DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

Thank you, Con, for this debate. --- 4P0A: No New Arguments This round is the final round. Thus, neither Pro or Con may raise new arguments, only extend, expand, and summarize previous arguments. 4P0B: Comparison of Pro and Con Worlds Con explicitly agrees to inactively negate. Hence, some nuclear weapons exist in both worlds. Furthermore, I have shown that it is impossible to remove all nuclear technology, and therefore also all nuclear weapons (1)(10), making active negation effectively impossible. **Summary: Nukes will exist in both worlds.** --- 4P1: Prefer Utilitarianism Con stated that (a) we don't need to choose a morality in order to debate the resolution, (b) it's hard to predict consequences in nuclear situations, and (c) consequences cannot be the basis for morality. On (a), I have pointed out that morality is necessary to make decisions like this. It's impossible to affirm or negate the resolution unless we know what we ought to do. Fundamentally, all arguments in this debate must go: 1: X is good, un-X is bad. 2: Y causes more X than un-X. 3: Y is more good than bad. Unless we know what X is, moral debate like this is impossible. On (b), I have pointed out that uncertainty is inevitable but decisionmaking is possible anyways through analysis of what is probable in the future. This is especially true in nuclear situations, because nuclear weapons make states cautious, and thus likely to consider all options before performing risky actions (4). On (c), Con's example of choosing to reduce war while ignoring an increase nuclear war is a poor example, because if one ignores such a major consequence then one clearly isn't using consequences to drive morality. 4P1A: Util Allows State Morality Con explicitly agreed with 4P1A in Round 2 and did not attack it in Round 3. However, in Round 3 Con stated that (a) different moralities are necessary in different situations and (b) "deutology" (deontology) can sometimes provide better moral results. On (a), I have pointed out that utilitarianism is necessaary (and therefore better) when making government decisions, which this situation requires. On (b), Con fails to even explain deontology, much less make a case for it being "better". In addition, it is an absolutist system that governments cannot work with, as I pointed out in Round 2. 4P1B: Util Best Maximizes Value Con has not contested 4P1B in any round. Please extend it. **Summary: Utilitarianism is preferred due to (a) the lack of an alternative, (b) its necessity in state government, and (c) its maximization of potential value.** --- 4P2: More Nukes, Less War Con raises three major objections: (a) that a nuclear war is more likely with more nukes, (b) that nukes cost too much, and (c) that if only suicidal nations would use nukes, deterrence wouldn't work. On (a), Con has shown 20 examples where nuclear war DIDN'T happen, which suports the unlikliness of nuclear war. Con's only quantification of the probability of nuclear war is 1 in 1,000,000. If we pretend that nuclear war kills 7,000,000,000 people (too generous, but wait) then stopping it is the equivalent of saving 7,000 lives. Compare that to stopping just one asteroid and saving 1,750,000 lives! Furthermore, nuclear weapons exist in both worlds, making nuclear war possible in Con's world, too. Con states that "more nukes means more probability of nuclear war" doesn't need a citation, when it does. It's possible that increased deterrence could actually decrease the probability. Furthermore, Con's hasn't told us whether the increase is 1 percent or 0.001 percent, making comparison impossible. Con simply hasn't provided enough information to evaluate nuclear war, much less compare it to nonnuclear war. On (b), Con has dropped this point. On (c), I would amend my statement. Only a suicidal *or severely threatened* nation would use nuclear weapons, which is where deterrence comes in. You can't make your enemies really uncomfortable, or else they might fire. 4P1A: War Hurts Utility Con tacitly agrees with 4P1A, that war is bad. Please extend it. 4P1B: Theory Con never contended 4P1B, that nuclear weapons deter war in theory. Please extend it. 4P1C: Examples Con never contended 4P1C, that nukes prevented USA-USSR war and Indo-Pakistani war. Please extend it. 4P1D: Empirics Con merely argued that 4P1D's statistics represent a small sample size. While true, Con never showed that this small sample size invalidates the results. A small sample size is only a problem if the sample is irrepresentative of the whole, and we have no reason to believe this. If nukes reduced wars and defence spending in nations in as diverse security situations as China, Israel, Pakistan, South Africa, and India, why wouldn't they for other nations? Con doesn't attack the fact that no two nations possessing nuclear weapons have gone to war. Please extend this. **Summary: Con has failed to attack nuclear deterrence in any significant way. Thus, nuclear weapons clearly have reduced war from multi-million-deaths WWII to multi-thousand-deaths and wealthier, globalized 2014. Con's major counterargument , nuclear war, is incredibly unlikely and the deathtoll hasn't been quantified.** --- 4P3: Nukes and Asteroid Deflection 4P3A: Asteroid Impact Hurts Utility Con doesn't contend 4P3A, that asteroid impact really sucks. Please extend it. Con states that we must compare asteroid deflection with the possibility of nuclear war. Using Con's data, I showed (4P2a) that stoping even one asteroid is far far more important than stopping nuclear war. Clearly, we are obliged to stop an asteroid even at the cost of possible nuclear war. 4P3B: Prefer Nuclear Asteroid Deflection Con states alternatives exist. However, even Con agrees that nuclear deflection is preferable. Because nuclear warheads, essential to nuclear deflection, can be used as nuclear weapons, we must maintain a suply of nuclear weapons. 4P3C: Probability Con doesn't contend 4P3C, that asteroid impact even if improbable is terrible. **Summary: Stopping an asteroid is more important than even nuclear war, simply because of its deathtoll. Nuclear weapons are key to this.** --- **Summary summary:** Vote Pro for four reasons: I have proven that Utilitarianism is preferrable. I have proven that nuclear deterrence saves millions of lives and that nuclear war is very unlikely. I have proven that stopping an asteroid is more important than anything else in the debate. I have provided 21 reputable sources, to Con's 7, including expert opinions. Thanks for reading.