10nfl1-Nukes-Cover
Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
Download 1.23 Mb. View original pdf
|
| Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb There is the question of negative burden. Does the negative have to defend proliferation I would say not inmost debates, which means Iran might not be a topical AC. The negative does have to defend, however, states that currently possess nuclear weapons. I think without an explicit counterplan, no states in the negative world can disarm a counterplan with more than one state disarming could possibly be considered a topical counterplan and could spark a theory debate, as well. But if the resolution is a general statement, and no states have nuclear weapons in the affirmative world, then the negative could defend more limited possession of nuclear weapons than exists in the status quo. There area couple of possible deontological positions on the negative. I think it would be a good idea for most negatives to have a deontological casein their file, because you can force an affirmative to answer the case even when they might clearly outweigh any consequentialist negative case you might want to run, then you can focus on AC turns. The goal is to setup aright to nuclear weapons. The first would be the right to self-defense: setup that states have aright to defend themselves, and nuclear weapons are procured for defense. They are not created (at 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 20 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com least not since the earliest bombs) as offensive weaponry, but as a form of defense to protect the society. The justification for self-defense can come from the social contract (that the only moral obligation states are under is to protect their citizens, or consensus from the international community. Another deontological justification could be intent-based: that nations who possess nuclear weapons with the intent of deterring conventional war are morally justified (although this would be a weak argument on which to base an entire case. Negatives interested in consequentialist positions should be able to access issues with disarmament implementation. The resolution would only demand that the action of disarmament occur, but for this to be desirable the possible disadvantages of disarmament should be considered. • Conventional deterrence This argument will probably be the most common on the topic. States are rational actors, so they recognize that a nuclear exchange could be a huge cost, and they will try to avoid that at all costs. Obviously this means not launching a nuclear weapon themselves, but it also means not engaging in conventional conflict, because such conflict can escalate to the point of involving nuclear weapons. Because of the risk of nuclear involvement, states are better served by staving off any armed conflict because of the potential risks. This means that with nuclear weapons, there is less war overall. • Nuclear terrorism Nuclear weapons possessed by states make the risk of nuclear terrorism less likely. This is either because 1) terrorists are deterred by states (this is the weaker of the two arguments) or 2) terrorists are likely to be able to access nuclear material during the process of disarmament, because of decreased security guarding the nuclear material that has not yet been reprocessed. • Chemical weapons Bioweapons: This argument is that nuclear weapons were the WMD of choice, and kept states and terrorist groups from investing in chemical or biological weapons, which have the potential to kill as many people as nuclear weapons (or could possibly be more dangerous, because bioweapons are uncontrollable once unleashed. However, to win this argument, a debater would have to establish a really good reason why nuclear weapons prevent development of chemical or biological weapons, particularly by terrorists, to prevent their impacts being non-unique. It seems tome that smaller terrorist organizations or states without the ability to sustain a nuclear program would have an incentive to invest in such technology, as it tends to be smaller and cheaper than nuclear technology. 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 21 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com Overall, I think this topic can be interesting if debaters do the research (beyond this shallow survey of common arguments) and try to understand how this might affect, for example, the international balance of power (one thing I didnʼt talk about that will probably be common are hegemony arguments US has the most powerful conventional military in the world in addition to the largest nuclear arsenal, or what happens to nuclear material during disarmament. I look forward to seeing some interesting debates on this topic, and good luck 10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 22 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com Download 1.23 Mb. Share with your friends:
|