Tier Tournament [Top], R1: All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

Pro states and restates that "realization of the threat of retribution" is sufficient deterrence. However, he misses the one key factor: fear of that reprisal. The leadership needs to be afraid of the return shot. A religious extremist who is willing to blow themselves up in a restaurant in Israel is also willing to sacrifice their lives to a nuclear strike.This is true, but I urge the floor to see that this, albeit correct, points towards a larger problem within Con's arguments. This is highly situational and hypothetical. For this to be an issue, a variety of things in a country must be true.I) The leader is a religious extremist.2) The leader is rich enough to have access to nuclear missiles.3) The leader has an incentive/want to instill a religious order in another country/an incentive to attack another country and risk death.4) The leader is irrational.5) The leader does not mind the breaking of international law.Although some countries may fulfill one criterion or multiple, no country actually fulfills all of these. The issue with hypothetical situations in a debate are that they can be fabricated and forged to say whatever.For example, in a scenario between China and Russia , the risk of nuclear missile use could be high. The leaders may not be the most rational, but MAD means that the risk is reduced, and millions are saved.But this is fallacious in that although a chance of conflict between these two countries technically exist, it is negligible. The same way although a chance of a leader blowing their whole country up for religious leader is possible, the likliehood is miniscule.The BOP lies on whiteflame to prove that all countries should not have a right to nuclear weapons. Therefore he simply had to find a single example and explain why it should not be allowed to have the right to nuclear weapons. whiteflame starts with how rogue states should not be allowed. This is all fine and well, but what he does is say that as these countries pose a threat, they therefore should not be allowed. Using North Korea as an example as they have threatened nuclear attack. Of course, this was the first round, but this does not refute MAD. In fact, it assists it. The point about MAD is that countries which do pose a threat can no longer as their victims pose the same threat. It levels out the playing field.The same applies for the second argument made about protection. MAD works via protecting, but the claim made is also a recurring flaw in whiteflame's arguments. Giving countries the right to nuclear weapons does not arm them. The fact is, there will be no trade it is likely with threats, and sanctions in place means that nothing will change other than the right. What whiteflame has the BOP to do is prove that doing this will arm and increase the chance of nuclear use.I tackled rationality and whiteflame conceded my point about economics. What whiteflame also failed to do was show that there is a correlation between having a right to nuclear missiles, and nuclear missile usage. For all we know, there isn't a correlation. [1]As we can see, as of 2012 there are more countries with nuclear missiles now than beforehand. But since 1945, no nuclear missiles have been fired since 1945. [2]The amount of testing has also decreased. There simply is not a correlation so all your arguments in relation to threats have gone.Now that we are back to where I started.The USSR comparison doesn't work. Their desperation doesn't rank against countries like Syria, where the dictator is fighting a tremendous number of rebel soldiers and will almost certainly be killed if he loses the war. If he started to lose and had a nuclear weapon handy, he would have little issue with launching a nuclear strike, since he's dead in any case. That's real desperation.Their desperation did rank up against countries like Syria. Communism was the right ideology for the future and for the best of the world, and if it was worth the lives of millions in Ukraine, Vietnam, Cambodia, Korea, Cuba and many Russians, then without any sources it is nto inherently obvious that the USSR were any less desperate than SyriaBut none of this matters because Pro admits that there are some instances where this could happen. And all I need is one. Remember, Pro has yet to show any reason why a nuclear strike is likely in status quo. If I can prove that even one country is likely to do so post-plan, it dramatically outweighs his arguments. We could look to desperation in Iraq as it tries to get its government up and running against an insurgency, Libya which continues to be dramatically unstable, or Afghanistan as it tries to keep the Taliban at bay. I stated all of these examples in R2, they go dropped. Not true. There will always be exceptions, but my BOP lies simply to prove that countries should have the right to nuclear missiles. I have done this with MAD, simply because whiteflame's only response was to say it failed in rare cases or with irrational leaders. Even if that was true, on the whole, I have logically proved it decreases war. whiteflame conceded this by saying, it doesn't apply to non-rational actors, implying it does to all rational actors. As I have proved that a level of irrationality can still be there and MAD apply, whether this is true, on the whole it is. The only response he has to this massive harm is that they present a threat regardless of whether they have nukes. This is confounding considering that, in R2, Pro made a point of providing a large number of reasons why people are specifically afraid of nuclear weapons being used over other weapons. And the weapon they were in awe of was "1400 times" weaker than those available today. It seems difficult to believe another weapon could cause that kind of harm and be easily accessible. Pro even admits this, saying that "nuclear weapons only gives him the opportunity to do more damage cheaper". Irrationality may be the source of the problem, but their capacity to use it to dole out mass death dramatically increases with access to nukes. True, but then this completely forgets the proportional cost of a nuke. Even without specific figures, it goes without saying that constructing a nuclear missile would be costly and trade unlikely if they do pose a large threat. This claim seems obvious, but BOP is created here to prove that nuclear missiles are more effective. They are by damage, but by cost the answer seems to be no and it is your role, which you have failed, to actually prove this. Therefore, the logic is correct but the unfulfilled premise means we can assume that they'd deal damage anyway if irrationality was the issue.Pro tries to say that irrational nations won't have access to these weapons. First off, this contradicts his entire C2 is predicated on the price of nuclear weapons dropping, increasing access. Any increase is sufficient to increase the probability of their acquisition. Second, this also contradicts his stance, since the resolution states that all nations have a right to nuclear weapons, yet he's admitting it's beneficial and perhaps even necessary for nations deny access to those weapons. Third, nations desperate for cash may indeed sell their weapons to these groups. Pro's case removes the inherent barrier and depends on another one that may or may not exist. Fourth, there is incentive for nations to give these weapons to other nations, since this is one way to avoid MAD " give the weapons to someone else and let them be the ones who incur the response. There is no contradiction here. It is necessary for nations to deny access for the construction, but not the right. One is immaterial. The right to nuclear missile has economic uses, levels the balance of power as well as has deterrent capabilities. All nations should have a right to the benefits for the sake of giving nations the right for success of all sorts, but the moment one starts showing aggression, his right isn't taken away, simply the chance of acting upon it. It is an even better system for no rights are infringed, as the nation can immediately change its ways and get these benefits. So they should have the ability to be part of the free market which is created, and a right to join in. What this does is give them that.Pro talks about how dictators would have to sign a bill, and would therefore showcase rationality. However, there is no bill. We're not arguing a specific policy here, just a concept. Keep that in mind, because there is no requirement for any leader to sign onto anything. We can take away the bill and it does not change the fact that if a country poses a threat, other countries will act in the aforementioned way and seek to take some sort of justice. As an impalpable entity, a concept, this right if infringed upon will seek retribution as always happens, law or not. Most likely in a lack of trade or request to stop in face of military threat, but most likely not nuclear for MAD will prevent this.And the issue with rational actors still seeing MAD as not an issue is one that would be a good argument, but it is a very large conditional. It simply is too situational and if the floor takes this to account, then I can equally say that what if irrational actors fear impending rebellion which might happen? Both are valid points and can happen, but highly situational and on a general scale. A rational actor, might do this. The intervention policy still acts upon the notion that MAD will not take place at intervention point, seeing as it was a rebuttal to MAD this is shifting the goalposts.I urge the floor, to read this debate carefully. On the whole, I have proved that the right to nuclear missiles is a desired and correct one.whiteflame has argued on hypothetical situations and unsourced/not intrinsically true material. He hasn't shown correlation between quantity and use of nukes. I urge close reading from the honourable judges.Sources: [1] http://www.bbc.co.uk...[2] http://news.bbc.co.uk...