All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

Before I get started, I'd just like to reiterate what I said in the comments section about how this debate should be assessed by voters by the end. Essentially, this should be judged based off of net benefits. If I can show that a world where only certain countries are allowed to research, construct and test nuclear weapons is most preferable, then voters should reward that with a Con vote. If, however, my opponent shows that this world would be better served by allowing all countries the capacity and freedom to pursue nuclear weapons, then those votes should instead be awarded to Pro. I feel this is pretty straightforward, though if Pro has any problems with it, it may be amended. As I am starting this debate, I will delve into my case, which is composed of 3 basic points. 1. Rogue states and terrorism This is probably the most obvious point available, but while it sounds simple, there's a lot of complexity to it. We could look at any number of nations we would consider to be rogue states as examples, though Iran and North Korea (NK) come up first and foremost in the minds of most, mainly due to their acquisition of nuclear technologies. I would say that both of these nations meet the definition of a rogue state: "a nation or state regarded as breaking international law and posing at threat to the security of other nations. "[1] In these cases, both countries pose a threat to their neighbors and, more distantly, to other nations to which they are disaffected. In particular, Iran is considered a major threat to Israel as a result of a number of threats made by the Iranian leadership [2] and its proximity, and NK is a major threat to South Korea due to their ongoing border disputes during this long-suffered armistice. [3] It's likely that none of this is new to anyone reading this debate, we hear about it all the time. But what does it mean that these nations now have access to nuclear technologies? What's changed? For one, they're using it to threaten their neighbors for these very reasons. [4] While one could argue that they always present a threat, whether they have them or not, the inherent destructive power of a nuclear weapon presents a significantly more dangerous threat. This represents an increase in their coercive powers over other nations, which is a big problem. Our history with NK proves this as they have, again and again, agreed to sign treaties and engage in diplomatic relations that they utilized for their own gain and then discarded. The threat of nuclear weapons has been such that NK has been able to bring the western world to the table, negotiate its acquisition of resources in exchange for long term changes, and then buck the long term changes while keeping those resources. [5] And that would be the best case scenario for NK in the long term, since they have little incentive to change their practices due to China's continued support. But the reality is that they can always use those weapons as well, and as their economy continues to falter, their desperation and even their collapse makes them all the more likely to be used. Even if this process takes a very long time, the uncertainty itself creates a risk of miscalculation that could lead to the use of a nuclear weapon. [6] The possibility that its collapse could lead to the distribution of such technologies to other areas is also a point of concern, as this can create a black market for their distribution (and of the expertise required to make them) to other nations or even non-state actors, as was the case in the wake of the USSR's collapse. [7] And speaking of non-state actors, it is entirely feasible that the presence of more countries with nuclear weapons increases the chance that they will end up in the hands of rebel and terrorist groups in any number of nations. This doesn't just happen in the event of collapse. Nations with the capacity to make nuclear weapons do not necessarily safely secure those weapons. Whether this is the result of a lack of technology, national instability, or government corruption, this produces "loose nukes,"[8] which are then capable of falling into the wrong hands. There is a persistent concern that such weapons would end up in the hands of non-state actors who have no constituencies to look out for and are not constrained by laws. It doesn't require instability either. Iran and Syria are reportedly engaging in the practice of smuggling weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon in order to injure Israel without having to engage in war. [9] With Iran's extensive history of ignoring deterrence in this transfer of weapons to these groups, it becomes concerning to think about the possibility of their turning over a nuclear weapon. After all, many of the people in these terrorist groups are willing to sacrifice their lives to cause tremendous harm to a perceived enemy. What's more, it functions in their defense " Iran would see the possibility of a preemptive attack from Israel as something to prepare for, and as such, could easily utilize a proxy terrorist group as an insurance policy. [10] So it presents a very real possibility of nuclear destruction. However, these are only two examples. We could talk about new governments in Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, which are fragile and vulnerable to a resurgence of fundamentalist groups. We could talk about Syria, which has proven willing to use chemical weapons at its disposal on its own people. Any one of these could dramatically destabilize their individual regions and the world with a single nuclear explosion. 2. The end of the Responsibility to Protect Whether we're talking about Syria, Sudan, Rwanda, Libya, Iraq, or any number of other nations where leaders are actively killing their own people in droves, there is a very large need for the international community to intervene in instances of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. Now, we can argue about the necessity to intervene in any single situation, and even discuss how effective interventions have been, but I think there is no question that some interventions are required to prevent the greatest transgressions against a people within any given nation. This has also been phrased as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), which has been an emerging norm in the international community, stating that nations lose their sovereignty when they are not acting responsibly in the protection of their people. The UN Security Council has affirmed and reaffirmed its commitment to this principle since the 2005 World Summit of UN Member States [11], and it was most recently reaffirmed in 2009 by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. [12] A nation that has nuclear weapons is going to have a very big threat available to it should the international community threaten to take away its sovereignty. Any possibility of military intervention effectively disappears. Contribution to the cause of a given rebel group will be virtually impossible, since those same rebels would then become targets of these dangerous weapons. Interventions and preventative measures of all sorts would essentially become impossible without causing massive internal and external harms. 3. Increased possibility of nuclear war Nuclear war may never have taken place, but we've come close on multiple occasions. [13] We cannot function based on the mentality that the presence of nuclear weapons will suffice as a preventative measure " if anything, an increased preponderance of these weapons makes the danger that much larger. All of those nuclear scares occurred when just the US and USSR were jockeying for power, both nations with extensive resources and tremendous bureaucracies in place to reduce the capacity of any individual to launch a nuclear weapon. And they still came close to nuclear annihilation at least 20 times. Now, imagine a situation where you have more countries have control of nuclear weapons. We should be concerned about the possibility that any given nation that has nuclear weapons will simply get upset with a neighboring nation and decide to utilize its weapons. However, the bigger concern is accidental. A perceived threat from another nation could lead to a retaliatory launch, accidental explosions could occur, they could be used by an unauthorized source, as the result of a simple mistake or technological error, or even basic human fallibility. [14] We cannot expect every nation that acquires this technology to also institute a number of fail safes to prevent these from happening. With that, I will leave it to my opponent to establish his case and rebut mine. 1. . http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... 2. . http://www.adl.org... 3. . http://www.historyguy.com... 4. . http://www.au.af.mil... 5. . https://www.armscontrol.org... 6. . http://thediplomat.com... 7. . http://www.globalpost.com... 8. www. cfr. org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/loose-nukes/p9549 9. . http://www.jpost.com... 10. . http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org... 11. . http://www.who.int... 12. . http://responsibilitytoprotect.org... 13. . http://nuclearfiles.org... 14. . http://www.ippnw-students.org...