Preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons is Just (full resolution in 1st argument)

The resolution doesn't fit in the title, so here it is: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat Observation 1: The resolution presupposes no specific context about US policy making. There is no definition of which nation is acquiring nuclear weapons, so thus the resolution should be treated as an abstract principle about whether or not an action could be Just. Observation 2: The resolution demands no action from the agent of action, the United States, to actually prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons, merely that it is a just policy option. This has two implications. 1. the resolution does not presuppose that the US would have to act unilaterally in order to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons. Because of the vast array of ways the US could employ military force there is no way to predict the outcome. 2. any argument that relies on the outcome of US intervention is extra topical because there is no actual action taken in the resolution. Framework The affirmative advocacy functions as an acceptance of the ideals of the resolution. The Random House dictionary defines "affirm" as To express agreement with or commitment to. This is the best definition for 4 reasons. 1. There is no bright line for when a resolution has been proved true or false. One debate round does not negate the truth-value of a statement. 2. It is possible for me to make tons of false arguments and win the round if I effectively extend and weigh them, thus truth cannot be the standard to uphold the AC and the NC. 3. Both sides must have an equal ability to win; so making the AC prove an unknown term is unfair because there is never a clear establishment of where the affirmative's ground is. 4. Because the affirmative argues first, and the multiplicity of possible negative arguments the affirmative gets to set ground for the debate for the negative to clash with. While conceptions of justice differ, the one constant among them is that all conceptions of justice require some form of respect for humanity. This is because if there are no humans, then there can be no conception of justice. Justice must be contextualized then around preventing the dehumanization of individuals. Craig Haney (Professor of Psychology, Stanford Law Review, LOL July 1997 pg 1454) explains, "Social psychologists have recognized that dehumanization is one of the most powerful cognitive processes that can distance people from the moral implications of their actions…it is an especially powerful force in weakening moral prohibitions against violence because of its capacity to deprive [individuals] both victim and victimizer of identity and community--the two things that individually and collectively bind us." This is the best conception of justice for 2 reasons. 1.Dehumanization destroys the freedom of will and justifies a follower mentality that enslaves the oppressed. Slavery cannot be a part of justice because all conceptions of justice rely upon individuals having the capacity to think autonomously. Paulo Freire writes "The "fear of freedom" which afflicts the oppressed…bind them to the role of oppressed…One of the basic elements of the relationship between oppressor and oppressed is prescription. Every prescription represents the imposition of one individual's choice upon another, transforming the consciousness of the person prescribed to into one that conforms with the prescriber's consciousness. Thus, the behavior of the oppressed is a prescribed behavior, following as it does the guidelines of the oppressor" 2.Dehumanization denies the ability of humans to feel guilt and thus denies our ability to understand our own moral framework, destroying our ability for self-reflection and respect for others. Gregory Kavka writes: "Where, and to what degree, we feel guilt identifies for us, is a signal for us, of what we really feel about the various matters of morality. (This is one reason why we can even feel guilty over "not feeling guilty" or "not feeling guilty enough.) If we record, or someone records for us, that our feeling guilt is only pretence, the genuineness of our concern over the wrong done, or perhaps over the person or persons who have suffered at our expense, is called into question. A review of the panorama of the kinds of moral misdemeanors over which we fail to feel guilt can be embarrassingly revealing about the nature of our moral personality" He continues "the feeling of guilt is intimately tied to respect and sympathy…an individual who unwarrantedly offends another person and experiences no guilt over this behavior has little if any respect or sympathy for that person…an individual who never experiences guilt over the offenses he commits against others must be lacking in respect and sympathy for human beings in general. In other words, we believe that our capacity to feel guilt reveals our humanity. Our capacity to feel guilt is also intimately tied, not only to respect for others, but also for self-respect: Self-respect, in the presence of moral transgression, yields self-disapprobation, which self-disapprobation, as a feeling, is felt as guilt. In other words, the feeling of guilt is genuinely moral to the extent to which it is self-reflexive." The affirmative then has the burden to show that nuclear weapons themselves are dehumanizing because if nuclear weapons are dehumanizing then it would be just for the United States to prevent their acquisition. The affirmative's thesis and sole contention is that nuclear weapons are more destructive than any conceivable conventional attack, making their very nature dehumanizing. Polebaum (NY Law Review 1984) writes, "The atomic bombs exploded in Hiroshima and Nagasaki incinerated thousands of persons in the initial explosion. More died of radiation-inflicted diseases, and the psychological maladies resulting from the devastation disabled many more than the death toll reflects Since that time, the dangers of nuclear warfare have been magnified by the increasing sophistication of nuclear technology…today's armaments threaten the survival of all life…First, the blast "drives air away from the site of the explosion, producing sudden changes in air pressure (called static overpressure) that can crush objects, and high winds (called dynamic pressure) that can move them suddenly or knock them down." Persons within this initial blast zone will die, either by the pressure and wind or by being crushed under collapsing debris. Those who survive the initial blast will be promptly annihilated by direct nuclear radiation, burns produced by thermal radiation, and fires directly ignited by the intense heat and indirectly ignited by the impact of objects on electrical lines and gas heaters. The zone of danger widens considerably when the fallout -- irradiated matter produced by the blast -- begins its descent to earth. A surface blast produces a huge crater whose irradiated contents are thrust upward." Nuclear weapons power create a system of dehumanization because of their totalizing power. Nuclear weapons desensitize humanity to its own destruction and demand that we live with their power because they maintain peace. David Kreiger writes: "At its core, nuclearism is the belief that nuclear weapons and nuclear power are essential forms of progress that in the right hands will protect the peace and further the human condition. Nuclearism is dangerous…"the right hands" have generally been synonymous with one's own country, and "to further the human condition" has generally been synonymous with benefit to oneself, one's country or one's corporation." Thus, nuclear weapons serve as a distance between one society and the "other" that legitimizes violence in society that always deny respect for individual worth and thus dehumanize the individual.