DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

I will present rebuttals in this round. Comparison of Pro and Con WorldsRemember that the resolution is "States should possess nuclear weapons". In other words, the resolution is related to obligations. The negation of the resolution is "States don't have the obligation to possess nuclear weapons". Having said that, Pro has to defend the state obligation to possess nuclear weapons. About utilitarianismPro claims that utilitarianism is the best moral system for states to help them take decisions. Although I agree that absolutist moral system cannot guide state policy to an extent, utilitarianism as the best system is the topic of another debate. Utilitarianism have serious criticism like the possibility to actually predict consequences or differentiate them with real consequences and desired consequences. This is an important factor, specially when talking about nuclear weapons. Subtle factors like the low amount of states with nuclear weapons can influence statistics or make them less accurate. Rebuttals1. More Nukes, Less WarsHere Pro claims that the more nukes means less wars. There are serious problems with this argument. -Nuclear war is more probableFirst, even with utilitarianism, the consequences for a nuclear war, that as Pro's source says, is impossible to win, are terrible. It doesn't have to be several wars or more wars, just one to cause great damage to the world. To put it in other words, the obligatory possession of nuclear weapons increases the possibility of a nuclear war, which has worse consequences than the non-nuclear counterparts. -The possibility of an accidental nuclear warWith the increased possibility of a nuclear war, comes the possibility of an accidental nuclear war. This is a war caused by a mistake or false alarm. There are several cases that could end in a nuclear war in the past [1] with maybe the most popular one being the case of Colonel Petrov who disobeyed orders that could be disastrous [2]. In November 26th 1983, "the world almost ended. In what seems an alternative universe compared with the one we inhabit today, aging leaders in the Kremlin looked out their windows and saw the West preparing for war. " -Most states should possess nuclear weapons to reduce war in the world, which is not feasible. And the last issue is that to avoid war, those that would have a war otherwise should have nuclear weapons. The problem is that if that's true, all states, or at least most of them, should have nuclear weapons. For example, if a state with nuclear weapons goes to a war against a state without nuclear weapons, there is nothing that deters the conflict, at least for the first one. This is not reasonable because it will just make the other problems more probable/dangerous. More states with nuclear weapons just increases the possibility of a nuclear war even more. Other issues with this is that there are states that tend to pose a threat to the security of other states, specially with these weapons. Cost is also a problem when states have the obligation to possess nuclear weapons.2. Prefer Nuclear Asteroid DeflectionPro present some studies about deflection of asteroids and shows that nuclear weapons are the best solution for defense in these situations. This doesn't make the possession of nuclear weapons necessary or obligatory. The reason is that, even when the other solutions are not as effective, they exist. I know that the moral system Pro presented calls for the weighting of the consequences, but we also have to weight the disadvantages that possessing nuclear weapons have, specially when there no one can be sure when something like an asteroid colliding earth is going to happen, and IF is going to happen in the near future. As Pro's own source says, there are other possible solutions for the possibility of an asteroid. [3] Like the kinetic impact, or tugging the asteroid into another direction / mirror bees, etc. Pro needs to present reasons possessing nuclear weapons is an obligation for states if they want to deflect an asteroid. ConclusionPro needs to present a compelling case for the defense of states' obligation of possessing nuclear weapons. I will present arguments against the resolution in the next round. I was not able to present them in this round due to time constrains. I thank Pro again for this round. Sources1. . http://pgs.ca...2. . http://www.mintpressnews.com... 3. . http://www.nasa.gov...