DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

Thanks, Con. --- 3P0: Comparison of Pro and Con Worlds 1: Con: "The negation of the resolution is 'States don't have the obligation to possess nuclear weapons'. " a: Con has two possible positions in this debate. The first is inactive negation, where Con attacks Pro arguments and but doesn't argue against possession of nukes. The second is active negation, where Con attacks Pro arguments and does argue against possession of nukes. Con has opted here for inactive negation. Thus, in a Con world, possession of nukes isn't opposed, but merely isn't supported. Therefore, in an inactive negation Con world, nukes may still exist. --- 3P1: Prefer Utilitarianism 1: Con: "(U)tilitarianism as the best ethical system is the ... another debate." a: The resolution involves morality, because "should" is in the resolution. Unless we choose a moral system to judge the imacts of this debate, it's impossible for Pro or Con to win. Choosing an ethical system is necessary here, and unless Con has an alternative system, we will prefer Utilitarianism. 2: Con: "Utilitarianism have (sic) serious criticism (sic) like the possibility to actually predict consequences(.)" a: Con has provided no reason why this is a problem. b: Further, consider that decisionmaking happens under uncertainty all the time. As an analogy, when driving a car, the other drivers are an uncertain factor, yet we evaluate the probabilities and are usually able to drive safely. 3P1A: Allows State Morality 1: Con: "I agree that absolutist moral systems cannot guide state policy to an extent(.)" a: Con "to an extent" agrees with 3P1A. Please extend it. 3P1B: Maximizes Value Con doesn't contend 2P1B. Please extend it. --- 3P2: More Nukes, Less War 1: Con: "The consequences for a nuclear war ... are .... worse ... than the (sic) non-nuclear counterparts." a: Yes, nuclear war is more destructive than comparable non-nuclear war. However, this makes deterrence stronger. b: Con provides no quantitative measurement of how probable or destructive nuclear war is. As such, it is impossible to compare it to the lives saved by nuclear peace (as noted, war now kills 55,000/year, rather than the 10,800,000-14,200,000/year during World War II [1], making war a distant notion) and by nuclear asteroid deflection (perhaps merely cities, possibly humanity itself). 2: Con: "[A]n accidental nuclear war ... is a war caused by mistake or false alarm. There are several cases that could end (sic) in a nuclear war in the past, with ... the most popular one being the case of Colonel Petrov[.]" a: An accidental nuclear war is possible. However, considering that from Con’s sources, the record appears to be 0 for 20, it doesn’t appear very probable at all. b: As Kenneth Waltz pointed out [4], “[S] tates act with less care if ... costs of war are low and ... more ... if ... high. .... [N]uclear weapons [make] states exceedingly cautious.” c: Consider Col. Petrov. Why didn’t he fire? The concept of the nuclear taboo has an explanation [17]. People know that actually firing nuclear weapons would result in massive death, and oppose doing so on moral grounds. Col. Petrov didn’t fire because he knew that he would be responsible for many deaths. On a personal scale, being responsible for an atrocity feels impossible. But nations are less bound by the taboo, and there only deterrence holds. d: Technology has improved. It’s much less likely that false positives will occur with newer computers. Furthermore, United States anti-missile technology offers significant defense against nuclear missiles [18], as does Russian technology [19], and together the two form large nuclear umbrellas that protect against nuclear war [20]. 3: Con: "If ... true, all states, or at least most(,) ... should have nuclear weapons. .... This ... increases the probability of nuclear war even more." a: Citation needed. b: No wars between nuclear states have ever occurred between two nations possessing nukes [21], while wars have occurred between nations not possessing nukes and between nations where one possesses a nuke and the other does not. It seems that having more nuclear nations would only reduce the amount of war. 4: Con: "(I)f a state with nuclear weapons goes to war against a state without nukes, there is nothing that deters the conflict. a: The nuclear taboo helps prevent such a conflict [17] and ensures international response, offering deterrence. b: The nuclear umbrella deters war, allowing only some states to possess nuclear weapons in order to protect others [20]. c: Thus, I do agree that more nations having nuclear weapons would increase deterrence, but not that deterrence is presently nil. 5: Con: "(T)here are states that ... pose a threat to ... other states, specially (sic) with these weapons." a: This is true. However, only a suicidal nation would use nukes because of the terrible response. b: In the present world, especially in Africa, and previously world-wide, nations posed threats to many of their neighbors and engaged in frequent wars, often over little issues like land or wealth. This is because success or victory mattered little, and so it was acceptable to squabble with neighbors. When nuclear weapons enter, as Kenneth Waltz notes, it puts an end to such behavior, because war can only be used in the most dire of situations. 6: Con: "Cost is also a problem(.)" a: Citation needed. b: As shown, both war deaths and defense spending goes down after possessing nuclear weapons. Surely this is savings enough? 3P2A: War Hurts Utility Con tacitly agrees with 2P2A. Whoever reduces war more wins. 3P2B: Theory Con doesn't contend 2P2B. Please extend it. 3P2C: Examples Con doesn't contend 2P2C. Please extend it. 3P2D: Empirics 1: Con: "(T)he low amount of states with nuclear weapons can influence statistics(.)" a: Yes, it can. However, this is the best available data on how nuclear weapons affect war. Unless Con can present better data, we must accept Mr. Sechser's data. --- 3P3: Nuclear Weapons and Asteroids 3P3A: Asteroid Impact Hurts Utility Con tacitly agrees with 2P3A. Please extend it. 3P3B: Prefer Nuclear Asteroid Deflection 1: Con: "Pro present (sic) studies about asteroid deflection and shows ... nuclear weapons are the best solution ... in these situations." a: Con explicitly agrees with 3P3B. 2: Con: "This doesn't make the possession of nuclear weapons ... obligatory. (E)ven when (sic) ... other solutions are not as effective, they exist. .... As Pro's own source says, there are other possible solutions for ... an asteroid. 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." a: Let’s look at this situation like looking at the airbags of a car. When faced with the choice between an airbag that, with one immediate chemical reaction, prevents you from breaking your face, and a selection of others that are expensive, require multiple timed reactions, and/or take minutes to inflate, which do you choose? The faster airbag. Nuclear weapons work better, cheaper, and faster. b: In emergencies, nuclear weapons are the only alternative. As pointed out, it’s possible that we might discover an extinction-level asteroid, or even merely a large asteroid, close to and on a path towards Earth. In both of these situations, nuclear weapons are necessary. Nuclear weapons already exist and can deploy immediately while other methods are slow to construct, require less launches and thus less timely construction of spaceships, and can massively fragment an asteroid if there’s no alternative when tugboats and lasers cannot. c: Con has this skewed idea of how “obligation” works. Absolute necessity is not required for obligation; it isn’t absolutely necessary (for you) to save a drowning child (maybe someone else will, or maybe the paramedics will come), but you still have an obligation to do so (under Utilitarianism). Obligations simply means that it is better to do one thing than another thing, and in this case, having nuclear weapons (as Con admits) is better. 3: Con: "I know ... the moral system Pro presented calls for the weighting (sic) of the consequences, but we also have to weight (sic) the disadvantages that possessing nuclear weapons have, specially (sic) when ... no one can be sure when ... an asteroid colliding earth is going to happen, and IF is going to happen in the near future." a: I have responded to Pro’s criticisms to 2P2. b: I have discussed emergencies in 3P3B2.b. c: Con admits that nuclear weapons are better, in speed, efficacy, and launches, and when weighing the consequences we must choose nuclear weapons. 3P3C: Probability Con doesn't contend 2P3C. Please extend it. --- Apologies Two things. Sorry if this response seems rushed, I didn’t have much time due to other commitments. I’m going on a 10-day vacation with family, making it impossible for me to use my computer to respond. Via phone, I can offer a quick summary next round, but nothing more. --- References: [17] people.fas.harvard.edu/~plam/irnotes07/Tannenwald2005.pdf [18] reuters.com/article/2013/09/19/us-usa-military-missile-defense-idUSBRE98I0N420130919 [19] en.ria.ru/military_news/20130802/182555247/Russia-Has-Best-Missile-Defense-Radars--Senior-Official.html [20] nwp.ilpi.org/?p=1221 [21] en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_warfare