CBA Debate: Sparta taking over the world in order to prevent loss of sovereignty.

Firstly, I will detail the main costs that result from his proposal, before going on to clarify the places where he appeared to miss what I was arguing with the benefits of my case. === THE DOWNSIDE OF MY OPPONENT'S PROPOSAL === COST I: Nuclear War My opponent has said that he would launch EMPs to neutralise enemy nuclear sites before nuking the countries in question. This seems to rather stretch the limits of possibility - countries technologically advanced enough (and interested enough in their own defence) to have nuclear weapons are bound to have systems in place that can detect incoming attacks, especially the five Non-Proliferation Treaty recognised nuclear powers. The only way to stop word of EMP shutdown reaching countries before they are targeted, therefore, is to do it simultaneously. (For to do otherwise would be to risk nuclear retaliation before all the enemy sites had been shut down. ) But the only way to do so, given the distances required across the Earth, would be to undergo a relatively complex set-up involving advancement towards each individual country beforehand. This would look very suspicious internationally, and failure to comply with UN demands to retreat would surely be seen as contrary to aims of world peace, an act of aggression and therefore reason for the UN to retaliate in kind. There is thus very good reason to suppose that the consequence of trying to bomb the world is that Sparta would fail, and if continued would lead to nuclear retaliation by other countries upon Sparta. This leads to pretty much every Spartan either dead or dying, a massive cost that severely undermines the goals of Spartan peace. COST II: Consequences of Slavery But let's say that, by some miracle, the EMPs somehow take the world by surprise. We now have the majority of the world in ruin, and have somehow escaped the environmental impact of nuclear winter and the destruction - for example - of the Amazon Rainforests in Brazil. Have we then reached a perfect world for Sparta, where the benefits outweigh the costs? No, we haven't. For there remains the problem of acquiring and keeping slaves from other countries. My opponent gave the list of 7 countries that would be invaded for enslavement, and the population numbers that he gave adds up to 71,547,000 people. (His figures date to 2006, and current figures are slightly more, but the principle stands nonetheless. ) He claims that it should be easy to get 50 million+ slaves, but this is by no means certain. There are three things that will limit the amount of this population: 1) The number of people outside of good working age. If we take Uganda as an example, 50% of the population are under the age of 14, and 2% over the age of 65. . https://www.cia.gov... This excludes the people in between these ages who are nonetheless unfit for work, maybe due to number 2 below. 2) The proportion of people with diseases who, according to my opponent's proposal, will be killed immediately to stop their spread. Sub-Saharan Africa is the worst region in the world for the spread of HIV/AIDS, to take just one such disease, with 67% of the world's sufferers living in the region - . http://www.afro.who.int.... 4 of out the 7 countries my opponent listed for enslavement - Uganda, Chad, Mali and Gabon - lie directly in the region, with the other 3 nearby. Millions of potential slaves, therefore, will be wasted and killed under my opponent's own implementation strategy. 3) The number of people who will rebel against becoming slaves. Given that practically the rest of the world is now dead, people with whom they wanted to have world peace - and given also the African history of enslavement - there is very good reason that millions of ordinary people, beyond the army, will rise in rebellion against Sparta, both before enslavement and during enslavement. . http://en.wikipedia.org... This would mean that many potential, and actual, slaves would be killed by the Spartan military for insubordination. My opponent quickly dismissed my benefit of goodwill towards Sparta - saying that it "never gets anyone anywhere" - but it is clear that what it gets us is workers willing to work in Sparta, and notably not be killed in uprising. Dead slaves are not beneficial to Sparta, whereas good and happy workers are. ----------------- I will take this opportunity to clarify what I meant when I referred to "cheap wage slaves". The quotation marks indicated, contrary to my opponent's assumption, that I am not literally talking about slavery. I am talking about foreign workers voluntarily coming to work in Sparta and perhaps more likely to be hired at minimum wage, much like an increase in EU member states often leads to workers from those countries emigrating to other countries in order to find work - much like the Telegraph source I quoted in the last round showed. === CORRECTING THE UNDERSTANDING OF MY BENEFITS PRESENTED IN MY OPPONENT'S LAST ROUND === 1. Sovereignty My opponent asserts that Sparta would have no chance at keeping sovereignty - "We would simply be one vote amongst hundreds of other countries. We would simply have to bend over and "take it. "" He provided no evidence for this at all, whereas in my last round I provided immense evidence through precedent that large countries require a small degree of self-rule - whether through devolution, federalism or, indeed, just local/district councils. My opponent seems to believe, with no reasoning thus far presented, that world peace necessarily entails a central government acting like a dictatorship, with literally no chance of devolved powers at all. I challenge this very strongly, for the reasons given in the last round and re-iterated here. Also, it is a trivial point that some powers would be moved to the UN. But for this small point to tip the balance of the CBA to my opponent's side, he needs to show why such powers are a vital part of Sparta, and cannot possibly be compromised in the interests of world peace. He has not yet done so. 2. Likelihood of Spartan army being used by the UN Firstly, my opponent questioned the need for the UN to have an army in the first place, going as far as to ask: "why would they need troops, if there is world peace? " This is despite my extensive argumentation in my benefits round as to why peacekeeping troops would be required, and despite my resolutional analysis regarding the concept of world peace - analysis, by the way, which my opponent explicitly accepted in its entirety. It is thus clear why a peacekeeping force is required. Secondly, my opponent argued that Spartan troops would be unlikely to be picked. I disagree: historically, Sparta has always been a militaristic nation, with such traits inbuilt and trained literally from birth. As my opponent points out, 43% of Sparta is military. When any country spends such time and energy on creating such an army, it is bound to be an excellent force, unrivalled by other countries that see military development as secondary. . http://en.wikipedia.org... The time of our treaty signature is irrelevant - Sparta is renowned for its army, and would surely be picked. 3. Alleged consequence of Spartan unemployment But still, let's briefly entertain the idea that that doesn't happen. Even so, mass unemployment would not ensue. There would be the entire world - not annihilated by nuclear bombs - to move to and work; and when people move to Sparta, there would be extra demand for jobs there as well. And there's always the possibility of them living a self-sufficient lifestyle. No need for deep psychological depression. If they want work, it is there for them to find and to take. Thank you for what is becoming a very enjoyable debate :-)