet has crippled parts of the Iran nuclear programme. DNA : Daily News & Analysis. Mumbai: Oct 05, 2010.
Contention 3
Nuclear Volatility
Nuclear weapons are volatile and cruel weapons. They desolate an entire landscape, from buildings to the smallest of rodents. Any area that is exposed to a nuclear blast becomes unsafe for any life except for radioresistant extremophiles. Nuclear blasts release electro-magnetic pulses that if released in midair, could destroy technology across the globe, and on ground, damage electronics for shorter ranges. They also kill mostly civilian targets along with the military targets because of the scale of these weapons. Those who survive the blast can suffer from mutations, cancer, and birth defects. These weapons are inhumane. This is clearly in violation of everyone’s inalienable rights against cruel and unusual punishment.
For this multitude of reasons, I can only see an affirmative ballot, supporting nuclear disarmament, for the sake of ours and future generations.
Neg
“So in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation blithely to declare yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong, good and evil.”
-Ronald Reagan
‘The emotional security and political stability in this country entitle us to be a nuclear power.”
-Sir Ronald Mason
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.
Definitions from the Random House Dictionary 2010
States: a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation.
Ought: used to express justice, moral rightness, or the like
Possess: to have as belonging to one; have as property; own
Nuclear weapon: an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.
Value: Safety, as in overall wellbeing for people.
Criterion: Realism, as in viewing the world as things really are, not through an idealist view, and through realism, we can see that greater safety will be achieved by the possession of nuclear weapons.
Contention 1
Nuclear Deterrence
The possession of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent against those who would otherwise attack or use nuclear weapons on countries that possess them. It was the 2-sided nuclear deterrence between the USSR and the US that prevented the Cold War, which rivalry would have occurred with or without nuclear weapons, from becoming the hottest war in history. In the end, it serves a peacekeeping purpose in the same way building a fortress or possessing military weapons discourages attack (as long as significant provocation doesn’t occur). For safety to be maintained, we cannot become a red-painted target for nuclear weapons by not being able to threaten nuclear retaliation. Whether we would actually do it is unimportant, because it simply prevents them from being used in the first place. Other countries depend on the U.S. nuclear deterrence as well, such as Japan.
Contention 2
Nuclear Weapons Can Save Lives
While this may sound singularly irregular, nuclear weapons actually have the power to save lives in some circumstances. 100% of all nuclear weapon use in war has saved lives. While everyone remembers Nagasaki and Hiroshima as an atrocity, the alternative was infinitely worse. The casualty projections for the United States alone were 1 million. The majority of Japan’s population was expected to fight and die against the Americans. These losses would have been colossal, even compared to the high amount deaths from Nagasaki and Hiroshima. While about 300,000 died from nuclear weapons, that is nothing compared to the death of the population of Japan and at least one million Americans. In this case, nuclear weapons served as an alternative to a much more threatening scenario.
Contention 3
Other Uses
Everyone likes to recycle. Even if they’re not into the green movement, recycling is undeniably a good thing. There are other things nuclear weapons are good for. One example is shown in astronomy. The doomsday scenario of a meteor or comet is one of these. According to some scientists, nuclear weapons would be the best way to stop a NEO or a Near-Earth Object. NEOs can cause significant devastation but are very difficult to detect or stop. Nuclear weapons are a faster method of destroying these monstrosities than any other known method. In addition, it is the only option close to modern technology.
Because of these cumulative reasons, namely, nuclear deterrence, its power as an alternative to worse things, and the scientific potential, you must see that the Negative is right and should thus be voted for. Based on a realistic view of the world, safety is best preserved by the existence of nuclear weapons.
Nice work--very thorough research!
ReplyDelete