Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

I want to take time to try and address the main arguments of my opponents case starting with his argument of how the weapons provide political deterrent and are a symbolic gesture. He tells us, I quote, "Under NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, the nuclear weapons serve as a political deterrent from nations and factions from attacking the Turkish nation". However because I proved and he ceded the point that the weapons serve no tactical importance, if we really had Turkeys best interest in mind we would provide the Turkish government with a way to actually physically deter an enemy, not simply seem powerful. Then when the con side says that "The gesture of the US to loan nuclear weapons to NATO allies is significant since it prevents the US from simply saying to turkey in times of Turkish strife, "yeah, we'll support you." while not even deploying its military" its a little bit ironic because by giving Turkey nuclear weapons while not providing them with a way to use the weapons does just that. Its an empty symbolic gesture because in Turkeys time of need they would still need to ask for Americans support. Then the con side talks of assisting NATO allies and furthering NATO cohesion but I am forced to believe that Mr. Rayze actually knows very little about NATO. If he had actually taken the time to understand basic NATO policy he would realize that for over ten years NATO's stance has been in support of non-proliferation. NATO has been doing everything they can to STOP the spread of nuclear weapons, not support it. We will know that our relationship with Turkey is truly that of allies when we can base our relationship on more than just shared weapons. Then if we look to how Mr. Rayze responded to some of my questions we can see that he is taking a very one sided look at this issue. When he says that "the wrath of NATO implied through the Nuclear Weapons stationed in Turkey send a much clear message to aggressors that Turkey is not alone" he continues to miss the point that implied force does not save lives. Except for the bombs dropped on Japan, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in war. The idea that NATO would allow the use of nuclear weapons in response to small, isolated conflicts between Turkey and its Middle Eastern neighbors is inane. Mr. Rayze then brings up the point that the problem lies in the fact that the removal of the weapons would strain relations between the US and Turkey, and I agree with him on this. But I believe that if we took the several billion dollars that we spent on the nukes and spent that money on supporting their military, healthcare system and actually making progress for the people of Turkey then in the long run our relationship will grow even stronger. This is because there is one enemy that nuclear weapons cannot target; terrorists. The U.S. National Library of Medicine writes that terrorism is a growing issue in Turkey. Between 1984 and 2000 an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 Turkish citizens were killed by a nearly continuous stream of terrorism-related events [1]. It is impossible to use nukes against small terror cells regardless of what way you cut it. The Turkish government has recently begun to take a more aggressive approach to fighting terrorism and has deployed special forces troops to fight terror through cross boarder strikes [2]. By actually working with the Turkish government and supporting them in operations like these, whether it be through providing troops to work with their soldiers, giving them equipment necessary to fight terror and secure there boarders or giving them financial aid to allow them to implement public health programs or support education, removing the nukes and instead using that money will work to further the American goals of fighting terror and the Turkish goals of making their country safer. Mr. Rayze and I both want the same thing actually, we want want to find a practical answer to the question of "how do we help Turkey". Because removing our nuclear bombs from Turkey provides more advantages than leaving them there ever could, you must side not only with me but also with the country of Turkey. Thank you Mr. Rayze for giving me the opportunity to debate something that I believe is important. The best of luck to you in whatever you choose to do in the future, Frost [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2] http://www.turkishweekly.net...