10nfl1-Nukes-Cover

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 47 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com This argument seems to be run on every topic even remotely concerned with international relations. Obviously, the application here would be that states are permitted to possess nuclear weapons because they have no obligations.
3. Deterrence. This is probably the most compelling stock negative position. As I mentioned in Rant #2”, this position is more difficult to sell if the affirmative gets to defend a world that is entirely devoid of nuclear weapons. There are certainly arguments to be made for why the affirmative does not have the right to do this, and those arguments would definitely activate a lot of deterrence arguments for the negative. Even if the affirmative gets to defend a nonnuclear world, the negative can still defend that nukes serve as a deterrent against conventional warfare, or against biological warfare etc.
4. Hegemony The argument here would be that nuclear states (such as the United States) ought to possess nuclear weapons to maintain their hegemony. It would then follow that the collapse of US. hegemony would be a terrible thing.
5. Specific states. The negative can argue that the generalized, inclusive statement States ought not possess nuclear weapons would mean that all states would be denied possession of nuclear weapons. They could then argue that there are specific scenarios where it would be advantageous for states to possess nuclear weapons.
6. Sovereignty States have a primary right to make sovereign decisions. As such, it is their right to possess nuclear weapons if they so choose, which means it is, at minimum, permissible for them to possess nuclear weapons.
7. Economic and bargaining power. States should be given the opportunity to possess nuclear weapons, to increase their clout in the international community, and maximize their bargaining and economic power.
8. Asteroids Believe it or not, there is a lot of evidence that argues that nuclear weapons could be useful in deflecting asteroids that are on a collision course with the Earth. I donʼt think this argument will be uncommon. But, while I think some debaters might be attracted to the weirdness of this argument, I donʼt feel that it is a particularly strategic argument. First, the timeframe on the impact is terrible.

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 48 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com An asteroid is not going to come near the earth anytime soon. Second, it is logical to think that by the time an asteroid did come near the Earth, we would have developed some other form of technology that would allow us to save the day. Third, Iʼm not sure asteroid deflection requires states to possess nuclear weapons. We could keep a handful of nuclear weapons locked away somewhere, out of possession of anyone particular state, and use them in the unlikely event that an asteroid comes flying towards the Earth.

10NFL1-Nuclear Weapons Page 49 of 199 www.victorybriefs.com

Download 1.23 Mb.

Share with your friends: