The United States of America should unilaterally disarm its nuclear arsenal

Looking forward to a fantastic first experience for the both of us. I see that many of you have already made up your minds in the comment section, but please refrain from deciding the winner before the debate occurs and judge solely on the outcome of this debate and the clash between opposing arguments brought to the table. I'd like to start by placing a few burdens on my opponent for this debate that he must fulfill less he be defeated outright. My opponent must prove that the prospective benefits of this disarmament do not outweigh the harms, and that the harms are both likely and deleterious. He must also provide a coherent and logical argument explaining why nuclear weapons provide us with a unique, reliable benefit that we cannot afford to lose. Now to begin my constructive argument.1. CostAccording to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, the cost of maintaining the massive arsenal of the United States between the years 2010 and 2018 will amount to somewhere around 179 billion dollars [1]. Combine this with the opportunity cost of not converting this highly enriched uranium and plutonium into fuel, and we find that maintaining this arsenal is rather prodigal. I'll put the true number somewhere around 200 billion dollars with the opp. cost (con is welcome to challenge that), which amounts to about 23 billion dollars per year. This may not seem like much, but that is more than we spend on foreign military aid yearly. If put into the economy with a tax adjusted MPC of just .33 (just a low estimate), this amounts to an extra 35 billion dollars in GDP or a reduction of the deficit, depending on your palate. You also, of course, run the risk of poor management, accidental detonation and/or launch, etc. Con will have to negate these immense costs with unique benefits to win this debate.2. International Policya. Rogue Nations We are very persistent in our attempts to prevent proliferation at all costs; ie: North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. But telling sovereign states that they must not build so much as a single warhead while we sit upon a stockpile of thousands gives the US the semblance of a nation that operates on hypocritical values. It damages a country’s image when it is simultaneously vociferous in its opposition to nuclear programs in other nations, sanctioning them and going to war with them over the most specious accusations, while maintaining such a large stockpile. How would you feel if a man with a cache of thousands of firearms told you that you can’t have but one, alluding to the possibility of harming others? You would either think that this man is an outright hypocrite or that he believes that he is more worthy than you of these weapons. And this is the image that we’re perpetuating worldwide. One in which America believes it is superior to other sovereign states and gets to have privileges that they don’t. Which in turn fuels a stereotype of the arrogant, hypocritical hegemon. This makes it easier for nations such as Iran and North Korea to demonize us and to convince the masses that America is looking out for the good of itself rather than the good of the world. When a country is told that it cannot have something by a country that has a superfluous amount of said thing, it can create resentment and even a recalcitrant desire to obtain said thing. This hypocrisy also leads to apathy. Iran probably takes our demands less seriously than they would if we weren’t being such hypocrites. Would you listen to the man with a thousand firearms telling you not to buy just one? Or would you want to prove to the world that you are capable of making your own decisions and deserve an equal status as far as weapons go? Insofar as our stockpile prevents us from having productive conversations with other nations about disarmament, we lose out on the opportunity to hold more sway internationally on con's side. He may rebut with the assertion that these nations would build a stockpile anyway, but he still must contend with this fueling of a hypocritical image, as well as the notion that modern proliferation is reciprocal inasmuch as incentives to develop nuclear arsenals are augmented by nuclear arsenals of perceived competitors or potential enemies. b. Nuclear PowersAmerica also has a vested interest in pursuing global disarmament, especially of our closest nuclear competitor, Russia. If they see that we are pursuing disarmament in a meaningful way, other countries will be more incentivized to do the same, as their fear of America cheating on quotas and protocols will be assuaged. It would be prudent for the United States to disarm its nuclear weapons with the goal of eradicating all warheads in a unilateral manner. In other words, our disarmament should not be contingent on the disarmament of, say, Russia. We cannot keep waiting for some idealistic bilateral arrangement. Both have the incentive to cheat on such an agreement, and both are aware of this incentive and thus are duly wary about any sort of agreement in the first place. This answers the question of "why unilateral? " The simple response is that bilateral or multilateral agreements that are actually substantial are unlikely to ever occur.3. ImageCon is presumably going to talk quite a bit about how this diminishes the perceived strength of America, but you should not accept this argument. America has the most powerful economy and military in the world by far. The notion that nuclear weapons somehow add an invaluable element to America's perceived strength is unfounded and the strength of America is not contingent upon our nuclear stockpile, so this point, if made by con, would be non-unique and therefore not acceptable when it comes time to vote. I have already outlined many ways in which eradication helps our international image, including a mitigation of perceived hypocrisy. Our chastisement of other nations for building warheads would actually be legitimate and not quintessentially hypocritical. This will improve the image of America as well by both reinforcing our position as a global leader and by displaying that our desire for a more peaceful world is not contingent upon the desires of other nations. We consistently fail to abide by the resolutions formed by international bodies, of which America is a part of, and this enormous and unprecedented leap towards global eradication and peace would undoubtedly convince everyone that America is willing to lead the world by example, not by hegemony, which would ultimately make for a comparatively stronger image of America on a global scale. 4. EthicsThe purpose and inherent wrongness of nuclear weapons is certainly a salient issue as well. The impact of nuclear weapons is primarily on innocent civilian non-combatants. All weapons can theoretically be used against civilians, but the nuclear weapon is designed to be deployed against them. In fact the death of innocent civilians can be pinpointed as the primary goal of nuclear weapons. Insofar as this is true, we cannot possibly justify the existence of such a weapon. We as autonomous actors must value the autonomy and inherent right to life of all humans, even if they happen to have been born in a different country. Killing innocent civilians for political, tactical, or even reciprocal goals is ALWAYS in violation of any ethical calculus, especially the Kantian deontological framework which I'm operating under and which Con is welcome to challenge. The use of nuclear weapons on another nuclear power is also MORE likely to cause retaliation than to not, especially if we strike first. This is the notion of MAD, and I assume my opponent will utilize this concept, as the ethical argument relegates nuclear weapons to a mere deterrent rather than weapon to be deployed. I'll save my rebuttal of MAD for round 2, assuming my opponent utilizes it. These arguments have outlined the immense and unique benefits incurred by this suggested action. They have also relegated con's position to a defense of nuclear weapons as a deterrent. He must prove that, while nuclear weapons should never be deployed, we should maintain our nuclear stockpile as a deterrent that is unique, necessary, and sufficient in its ultimate goal. He must contend with the notion that our international interests would be far more attainable, that our image would improve on an international scale, that the cost, both explicit and implicit, of maintenance is outweighed by the benefits, and that maintaining these morally reprehensible weapons is somehow justified morally, because if he loses the moral argument, there is no possibility for victory. I hope this exceeds debate expectations, and I look forward to an invigorating debate about a very important issue. I read the comment about my burden to counter my "fatal" flaw, but rest assured, when con's constructive argument is produced, I'll do my best to "dig myself out of my own grave".1. . http://www.nti.org...