DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

Again, thanks to all readers, judges, and Con. --- 2P0: Comparison of Pro and Con Worlds Pro defends state posession of nuclear weapons; Con attacks this. With current technology, only state-sponsored entities can build sizeable nuclear weapons [1]. Thus, in a Pro world, sizeable nuclear weapons exist; in a Con world, they don’t. --- 2P1: Prefer Utilitarianism 2P1A: Util Allows State Morality This topic involves states. All state policy involves distribution of resources such that distribution to one comes at another’s expense. Absolutist moral systems cannot guide state policy, because trade-off between competing absolute values is unacceptable and impossible. This prevents action and makes real-world morality impossible. Utilitarianism allows weighing the consequences to determine which outcome is better and thus avoids paralyzation. 2P1B: Maximizes Value Value is that which is ethically significant and definitionally must be maximized. It is currently unknown what, if anything, is valuable. In this dearth of knowledge, we must maximize (a) the chance that we can determine what is valuable and (b) our ability to maximize value. Only living sentient entities can determine and act towards what is valuable, because non-living entities cannot act and non-sentient entities cannot act in response to stimuli, and as such cannot act in an organized manner. Hence, we must protect living sentient entities. Furthermore, greater levels of sentience allow greater ability to determine and act towards value. Hence, we must promote greater levels of sentience. Utilitarianism is the best theory to fulfill this, because it allows us to weigh the consequences towards increasing the number of living sentient entities and increasing their levels of sentience, and thus maximizes the chances that we can maximize value. --- 2P2: More Nukes, Less War 2P2A: War Hurts Utility War kills 55,000 people yearly [2], displaces countless more, and hurts the economy [3]. Clearly, war reduces utility. As such, it is moral to reduce war. 2P2B: Theory Nukes stop nations from starting wars. As Kenneth Waltz, Senior Research Scholar at the Salzman Institute of War and Peace Studies [4], states [4], “Nuclear weapons ... make the cost of war ... frighteningly high and thus discourage states from starting any wars that may lead to ... use[.] .... First, wars can be fought in the face of deterrent threats, but the higher the stakes and the closer a country moves toward winning ... the more surely that country ... risks its own destruction. States are not likely to run major risks for minor gains. ... Second, states act with less care if ... costs of war are low and ... more ... if ... high. .... [N]uclear weapons [make] states exceedingly cautious. Third, ... nuclear weapons .... [make] it unnecessary for a country to fight for ... increasing its security, and ... [remove] a major cause of war.” 2P2C: Examples Deterrence theory is supported by real-world examples. Consider India and Pakistan. Before obtaining nuclear weapons in 1998, both fought 3 major wars on average every 12 years and killed thousands [5][6]. However, as Jonathan Tepperman, managing editor of Foreign Affairs [7], states [5], “Since acquiring atomic weapons, the two sides have never fought another war, despite severe provocations[.] .... They have skirmished once ... in Kashmir in 1999 ... [and] both ... were careful to keep the fighting limited[.]” It has been 15 years since the Kashmir conflict and 43 since the last war [6]. Consider the USA and the USSR. Both were ideologically opposed, paranoid, and warlike. However, nukes prevented full-scale war, despite severe provocations. As Khrushchev’s aide Fyodor Burlatsky states [5], “It is impossible to win a nuclear war, and both sides realized that, maybe for the first time.” 2P2D: Empirics These examples are backed up by empirical analysis. Nuclear weapons lower both the rate of war and defense spending. As Todd Sechser, PhD of Political Science from Stanford [8], states [9], “Four of the five states examined ... participated in fewer interstate conflicts ... once they became nuclear states[.] .... [P]roliferation optimists are correct to expect a decline in ... interstate wars as ... countries acquire nuclear weapons. .... [E]ven a few ... weapons ... provide adequate deterrence[.] .... [S]ince nuclear weapons negate the offensive advantages of conventional forces, nonnuclear-arms racing ... will become ... unnecessary[.] ... China, Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan ... all ... spent a smaller share of ... GDP on defense ... than in the year they ... acquired nuclear weapons. ... [T]he acquisition of nuclear weapons appears to be associated with ... declines in conventional military spending.” Nuclear weapons built the modern peace, and it’s impossible to stop the creation of new nukes [1][10]. As David Von Drehle states [10], “[T]he world without nuclear weapons engaged in two global wars resulting in the deaths of ... 78 ... to 95 million[.] .... [T]he global economy is a creation of the nuclear age. Major powers ... get along because the cost of armed conflict ... has become unthinkably high. .... [T]here is no way to un-ring the nuclear bell. [I]f nukes are outlawed ... only outlaws will have nukes. .... [N]ukes have been instrumental in reversing the ... seemingly inexorable trend ... toward ... deadlier conflicts.” --- 2P3: Nuclear Weapons and Asteroids 2P3A: Asteroid Impact Hurts Utility Jonathan Hagstrum, USGS Research Geophysicist [11]), states that large meteoric impacts, especially oceanic ones, may have caused both megatsunamis, disrupting oceanic and coastal life [12], and massive volcanism, releasing toxic gases [12] These, in turn, may have caused mass extinction events [12], such as the event ~65 Mya that may have killed effectively all dinosaurs [12]. Large land impacts may black out the sun. As Lt. Col. John Kunich, USAF, states [13], “The impact of a sufficiently large object on land may cause a blackout ... in which dust raised by the impact prevents sunlight from reaching the surface ... for several months ... terminates photosynthesis ... and leads to precipitous temperature declines. Obviously ... much smaller impacts ... have the potential to ... damage ... civilization ... irreparably. [V]ast ... fires may greatly exacerbate this blackout[.]” Even small impacts are devastating. As Lt. Col. John Kunich, USAF, continues [13], “[A] ... fireball appeared in the Siberian sky ... exploded ... and ... caused the destruction of more than 2,000 square kilometers of Siberian forest[.] .... [T]he source of this devastation was a[n] ... asteroid ... 80 meters in diameter[.]” Clearly, asteroid impacts reduce utility. As such, it is moral to prevent asteroid impacts. 2P3B: Prefer Nuclear Asteroid Deflection As NASA’s 2007 Report to Congress states [14], “Nuclear standoff explosions are assessed to be 10-100 times more effective than the non-nuclear alternatives analyzed[.]” As Homeland Security News Wire states [15], “David Dearborn of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory argued ... nuclear weapons could be the best strategy for avoiding an asteroid impact – especially if a[n] ... asteroid suddenly comes into view. .... [A] nuclear explosive would be cheaper to launch ... due to its large ... energy per unit mass. ... [A] non-nuclear blast might require several launches[.] ... [T]he nuclear option could be implemented in a short ... time; a detonation ... fifteen days before impact could fragment or divert ... a 270-meter asteroid (the size of Apophis, which has a chance of about 1 in 233,000 of striking Earth in 2036)[.] ... [A] laser ... would take 6,000 years ... to divert ... the same ... asteroid. .... [S]imulations show ... [i]f a collision ... is ... decades away ... a nuclear explosive ... could nudge it off course ... intact. If ... weeks away ... a direct detonation ... although ... smaller fragments could still strike Earth. .... NASA ... has identified ... 90[%] of near-Earth objects ... large enough ... to cause mass extinction[.] ... ‘In a few ... years, we’ll be able to say ... there’s nothing out there to cause a global catastrophe,’ said David Morrison, director of the NASA Lunar Science Institute[.] ... ‘But, there’ll be a million ... big enough to wipe out [a] ... city. .... we simply haven’t found[.]’ ” Hence, it is possible that we will discover an object, large or small, on an impact path and have very little time to react. Nuclear weapons are the best option, especially if there’s little time. 2P3C: Probability A large object probably won’t hit the Earth in the near future. However, when running a red light, you probably won’t crash. Running red lights is still stupid, because the consequences are so great. Furthermore, the chances of impact in the next 100 years alone are not low. Consider merely 29075 1950 DA, with a 1 in 4,000 chance of impact and a diameter of 1.3 km [16]. If we assume 7,000,000,000 fatalities (too generous, but listen) stopping merely this asteroid saves (in game theory) 1,750,000 lives. --- References: [1] nci.org/k-m/makeab.htm [2] foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/think_again_war?page=full [3] economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy_3.htm [4] mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm [5] newsweek.com/how-nuclear-weapons-can-keep-you-safe-78907 [6] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-Pakistani_wars_and_and_conflicts [7] cfr.org/experts/human-rights-international-law-courts-and-tribunals/jonathan-tepperman/b16971 [8] faculty.virginia.edu/tsechser/Todd-Sechser-CV.pdf [9] Sechser, Todd. “The Stabilizing Effects of Nuclear Proliferation”. 2009. [10] content.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1929553,00.html [11] profiles.usgs.gov/jhag [12] adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005E&PSL.236...13H [13] abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc080698.html [14] neo.jpl.nasa.gov/neo/report2007.html [15] homelandsecuritynewswire.com/scientist-says-nuclear-weapons-best-bet-saving-earth-asteroids [16] neo.jpl.nasa.gov/risk/a29075.html