All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

Let me now present my opening arguments and I will follow them with rebuttals. I apologize in advance that some rebuttals and arguments will overlap, however I do want the arguments to stand alone for ease of reading. The first argument, and probably most important, I would like to present for the proposition is that of equality. By having different standards for different countries we are essentially saying that some countries are entitled to a differing set of rules than others. This is in direct violation of the United Nations Charter Article 55 section c which states “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion. ”(1) By denying a nation the right to not have nuclear weapons we are directly violating there fundamental freedoms to have the same equal rights as another nation. My second argument is the argument for sovereignty. Sovereignty can be defined as “supreme authority within a territory ”. (2) Now, even as unpalatable as it may seem to us this means the country in question is entitled to do anything they want in their own country without interference. While we may argue that this does not applying in every situation, for example the Rwandan genocide was a human rights violation. (3) The right of a country to posses nuclear weapons does not mean they are doing anything illegal, or said in another way they are not infringing on anyone’s human rights. If we consider a genocide is pre-planned, and there is doubt whether a government would use their nuclear weapons against their own population. The simple answer is no, as they would effectively be destroying a part of their own country so its an illogical argument and also one we can use for any country that currently has nuclear weapons at present. Consider as an example the NSA spying in the USA, this is a violation of humans rights so should the world not be worrying about the launch of nuclear weapons by the USA government against its own people? (4) The obvious answer is no, but the hypothetical answer in yes. My final argument for the proposition is that of the threat of nuclear annihilation keeps countries from using these weapons against each other. The Cold War is an example that shows that the nuclear annihilation threat is not real, even though it did come close with the Cuban Missile Crisis. (5) However, this Cuban Missile Crisis also lead to nations learning about the use of nuclear weapons being too dangerous to use. So you may ask why did these nations not disarm after the Cuban Missile Crisis, the answer is simple for protection. It comes down to the selfish desire not to lose, or in other words you annihilate me and I do the same to you. Now let me move onto some rebuttals. The first thing I would like to address and ask my opponent to drop from this debate is the issue of rogue nuclear weapons which can be obtained by terrorist groups. Just to clarify, I specifically means lost/stolen nuclear weapons ending up in the hands of terrorists and not the issue of the so-called “rogue” states. The debate is structured around the proposition that nations should have the right to posses nuclear weapons and as such terrorists are beyond the scope of this debate. I believe this is especially true as the initial round for the debate even stated “As such, Al Qaida and Hezbollah would not be nations, but Iran and Lebanon would be. ” Additionally, this argument can be used for any country. It is entirely possible that a terrorist group could obtain a nuclear weapon from any nation that currently possesses nuclear weapons if they can afford the bribes and find someone who is unethical enough to sell them the weapon. My opponent brings up the issue here of North Korea as “rogue” state that should not be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Now while I agree North Korea does fit the definition of a rogue state and should get stopped from doing what they are doing to their civilians. However, they are a sovereign nation and as such we should not be prohibiting their possession of a weapon which is a threat to other nations. In India, there has been the recent decision to re-criminalize homosexuality which is a clear violation of human rights based on sexuality. (6) So, why are we not trying to get India to give up their nuclear weapons, as they can classify as a “rouge” state as well. (7) Regarding, nations that are acting against their citizens such as Syria, North Korea etc. This in essence is an argument for sovereignty, as there are times the international community should intervene as my opponent has pointed out. However, to think that a country would utilize nuclear weapons within its own borders makes no sense. In effect a country would be making its country smaller and unusable as has been seen in Japan and the recent Fukishima meltdown. (8) Remember, this was a meltdown and not a specific attempt to destroy an area with high grade nuclear weapons which would result in far worse consequences. Regarding the potential for nuclear war increasing with more countries obtaining nuclear weapons. I would claim this is not true, as most of the close shave nuclear incidents in the Cold War could have been avoided if communications were more advanced as they are today. Additionally, the Cold War was an extremely unique situations, as it was two super powers trying to get ahead of the other. (9) If the USA wanted to they could have ended the Cold War right at the beginning, as they had more nuclear weapons before the massive production started. Essentially the cold war was a war of “I have bigger muscles than you. ” This situation is not likely to repeat as we do not have more than one super power at present, and the normal situation by nations will be preventative as in the case of India and Pakistan. I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) . http://www.un.org...(2) . http://plato.stanford.edu...(3) . http://www.unitedhumanrights.org...(4) . http://www.usnews.com...(5) . http://www.atomcentral.com...(6) . http://www.aljazeera.com...(7) . http://www.nesl.edu...(8) . http://www.newscientist.com...(9) . http://en.wikipedia.org...