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

I. Deterrence and Decreased Possibility of WarIf everyone has the right to nuclear weapons, there will be a reduction in all forms of war. Succinctly put, this is due to MAD. MAD, or mutually assured destruction is the process in whereby, when a country launches nuclear missiles at anonther country. Said victim would in turn launch nuclear missiles in retaliation and the process would either stop there, or more likely continue in that both countries ultimately, face destruction.[1] MAD is a situation that is never wanted by any of the two or more parties. Whoever fires first, is destroyed second, but all parties are destroyed inevitably. Due to this MAD acts as a deterrence. Because neither of the two or more parties are willing to fire at all, or they will face inevitable death, MAD can be utilised. A country can promise the threat of nuclear retaliation if attacked by a nuclear missile, and in turn the other country will not take the risk. In the National Review, Clifford D May writes[2]: "During the Cold War, the United States adopted a strategic doctrine called MAD: Mutually Assured Destruction. The logic behind it was both perverse and compelling: So long as we were vulnerable to missile attack by the Soviets, and so long as the Soviets were vulnerable to missile attack by us, neither side would benefit by attacking first - on the contrary, a devastating retaliation would be assured. Assuming that both we and the Soviets were rational, the result would be a stand-off, stability, and peaceful coexistence."And this is what happened.Case Study: The Cold WarDuring the cold war, it goes without saying that there was major nuclear proliferation. Nuclear missiles were deployed at the iron curtain, and America and there were various examples of nuclear close calls.Firstly was the Suez Crisis. In which NORAD had recieved warnings about impending nuclear strikes from the USSR, which took place in November 1956[3]. We could then talk about the famous Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, in which the U.S were ready to retaliate with nuclear weapons, to possible nuclear threats by the USSR in Cuba[4]. There was also the Carter administration, in which information about impending nuclear strikes from the USSR, not dissimilar from the events of 1956[4].The whole Cold War provided each America and the USSR an opportunity to do what they had at heart. Respectively, stop the spread of Communism, and spread Communism. But not a single nuclear missile was fired. Why? Because the nuclear missile which had hit Hiroshima hit 13 square kilometres of the Japanese city[5]. It killed 75,000 people immediately, and everyone within half a mile stood no chance[5]. 92% of buildings were gone, the centre reached millions of centigrade and many tens of thousands died after the intial death, due to shrapnel, radiation, etc.[5]. The effects of a nuclear strike had been seen. People were frightened, governments were frightened, yet these death machines were being stockpiled in their thousands. MAD was brilliant because the monstrosity in Hiroshima and the one in Nagasaki could be replicated on a larger scale as America and the USSR had these weapons in their tens of thousands, and at more power than the previous bombs.So imagine the effects of MAD today. If every country could get nuclear missiles, then MAD would be replicated everywhere. The threat of nuclear missiles were present with nuclear missiles then, but today, 50 nukes could kill 200 million people[5]. The Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuke designed, is 1400 times more powerful than the bombs which hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined[6].With this sort of power available, it would be absolutely ludicrous for one to be fired without expecting some sort of retaliation, but if retaliation is going to be combatible, then countries such as North Korea can pose a threat to south Korea. But if South Korea were to also have nuclear missiles, North Korea would not want to fire any, for there is a risk of MAD, and in which case, it would be stupid for North Korea to do such a thing.If Syria for example posed a threat to its own people, it could fire a nuclear missile at its own people and was only one of few countries which had the ability to fire nukes, then they would not fear as much. However, if any country were to have nuclear missile, Syria would think twice as its opponents could just as well have nuclear missiles. Any other country could intervene.Even the likes of human fallibility and illegal activity regarding nuclear missiles could decrease. If a country new there is more likely going to be MAD if a nuke is accidentally fired, they will do more to prevent this situation from happening. Because of this paranoia, we can expect to see there be very harsh rules and regulations. Because no country around the world would want to see nuclear destruction, the UN would hammer down brutally on any illegal activies found with a nuke. This threat is a benefit. Now that I have neutralised this issue, I can proceed to my other arguments.In the long run, what this means is that any country will think twice before intervening or attacking. Any nuclear threat; there is enough interest of the citizens of the country regarding safety, that they would want the war to be called off and the government ideally would comply. There are long term benefits, in that nuclear deterrence will become more effective, as history has told us.II. Trade and Job OpportunitiesWhen we do allow nuclear missiles to be in the hands of various nations, we can predict that they will be desirable. After all, the aforementioned deterrence is something that various states would like to get their hands on. Many countries in the middle east, South Korea. They can also, be not too expensive. A simple deterrent, such as the U.K's Trident program will be what is desired, and the cost of this was about 5 billion pounds. to start with[7], and annually at least recently about 2-2.4 billion pounds.[8] This is very expensive, but a lot can be taken from this.From a rudimentary economic perspective, if we accept the logical premise that there would be high demand, then the law of demand states that prices will go down due to competition to sell the parts. This means a market will form as nuclear missile parts are being bought and sold. Countries such like India, which have large uranium stores[9] can actually start putting good use to their materials rather than leave them there. Various parts can be sold and prices will lower for these meaning international trade will only increase.I do not want to go on a tangent about globalisation, but international trade is healthy. It:1) Boosts international relations.2) Forces an increase in infrastructure.3) Forces development of one's country so that trade can be done.4) Allows there to be more solidarity between country, so further deals which are more significant can be done.And the list goes on. Let us not forget the profits that that would raise. It is not a rash assumption, that a lot of countries would want some sort of nuclear deterrence. It would be a few billion to sell it to, as we've seen with the selling of Polaris and Trident from the U.S to the U.K, but then this amplified would mean dozens of billions would be made in revenue, and billions in profits.And with markets, come a labour market, in other words, jobs. Production, sales, etc. With this market there will be jobs. I do not believe I need to go deeply to what all of this means. Billions of money made is billions helped towards reducing deficits, and boosting the economy.In summary, if you accept my major point about the decreaed chance of war, the trade opportunities are a benefit.III. The Balancing of PowerThis argument follows of marginally with my first argument, but is still an important one. It is about the balancing of power. As of now, it is expected that only nine countries have nuclear missiles. Russia, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Pakistan, India, Israel and North Korea[10]. What this does is makes these countries an international threat but also a nuclear superpower.The risk of nuclear war is one that people do fear, as soldiers do not need to be sent out. But having an elitist system in which very few countries are allowed only makes the countries which are allowed even more of a threat. MAD cannot be applied to these countries and each of these countries are able to inflinct damage on their opposition fairly easily.Also, it means that many countries are going to try to illegally build nuclear weapons, and that serves an even bigger threat. Firstly, because it is more likely to be inconspicuous an unregulated. MAD in this case cannot be applied meaning the country with the nuke can afford to fire one, and be successful. With these two combined, it allows any country to not only illegally and serendipitously do this, but then as countries around them do not have this sort of power, they are powerless therefore that country is successful. There are fears with this an Iran. Because nuclear missiles give you power and authority if we run by this elitist system, the only way to combat this is to allow MAD to be applied. I urge the floor to side with Pro.Sources: [1] https://www.princeton.edu...[2] http://www.nationalreview.com...[3] http://mentalfloss.com...[4] http://people.howstuffworks.com...[5] http://newint.org...[6] http://gizmodo.com...[7] http://www.theguardian.com...[8] https://fullfact.org...[9] http://www.telegraph.co.uk...[10]http://www.bbc.co.uk...