States ought not possess nuclear weapons

Definitions: According to Random House Dictionary (2010), "ought" is "used to express . . . moral obligation." [1] Burden of proof: My opponent, as the instigator and the affirmative, has the burden to prove that states have a "moral obligation" to not possess nuclear weapons. A con ballot is merited if you believe no such moral obligation exists. What does the ballot signify? An affirmative vote does not mean that nuclear weapons cease to exist in the world. My opponent cannot pretend to play God. He cannot wish all nuclear weapons away by fiat. An affirmative vote means that you, as the judge, believe that there is a moral obligation for states not to possess nuclear weapons. If this were to happen, only states that upheld moral obligations would eliminate nuclear weapons. Rogue nations (like Iran and North Korea) and terrorists empirically, and by definition, do not care about what is morally right or morally wrong. Therefore, an affirmative vote means that the only actors that would cease to possess nuclear weapons would be non-rogue nations. Terrorists and rogue nations would continue to possess such weapons, in violation of the pro's moral obligation. Refuting my opponent's case: My opponent presents no morality under which nuclear weapons possession should be considered "immoral." The debate is over at that point. In addition, my opponent's criterion, "upholding international humanitarian law" does not uphold his value, "safety." Current nuclear weapons policies (post-Hiroshima) are that states will use nuclear weapons only in retaliation to the use of weapons of mass destruction against them or to retaliate against an existential threat (such as a military invasion that threatens to wipe out the entire country). States are safer by possessing nuclear weapons. India and Pakistan do not launch major military campaigns against each other for fear of nuclear retaliation. Rogue nations would not dare launch a nuke at the United States, for fear of nuclear retaliation. The world is a safer place because of the possession of nuclear weapons. Group together his arguments about Iran, North Korea, and terrorists. An affirmative vote would not take nukes out of any of their hands. All three actors ignore "moral obligations." Answering my opponent's deterrence argument: His evidence about the New START Treaty does not assume a world where the U.S. has no nuclear weapons, simply a world where we have fewer. After New START, the U.S. and Russia would still have more than enough nuclear weapons to obliterate any potential aggressor. My opponent's author, Weber, would likely not write the same things if the treaty meant the U.S. would have zero nuclear weapons. The U.S. would need nuclear weapons to retaliate against rogue nations, who do not care about the pro's morality. My case: Looking at this round from a utilitarian morality, which policy results in the greatest good for the greatest number, nuclear weapons possession by non-rogue nations is preferable to the alternative. Non-rogue nations need nuclear weapons to deter rogue nations from launching a nuclear first strike. A world where only rogue nations and terrorists possess nuclear weapons would be a world where rogue nations and terrorists hold all the power and could bring great nations to their knees with nuclear threats. There are no harms to possessing nukes. Permissive action links prevent both theft and accidental launch. A permissive action link, or PAL, requires an activation code (which only the president of a country possesses) in order to activate a nuclear weapon. Without the correct activation code, the nuclear weapon would be useless. This prevents both an accidental launch and theft. [2] In addition, PAL's will render the nuke inoperable if it is not stored at ultra-low temperatures. This makes theft impossible. Environmental Sensing Devices, or ESD's, prevent the weapon from detonating unless it experiences the correct acceleration and free fall. Using a launch system other than the one designed for the nuclear weapon would not result in a detonation. [3] Lastly, nukes are designed to engage a conventional explosion of they are tampered with or broken open. [4] In addition, John Mueller writes that there is no real black market for nuclear material, since theft is so rare (has only happened twice, like my opponent points out). In both previous cases, the CIA's undercover agents were the only prospective buyers. [5] Since nuclear possession has no downsides for nations, then any risk that nuclear deterrence might work merits possessing nuclear weapons. Answering my opponents pre-empts: 1. Nuclear deterrence is not speculative. The fact that there has never been a nuclear first-strike proves its success. 2. Rogue nations are not irrational to the point of suicide, else Kim Jong-Il would have attacked South Korea by now. Terrorists cannot credibly access nuclear weapons anyway. 3. Deterrence has never failed. There's no reason to believe that a nation would ever be stupid enough to launch a nuclear first-strike. If they did, the nuclear retaliation that ensued would reinforce the credibility of nuclear deterrence. 4. Accidents are no longer possible with PAL's and other safety features. 5. Deterrence is based on perception. If a country had no nukes, other countries would be aware of this fact, thus deterrence wouldn't work. You can't "pretend" to have nuclear weapons, or else countries would successfully do so now. 6. The cost of retaliation is high – massive civilian casualties. 7. Deterrence credibility relies only on possessing nukes and being willing to use them to retaliate against a nuclear first-strike. 8. Not cited. The Russian's didn't nuke us, thus nuclear deterrence works. 9. Deterrence is an ever-present concept. 10. Nuclear first-strikes are understand to always result in retaliation. Also, the fact that there was never a major confrontation between the Soviet Union and U.S., besides a few minor proxy wars, proves that deterrence works to deter major aggression. Stalin could have easily invaded Western Europe, but chose not to because of the fear of nuclear retaliation. 11. Countries routinely state when they will and won't retaliate. Obama recently made one such revision. [6] 12. GPS and satellite technology is sophisticated enough to tell where a nuclear launch originated. This deception is not actually possible. 13. This is empirically denied. The U.S.'s nuclear umbrella has prevented countries like South Korea and Japan from obtaining their own weapons. If the U.S. had zero nukes, worldwide nuclear proliferation would likely increase, not decrease. Contention 1: Nukes are not intended to stop genocide in Darfur or 9/11. They are intended to deter nuclear first-strikes and major military campaigns between Great Power rivals. The "fog of war" also applies to conventional threats as well, which is why scholars like John J. Mearsheimer believe we need nukes – because we can never know the true intentions of countries around us. For example, is China's military buildup truly defense or could it one day pose a threat to the U.S.? Contention 2: Conventional warfare is not better when nukes can deter major conventional wars from starting in the first place. Turn my opponent's argument back against him. Also, on a technical note, a nuclear war, even between the U.S. and Russia, would not destroy the globe or either the entirety of either country, just major cities. [7] But the possession of nukes actually decreases the prospect of nuclear war. Contention 3: I don't advocate a modern nuclear first-strike. [1] http://dictionary.reference.com... [2] http://www.cs.columbia.edu... [3] Ibid [4] John Mueller, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al Qaeda [5] Ibid [6] http://www.nytimes.com... [7] Mueller, ibid