The United States Federal Government should favor the MAD policy over disarmament.

I'm not going to present a specific case, but rather reasons why the US should work towards disarming its nuclear weapons and treaties that lead to the disarming of those in other nations. Nuclear weapons only have one purpose, and as Ronald Reagan put it, they are "totally irrational, totally inhumane, good for nothing but killing, possibly destructive of life on earth and civilization." He supported a nuclear-free world when he was faced with the very real possibility of nuclear annihilation.[1] If we reduce the number of available weapons, we reduce their capacity for usage, reduce the incentive to fire them, and thus require that those countries that have them handle them with as much care as possible. Essentially, if there's any concern that the deterrent effects of MAD are incomplete, this will improve upon it. In order to fully explore this topic, however, we need to understand how well MAD works by comparison. In order to understand why we shouldn't focus our efforts on MAD, I'll present some circumstances where it has/will become ineffective. MAD is entirely doctrine, and Pro needs it to be correct in order to get anywhere with his case. Any holes in that analysis effectively leave the door open for nuclear war and the massive harms that accompany it. So any of the following points being true is reason enough to reject MAD. I'll start going through these points in this round, and add to them next round. 1. It doesn't apply to non-rational actors. Whether irrationality results from hatred, desperation, or mental derangement, leaders aren't always rational. Whether we're talking about Islamic fundamentalism and anger towards Israel, or a North Korean leader whose cult of personality makes him out to be the equivalent of a god, MAD doesn't apply to everyone. MAD encourages these actors to get nuclear weapons under the faint hope that they will become less dangerous, when in reality they become far more so. Disarmament seeks to prevent this acquisition and remove those that they have. 2. Even if they are rational, there is sometimes a logical reason why an attack would do more harm than a counterattack: "Twenty-two Arab states comprise more than 5 million square miles and more than 350 million people. Israel has just 8,000 square miles and 7.6 million people... Israel must possess weapons so powerful that even a united attack by all aggressors in the region is overwhelmingly discouraged."[2] Again, pushing for MAD over disarmament allows countries to make these value judgments and determine a potential benefit for themselves, as well as forcing mass acquisition of nukes by many nations placed under duress. 3. MAD is a policy based off of psychology rather than logic. The argument often goes that MAD has kept us safe before, so it will continue to do so. However, as technologies have gotten more destructive, simpler to deliver, more accurate, and detection has improved, MAD as a concept is disappearing.[3] Only reducing access to those destructive technologies can improve long-term outcomes. 4. Ownership of nuclear weapons is never absolutely safe. The Cold War was littered with occasions where nuclear launch became exceedingly likely.[4] We cannot function based on the mentality that the presence of nuclear weapons will suffice as a preventative measure - if anything, an increased preponderance of these weapons makes the danger that much larger. All of those nuclear scares occurred when just the US and USSR were jockeying for power, both nations with extensive resources and tremendous bureaucracies in place to reduce the capacity of any individual to launch a nuclear weapon. And they still came close to nuclear annihilation at least 20 times. 5. We should be concerned about the possibility that any given nation that has nuclear weapons may find reason to use them. However, the bigger concern is accidental. A perceived threat from another nation could lead to a retaliatory launch, accidental explosions could occur, they could be used by an unauthorized source, as the result of a simple mistake or technological error, or even basic human fallibility.[5] Even with "safe" systems like those in the UK and US have endured several close calls with accidental nuclear explosions, many of which remain classified.[6] W e cannot expect every nation that acquires this technology to also institute a number of fail safes to prevent these from happening, yet MAD encourages that acquisition. 6. Rogue states controlling nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous. In particular, Iran is considered a major threat to Israel as a result of a number of threats made by the Iranian leadership [7] and its proximity, and North Korea (NK) is a major threat to South Korea due to their ongoing border disputes during this long-suffered armistice.[8] They're also using nukes to threaten other neighbors.[9] The inherent destructive power of having a nuclear weapon presents a significantly more dangerous threat than conventional arms alone, which increases their coercive powers over other nations. The threat of nuclear weapons has been such that NK has been able to bilk resources out of the western world on the assumption that they will abide by long term changes that they routinely ignore.[10] But they can always launch them. As their economy continues to falter, NK's desperation and potential collapse makes them all the more likely to turn their threats into actions in order to show the world that they are serious.[11] The possibility that its collapse could lead to the distribution of such technologies to other nations, and further that this could lead to their spread to non-state actors, is a big concern, as this increases the likelihood of their eventual usage. The collapse of a nation can create a black market for their distribution (and of the expertise required to make them) to other nations or even non-state actors, as was the case in the wake of the USSR's collapse.[12] 7. Speaking of non-state actors, the presence of more countries with more nuclear weapons increases the chance that they will end up in the hands of rebel, criminal and terrorist groups. In nations like the US, this is because it increases the number of storage sites and creates more opportunities for mistakes to be made. But that assumes that they're stored securely to start. Whether this is the result of a lack of technology, national instability, or government corruption, this produces "loose nukes,"[13] which can fall into the wrong hands. This is especially problematic, as non-state actors have no constituencies to look out for, are not constrained by laws, and aren't confined to national borders, thus removing the "mutual" part of MAD. It doesn't require instability either, just enmity. Iran and Syria are reportedly engaging in the practice of smuggling weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to injure Israel without having to engage in war.[14] With Iran's extensive history of ignoring deterrence in this transfer of weapons to these groups, it becomes concerning to think about the possibility of their turning over a nuclear weapon. What's more, it functions in their defense - Iran would see the possibility of a preemptive attack from Israel as something to prepare for, and as such, could easily utilize a proxy terrorist group as an insurance policy.[15] In any case, the more nuclear weapons they have, the more likely Iran is to outsource their usage. Only if they disarmed would they be unlikely to entrust the few they have to external bodies. I hand the debate over to Con to establish his case. 1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://nydn.us... 3. http://1.usa.gov... 4. http://bit.ly... 5. http://bit.ly... 6. http://bit.ly... 7. http://bit.ly... 8. http://bit.ly... 9. http://1.usa.gov... 10. http://bit.ly... 11. http://bit.ly... 12. http://bit.ly... 13. http://on.cfr.org... 14. http://bit.ly... 15. http://bit.ly...