10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Affirmative Ideas The affirmative gets to (in one capacity or another) defend eliminating an instrument of warfare that is designed to kill an extraordinary amount of people. As such, there are some mighty big affirmative cases out there. I will sort through them. 1. Nuclear terrorism. I think this can be a very good argument if run with enough nuance. There area lot of strategic advantages to this argument, and if you plan to make this argument into an affirmative case, you should take advantage of them. First of all, the probability of the impact (terrorists nuking people) is pretty high, as far as nuclear scenarios go. It is very conceivable that terrorists will detonate a nuclear device at some point in the relatively near future. Second, smart affirmative debaters will very easily control the uniqueness on this impact. Terrorists do not have the ability to create their own plutonium or Highly Enriched Uranium. This means they must rely upon states to provide them (intentionally or not) with either nuclear weapons or the materials to build them. Third, this position competes well with nuclear deterrence arguments because terrorists are not easily deterred, particularly if they expect to die in the process. 2. Environmentalism Nuclear weapons are highly destructive towards the environment. First of all, a nuclear war would be devastating to the environment. Second, states that pursue nuclear weapons are inclined to test them, which is obviously harmful to the environment. Third, nuclear weapons programs require states to mine and enrich uranium, and dispose of nuclear waste, which are harmful to the environment. 3. Keep it simple. Nuclear war is bad. Nuclear war can only happen if there are nuclear weapons. Nuclear war would be a terrible thing and would kill a lot of people. As such, states ought not possess nuclear weapons, so as to eliminate (or at least minimize) the possibility of nuclear war. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 46 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com 4. Nuclear weapons prompt antinuclear interventions. The argument here would be that in a nuclear world, states with nuclear weapons intervene to stop other states from developing nuclear weapons, so as to preserve their power. This is a bad thing, because it creates war and conflict (such as the Iraq War. 5. Feminism The argument here is that nuclear weapons should be rejected from a feminist perspective. Granted, there is literature that argues that nuclear weapons are metaphorical phallic symbols. This argument would probably fall under the umbrella of feminist objections to nuclear weapons. This is probably not the argument you want to be making. Abetter argument might be that nuclear weapons area form of masculine aggression, control, and domination. 6. Deterrence fails. There area lot of compelling arguments for why deterrence will eventually fail. First (as I briefly discussed earlier, terrorists in possession of nukes are not likely to be deterred because (a) they cannot be easily found and (b) many of them view themselves as martyrs and expect to die for their cause. Second, some states might just hate one another too much to be deterred. Centuries of religious conflict between Israel and a nuclear Iran, or between India and Pakistan, could very easily manifest itself in the form of nuclear war. Third, the possibility of an accidental launch might make nuclear deterrence impossible. If one state were to accidentally launch a nuclear weapon, whichever state is unintentionally attacked would likely respond quickly and violently (particularly if that state is also a nuclear power, before any conflict could be resolved. 7. Nuclear weapons cause indiscriminate harm. This argument allows for nuanced philosophical positions to become relevant on this topic. If written and run correctly, a deontological or rule-utilitarian position about the importance of distinguishing between civilians and non-civilians could be compelling. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|