All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

I think we have to start off by taking a step back. The topic is "All nations have a right to nuclear weapons. " As such, Pro has the burden to support that within this debate, and as burdens are shared, I have set my burden as defending a standard for who should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Note that one of those choices, for either side, is not that no one should have nuclear weapons. I even stated in the first round that this was not an option. This is important, because when Pro makes these arguments of equality, the one where no one gets nuclear weapons is not up for debate here. Only the one where everyone is equal under international law in their ability to legally pursue these technologies is involved. Now, why would I take the time to mention a position I've chosen not to take? It's because much of the argumentation that Pro has provided is trying to garner benefit from a position that's not his. If anything, it seems to me that many of these arguments come dangerously close to major concessions, but I'll get into that more on the points proper. I'm going to go ahead and reorganize the debate a little to make it flow somewhat easier. Equality Reading through Pro's arguments, this seems to have engulfed the sovereignty point, so I'm going to address them together. He's made a few key arguments in this round that should be addressed, and I'll number them as I go. 1. Other countries are transgressors This is a big one, and Pro makes a lot of hay about how countries that currently have nuclear weapons are violating human rights. I'll letter my responses. A. "Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. " Remember these? They're part of that R2P point I brought up initially to explain the instances where it is reasonable for the UN to take action and subsume the sovereignty of a given nation. None of the examples he's given suffice as genocide, war crimes, or ethnic cleansing, so at best, he's addressing crimes against humanity. So let's define that. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings. "[1] In other words, they don't throw that term out lightly. You cannot simply apply them to every single transgression against personal rights. As such, I wouldn't call the loss of a right to privacy a crime against humanity, as is the case with the U. S. and England. I wouldn't refer to the inability to wear a certain piece of clothing a crime against humanity, as is the case with France. Using the term so broadly diminishes actual crimes against humanity. So I could argue that the other nations should have their nuclear weapons removed, and that the international community should condemn them for past actions. I won't, but that would satisfy the R2P far better than Pro (which we both seem to agree is good policy, especially for the sake of equality! ). B. Hypocrisy is not reason enough. Pro is essentially spending time here arguing that countries with current access nuclear arms engage in egregious harms against their own people. The fact that these countries engage in harmful behaviors that make them potentially dangerous doesn't mean that we should advocate for every country to present further dangers. And this is where we come back to the point I made at the start of this round. Bring my terrorist point up here. What does he say in response? He states that nations that currently have nuclear weapons can also have them fall into the wrong hands. Grant that point. No one's had their nuclear weapons stolen that we know of, which is probably the result of too few weapons being too concentrated and well-defended. But they could be stolen anyway. Well, Pro's argument makes this exponentially worse. Now you have nations without the capacity to defend their weapons adequately obtaining them. You have a wider spread of nuclear weapons, making them more closely accessible to terrorist groups. You have some of these nations actively working with terrorist groups, such as Iran with Hezbollah, and therefore incentive to give away their nuclear weapons to non-state actors. Remember, Pro has practically granted that these bombs getting into the hands of terrorists is a horrifying thing to have happen " extend my arguments from R2 to that effect. I could look at his point on rogue states. Grant that violations occur in nations with nuclear weapons now. It doesn't matter who is at fault. It matters that these countries are blatantly harming their own people and those countries around them. Their access to nuclear weapons increases the harm they can cause, ergo, it exacerbates any problems Pro outlines of current countries having these weapons. I could look at Pro's response to irrational thinking. I could grant this one too, and state that he's making the problem of intervention all the worse by removing any opportunity to disarm anyone. Remember, Pro's position does not and cannot include "no nuclear weapons for anyone. " So this isn't a part of what he can gain through proclaiming the greatness of equality. The only actual benefit he's discussed for equality was two rounds ago, and focuses on "stability," "peaceful and friendly relations" and "universal respect for. .. human rights and fundamental freedoms. " I fail to see how he's supported these outcomes with equality in this instance. His equality ensures a far less stable world where rogue states and terrorist groups can acquire nuclear weapons far more easily. His equality ensures that relations become more strained, not less, between countries. His equality prevents any and all preventions and interventions that would protect human rights and fundamental freedoms. He's completely lost track of his own impacts here. Pro even suggests that a world in which accidental nuclear launches and explosions are far more likely is a good one, stating that "everyone should be allowed to make the mistake. " A mistake that ends millions of lives? One is too many, and the mentality that they should be allowed solely for the sake of promoting equality lacks shows some very confounding priorities. Equality is a great ideal. But as an ideal alone, it serves no purpose. Equality for its own sake has only a perceptual benefit, and the real world effects should take precedence over any perceptual gain. 2. MAD (I love it too! ) A. Rationality is important here, and much as granting Pro's argument benefits my argument in some ways, I can't in good conscience let it go. He says that Israel is an irrational actor. Israel has never invaded another nation without being attacked first. It has a nuclear stockpile, but has never used it, despite being attacked an incredible amount of times over its short history. [2] No matter how irrational Pro asserts that their leadership is, the fact that they haven't done either of these things bounds their irrationality. As such, for the purposes of this debate, they are rational actors. Whether they engage in human rights violations doesn't make them irrational actors in international conflict. North Korea, in the meantime, has repeatedly threatened its neighbors with nuclear annihilation. Its leadership believes in its own divinity, it has engaged in a full-scale invasion, has been unwilling to sign any semblance of a treaty (hence its continued armistice), and continues to have military skirmishes over its borders. Iran, which my opponent barely addressed, is led by radical Islamists, taking this to the extremes by repeatedly calling for the erasure of Israel as a country, and engaging in full-scale invasions into several neighboring countries. Their regular funding and arming of terrorist groups in other countries also showcases an increased irrationality, as these actors are outside of their direct control. These states are far more likely to act irrationality, and in their irrationality, they are not likely to take the threat of destruction seriously. In fact, Pro presents a solid impact for exactly how this could play out by arguing that Israel has created its own problems. It's also going to respond very violently to any serious provocation on Iran's part, which means that the possibility of being hit with a nuclear weapon, even without its usage, creates a threat of nuclear annihilation. In essence, Iran's irrationality produces an irrational response from Israel that would otherwise be less likely to occur in the absence of nuclear weapons. But remember, even if Israel is always an irrational actor, that's not reason to afford other states the opportunity to act irrationally with such dangerous weapons. It only increases the likelihood of massive harms. B. The fact that nuclear weapons haven't been used in decades is not an argument that they will never be used. The more actors who have them, the higher the probability that they will be used, even if it's just out of pure desperation. Pro is not at all responsive to how improved technologies increase the chances of nuclear war occurring. He is also not responsive to my point about how even a rational actor can see a perceived benefit based on how many people are within a small space and how much land they have available. This was the basis of the psychology argument, which Pro disregarded. So long as MAD is only a psychological barrier and not a logical one, it will not remain an effective deterrent to all nuclear war, and therefore every single nation that acquires one is another opportunity for someone to ignore that psychology. 1. . https://treaties.un.org... 2. . http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...