CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

In my summary, I'll set out the main areas of contention and outline the clash between me and my opponent on these areas. They're ordered with the importance that I place them, the most important coming first. === NUCLEAR WAR === I reiterate what I said in the last round. This is the single most important clash of this debate. Simply put, if PRO's policy leads to the nuclear destruction of Sparta, I win this debate hands-down. After all, any cost-benefit analysis scale for Sparta will find the continued existence of Sparta (as under my model) to be superior in every respect to the annihilation of Sparta (which is the unintended, but inevitable, consequence under PRO's model). But in this key clash, PRO fundamentally misunderstood my argument here. In his final round, he argued that countries would be unable to respond to the nuclear attacks (even when foreseen) because of the EMP strikes. But this does not address my argument. I quote from round 3: ---------------------------- "My opponent has said that he would launch EMPs to neutralise enemy nuclear sites before nuking the countries in question. This seems to rather stretch the limits of possibility - countries technologically advanced enough (and interested enough in their own defence) to have nuclear weapons are bound to have systems in place that can detect incoming attacks, especially the five Non-Proliferation Treaty recognised nuclear powers. The only way to stop word of EMP shutdown reaching countries before they are targeted, therefore, is to do it simultaneously. .. . But the only way to do so, given the distances required across the Earth, would be to undergo a relatively complex set-up involving advancement towards each individual country beforehand. This would look very suspicious internationally, and failure to comply with UN demands to retreat would surely be seen as contrary to aims of world peace, an act of aggression and therefore reason for the UN to retaliate in kind. There is thus very good reason to suppose that the consequence of trying to bomb the world is that Sparta would fail, and if continued would lead to nuclear retaliation by other countries upon Sparta. This leads to pretty much every Spartan either dead or dying, a massive cost that severely undermines the goals of Spartan peace. " ----------------- Clearly, my argument was that Sparta's attempt to even send the EMP strikes would be discovered beforehand by the countries in question. They would then, once they realise what Sparta is planning, retaliate BEFORE THE EMP STRIKES TAKE PLACE. This is derived from the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction - the fact that Sparta's first strike would make it impossible for a second strike to take place, as per the policy, means that countries would feel compelled to pre-emptively strike against Sparta. So maybe other countries would suffer the EMP strikes. Maybe Sparta would be able to send the bombs before their own nuclear facilities are destroyed. But even then, the bombs from every other country on Earth would have already been sent, and Sparta would already be doomed. As already said, PRO's proposal leads to every Spartan either dead, dying, seriously ill through e. g. radioactive poisoning, or (at best) in severe psychological distress at the annihilation of Sparta. My policy guarantees that nothing like this will even come close to happening. Therefore, I win. === SPARTAN ARMY / ECONOMY === Two points: 1) PRO somehow believes there to be a contradiction in my position that a UN army would be required. Right from my resolutional analysis, I said that absolute world peace was impossible and would always remain an ideal only. I also said that riots and rebellions would ensue as a consequence of the single UN government. This is clearly not a contradiction. Conflict will be diminished, but it will not end. Diminish: "to make less or cause to appear less; to lessen the authority, dignity, or reputation of; to cause to taper; to become gradually less" . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2) PRO argues that other countries will want to be involved in the UN's military efforts. He even says that "Warfare is just in people's nature. " But he gave us a scenario in which every other country has signed up to world peace. Even if individual private armies wanted to get involved, their governments do not - otherwise, they wouldn't have signed for peace. One militaristic nation with a highly advanced army vs. governments who don't want to get involved and sparse and inferior private forces? It seems clear that the UN will choose the former, and Sparta will be the army of the world. Furthermore, millions of extra foreign people in Sparta will undoubtedly raise employment for Spartans. More people = more demand for supplies and services = more jobs to provide these services. This significantly reduces any "unemployment" and impact to the economy that my opponent perceives to happen under my policy. === SLAVERY === I have three things to say in relation to this point: 1) PRO said: "These countries are not educated, in fact, they probably don't even know about the slave trade of the 16th century. " The British Empire lasted through to the end of the Second World War, and in some places into the second half of the 20th Century. Not the 16th. It is this imperialist, "Africans-are-inferior-and-slaveworthy", attitude that fuels anti-Western rhetoric in Africa today. I mentioned the country of Zimbabwe as just one example, with Mugabe's hold on power coming largely from calling the MDC and other reformists "puppets of the West". Even the least-educated (and perhaps especially the least-educated, who don't know that white people don't always mean harm) people of Zimbabwe fall for this message. For them, it is not a remnant of the deep and distant past. It is an ever-present threat, and a Spartan invasion would only re-awaken old wounds. 2) Maybe not every African would rebel - but this misses the actual theme of my point. It only matters that a significant proportion of slaves would. Factor this in with the number of Africans who have diseases and so would be killed under my opponent's method (HIV/AIDS being the most obvious and drastic example), and the number of Africans who are too famine-stricken or old to be of any use in slavery, and you have a vast majority of Africans of no use to Sparta. 3) PRO's policy of nuclear bombing destroys pretty much every area of landmass except for Africa and Australia, and even then there are issues of worldwide environmental change - for example through nuclear winter or the destruction of the Amazonian rainforests in Brazil. Thus, even these continents will find their areas of habitation significantly reduced. In addition, almost every African country will face the same problems mentioned above. === DISEASE PREVENTION AND ABOLITION === I've included this one, not because I think it's important, but because PRO thinks it is. The idea of eradicating disease is incidental to the nuclear obliteration of the majority of Earth, and seems rather tacked-on to my opponent's case. Faced with the prospect of such nuclear action, plus a significant proportion of potential slaves being killed by this policy, the cost/benefit ratios are in my favour here. === CONCLUSION === Under my policy, Sparta's army will be used by the UN, for every other government of the world wants peace and for their citizens to be safe from warfare. Sparta can remain a militaristic nation, and its economy will not be affected. But most importantly, PRO's policy results in the nuclear annihilation of Sparta. Hopefully I don't need to say further why this is bad. Other, incidental, points made by PRO pale in comparison, and actually weaken his own case. In other words, PRO's attacks on my policy fall, and his policy is severely weakened. On a cost-benefit analysis, mine wins.