DDO Tier Tournament Take Two: States Should Possess Nuclear Weapons

Comparison of Pro and Con WorldsI accept the inactive negation. I must clarift, though, that it's not too much about Pro and Con imaginary worlds, but the real world and how it would change if States have the obligation to possess nuclear weapons. In other words, in Con world "nukes may still exist" is not more real than the fact that nukes actually exist right now. About UtilitarianismPro claims that we should pick a moral system before discussing the issue, and I disagree. The problem here is that moral systems are not perfect and it's really difficult to say something like "this system is the best". One system may be better than another in certain situations, but I think it's necessary to first analize the problem before choosing what moral system is the best. Other moral systems or ethical system like deutology can lead to better answer in some situations. In summary, the complexity of the situation and the different levels of an scenario need to be addressed and then an explanation on why a moral system is better than another in that situation is needed. In the case of nukes, one can't use expected consequences to weight decisions. For example, less wars seems like a good consequence except when you contrast it with a possible consequence, the possibility of a nuclear war. And that's one of the problems I mentioned. The lack of ability to make accurate predictions on really complex systems makes it really difficult to use utilitarianism to help decision making, unless one would want to take possible scenarios into account and how those could be severly destructive, not just expected consequences. More Nukes, Less WarThe problem is not about deterrance, but of a correct weightning of consequences. Pro is only comparing desired consequences with wars in the past but it's not using the possibility of a nuclear war. -Nuclear war is more probable"the risks of catastrophes involving nuclear weapons currently appear to be far above any acceptable level. " [1]In 2013 the accepted probability of a detonation of a nuclear weapon is 1 in a million. [2]But it doesn't matter, the fact that if states have the obligation to possess nuclear weapons, there would be more nuclear weapons and it would increase the risk is a higher concern. About it's destructive power, just to make an example that it's easy to remember, only 1.38% of the Uranium of Little Boy, the bomb that US detonated in Hiroshima in 1945, fissionated. [3] That's very inefficient. That's 1.7 grams of Uranium and was enough to kill 80000 people and destroy most of the houses. And now, there are thousands of these bombs with greater power controlled by "few" nations. [4] Pro then claims that it doesn't appear very probable at all because 20 possible accidents didn't end in the accident. Pro has to remember that there were people that would detonate the nuclear weapon without thinking it two times. Petrov didn't do it, but there were people that was ordering him to do it. He claims that Petrov didn't fire because he knows that it would result in massive death. It seems to me that Pro's 2 points are in conflict. If it's too dangerous or if it causes "massive death" as Pro states, then the fact that it's possible should weight more in Pro's decision making. If it's not as probable, then it would not help the deterrance. Pro claims that things are safer because of new technologies and because some countries that have these technologies can protect their allies. I don't think this is reasonable because there are countries that are not considered allies of those two countries. -Most states should possess nuclear weapons to reduce war in the world, which is not feasible. And the fact that if all states should have nuclear weapons, it would increase the probability of anuclear war doesn't need citation. More states with nuclear weapons means more nuclear weapons, which increases the probability of it happening. Pro claims that only a suicidal nation would use nukes. If there is no risk of nuclear weapons attack, then where is the deterrance? The fact is that the risk exist. EmpiricsI can't present better data. The data I could present would have the same problems. But I can call it unreliable as Pro already accepted. ASking for "better" data is not a solution. Nuclear Weapons and AsteroidsPro presents an analogy of the airbag of a car. This analogy fails because it doesn't take the disadvantages into account. Change the analogy to, if you have that airbag, it can save your life from a car accident, but it can make all the cars of the street explode. This analogy is not perfect, but I'm just using it to show the problems with Con's analogy. Then Pro talks about emergencies, but it suffers the same problems of his analogy. Even using utilitarianism, there is no reason to think that states should possess nuclear weapons. Then Pro talks about "obligation". I'm not asking Pro to show absolute neessity, but to see the problems that nuclear weapons can cause just because one solution is more effective than the other. And It's not about better, because if a nuclear weapon can cause "massive death", then it's not better than trying other solution to deflect the asteroid. Thanks for this round. Vote Con. Sources1. . http://www-ee.stanford.edu...2. . http://youtu.be...3. . http://www.mphpa.org...4. . http://fas.org...