states ought not possess nuclear weapons

Thanks to con for initiating this topic. I affirm For clarification I offer the following definitions. States - a politically unified people occupying a definite territory (Random House dict.) Ought- indicating desirability (American Heritage) Nuclear weapon - an explosive device whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei. (Random House dict.) Life without a doubt is a desirable thing to have, but without a means to maintain it it is pointless. For this reason the affirmative values Security, defined by Merriam-Webster as "Freedom from danger, or safety". Security should be the basis for this round because with no security there is no life. Because of the risks nuclear weapons pose, the best solution is to simply not have them. Therefore I offer the following criterion of total nuclear disarmament. States that have nuclear weapons should dispose of their them and their design plans. This is the best possible way to protect us from the dangers of nukes, because without nuclear weapons there is no possible way we can be harmed by them. Contention 1: The risk of nuclear incident on the affirmative side is zero. Sub point a. Nuclear use cannot happen if we affirm. This is a simple concept. As long as nuclear weapons exist, it doesnt matter what the chance of it happening is, there will always be a chance of nuclear use and consequently nuclear war as long as these things are in the world. Ramesh Thakur explains "Time for a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World," New Zealand International Review, Vol. 22, 1997 The only guarantee against the threat of nuclear war is the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. They are the common enemy of mankind. Having them cannot be justified due to the inexcusable risk of use." When we're talking about the massive impacts of nuclear use, the percentage or chance of war happening is irrelevant if its anything other than zero, which it currently is not. Therefore in order to truly secure the world, we must disarm now and not possess. Sub point B. There are a multitude of ways disaster can strike in a nuclear world. Whether it be by accidents, use by a radical, or even use by a non-radical, there are far too many ways nukes could be used to justify their posession. Ronald McCoy confirms, "The threat of nuclear war will prevail as long as states possess nuclear weapons. This will inevitably result in their use, by design, miscalculation, or by terrorsts." Its not even just those three ways he listed. Combining his writings with that of the aforementioned Ramesh Thakur, the number of ways nukes could be used is startling. Here are just a few they went over. Use by an irrational leader, use by a rational leader, use by accident, use by terrorists, misjudged use, unauthorized use, and use in response to another's. As we see there are far too many ways disaster can happen. This high amount of possibilities makes posession completely inexcusable and obviously undesirable. Given the obvious devastating impacts and chain reactions use can cause, how can we possibly say that posession is desirable? Contention 2: Theories for future non use are based entirely on theory. Sub point A: Previous non use is due to sheer luck. Back in the Cold War when the United States and Soviet Union supposedly "deterred" each other, we need to realize that in reality war could have happened at any second, which was the reason that time period was full of tension and fear. Considering all the tension and conflict of the time, its almost unbelievable that we came out in one piece. Ronald McCoy explains " During the Cold War, it was sheer good fortune and not good management that the world survived the suicidal Cold War doctrine of "mutually assured destruction". And technically, war can still happen at any second. We can also apply this logic to any other potential use of nukes that didnt happen, because ultimately as long as there are nukes we are allowing for the opportunity of use, and if that has not happened, its only due to mere chance. Therefore, I will now explain why the past is no indicator of the future. Sub point B: Future safety cannot be guaranteed in a nuclear world. Saying that posession will deter use may be a popular argument but its far from a sufficient theory to guarantee use wont happen. Because thats what it really is, a theory. We cannot afford to trust the world's safety on mere speculation, especially when we have a much more reliable and sure-fire way to avoid the dangers right in front of us. Ronald McCoy continues " The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained in perpetuity and never used...defies credibility. The only complete defence is the elimination of nuclear weapons." And this is fact. The past can only predict the future, it cannot see it. The future is full of incertainties and any argument saying that we can ensure no nuke will ever be used should automatically be deemed uncredible due to the lack of proof and inability to truly know what will happen. Therefore, the only feasible option to ensure future security is through the complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, as this is the only guaranteed way we can do so. We must not rely on theories, speculation, and arguments about what "probably" will or wont happen to guide us. Its for these reasons I urge an affirmative ballot. Although con is against the res, he went first so I will now attack his case. Onto the value of safety. He attempts to persuade us that nukes prevent war. For his sake I'll assume he's referring to both nuke war and general war. However, I already showed you in C1 how the affirmative gives you 100% safety from nuclear weapons. The negative cannot do the same, because he allows nukes to exist in our world. It is not statistically possible for Con to give you better security than I do, because with no nukes there is obviously a lesser chance for nuke war (0%) than a world with them. I'll attack his criterion and C1 at the same time since they're basically the same. His whole concept of "nukes deter general conflict" is insanely flawed and has already been proven wrong. I will provide you multiple examples of where deterrance has failed. 2003: The United States invades Iraq, despite whole-heartedly believing they were in possession of nuclear weapons. Where was the deterrance here? The fact Iraq turned out to not have nukes is irrelevant; we believed they had them but it did not stop invasion. 1950: The United States is in conflict with North Korea in an attempt to liberate South Korea. China, feeling nervous about the US's fight against Communism, joins forces with North Korea and fights against the United States, *despite the fact that the US had nuclear weapons*. 1999: Pakistani troops invade Kargil, India. They do so believing India will not fight back in fear of nuclear retaliation. They were wrong. India sent thousands of troops and attempted to mow down Pakistan's solders. They retreated. Look at these examples and you see how nuclear weapons dont deter anything. My opponent's contention 2 completely contradicts his contention 1. C2 states nuclear weapons end war that has started, but his C1 states war wont happen in the first place. These contentions are not compatible. Thus, please discount C2 as well. Its for these reason I urge a pro vote.