10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Dr. Strangelove As I said above, you have the option of running a deontological framework that possessing nuclear weapons is immoral not because of the bad consequences that might arise from having them, but because there is some inherent moral violation in a state having such a weapon. Why might nuclear weapons be immoral Well, for one thing, they are made to kill a ton of people. If, under a deontological framework, morality is about intent, the intent of having nuclear weapons is to gain a strategic advantage through killing the enemy. This is the simplest deontological argument you could make that it is immoral to possess something that was made to do evil. An alternate violation could be that nuclear weapons are meant to violate the rules of civilian immunity. When you detonate a nuclear weapon, it doesnʼt just affect the enemy military. Nuclear fallout would certainly threaten civilians, even if the blast was somehow contained. The principle of civilian immunity can be considered amoral rule, and nuclear weapons cannot abide by it, so possessing them is a violation. A variant of this argument is that the threat of causing civilian harm, even if that harm will never occur, is amoral violation, because a) at some level, the nation levying the threat must be prepared to carry it out, and b) threatening immoral behavior and influencing actions on that threat, through fear, is immoral as well (think of it this way if I told a parent that I would torture their child unless they gave me $100, and they did it, it would still be immoral, even if I was bluffing and had they not given me the money I would have left the child alone) Threatening suffering to achieve an end goal, which is all deterrence really is, treats nations, and the individual decision-makers within those nations, as a means to an end. Consequentialist cases will, I think, be more common as affirmatives, because the topic gives an apparent advantage to affirmatives claiming nuclear war as an impact, which even in non-WMD topics is the gold standard for giant impacts. However, the first thing to consider, before we even get to aff arguments, is what kind of world does the aff get access to, and thus, from what state of affairs can she reasonably claim impacts The most balanced and textual interpretation seems tome to be a world where no states possess nuclear weapons. BUT some nations have nuclear weapons now, meaning the affirmative should defend disarmament for these nations. The aff doesnʼt get access to counterfactual ground, like The world would be better if nuclear weapons had never existed because there is no specific textual basis for that interpretation, there would be no literature for the negative to use formulating arguments, and there is no action for the affirmative to defend (implicitly with a vague advocacy or explicitly with a plan text) against the negative status quo. However, there will definitely be good and legitimate (in my opinion) theory arguments that granting the aff the power to argue that multiple nations ought do something is 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 18 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com unfair, because that is not a decision that any single entity can ever make (for example, the US Congress might be able to decide that the US will disarm, but not that the US and Russia will both disarm. Ina deontological world, this doesnʼt matter, because each individual actor would be committing (or not committing) a deontological violation by possessing the weapons and ought not to do so regardless of what other nations do. Leaving aside these theoretical issues for now, though, we can move onto the stock consequentialist affs. For the most part, cases with consequentialist frameworks will deal with nuclear detonation. There is a pretty standard link chain going from detonation to extinction first a nuclear attack is launched, which turns into nuclear exchange either because the country being attacked has an arsenal or because it has allies with one, and the conflict expands to include the big nations usually, the argument is that the US will aid X nation, and China or Russia will seize the opportunity as away to counterbalance US power and aid the opposing nations, leading to a global nuclear war, which causes nuclear winter, which leads everything to become extinct. Whew. For one reason or another, 95% of debates do not even touch this link chain. Most of the debate will center on whether the initial detonation actually occurs. There area couple of ways to access nuclear detonation • Accidental launches. This is pretty basic its late, the nightwatchman is bored, hes had a couple of beers, he stumbles into the big red button that says, “donʼt push There are actually several ways that such detonations might occur (although if a nuclear weapon were really unstable, that would mean that it was more likely to detonate on a nations own soil than make it all the way past the border in any direction. Since the negative isnʼt forced to defend universal proliferation, however, it would be a good idea to outline where such an accident might be likely, given current technology. The US is unlikely to accidently launch a nuclear warhead into Canada. North Korea might be a little more likely. If nothing else, the aff should outline why future proliferators might end up being unable to completely control their nuclear weapns. • Preemptive strike. This is when a nation launches a nuclear strike at an enemy for the purpose of crippling their capabilities (or their resolve) and preventing such an attack on themselves. A nation could do this because they are either misinformed or under- informed and therefore think that an attack in imminent. A nation could, due to close proximity to their enemy, be unable to determine if an attack was coming before it came and therefore have to act during tense times without knowing if the enemy had already launched weapons. A nation could be concerned about their own second-strike capabilities (the ability to respond after being hit with a nuclear strike, and therefore attempt to incapacitate the other nation before being possibly unable to act. A tense situation in international relations can lead to detonation. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 19 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com • Rogue leaders Deterrence works because leaders know not to launch their nuclear weapons. If they do, they know that their own nations will be subject to the destruction of a nuclear attack. The benefit from launching an attack would never be worth the devastation of being hit with a nuclear attack. However, leaders who were motivated by achieving gain (particularly ideological gain) and willing to take on big risks might use nuclear weapons. Also, nondemocratic leaders lack the check of popular approval on their actions, and so might risk more of the lives of their people for potential gains. Also, leaders are not the only ones with potential access to these weapons. If a nation lacked sufficient safeguards, a small group of military leaders with skewed conceptions of the international political arena could launch the weapons. Another possible case could deal with the process of creating nuclear weapons themselves. I donʼt know how up-to-date it is, but there is certainly evidence that mining for nuclear material is environmentally harmful. Environmental impacts can garner the same extinction potential as nuclear impacts. You should also include the risk analysis for the impacts even if its just that the chance of extinction outweighs all other impacts, have that in the AC. Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|