BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Tactical nuclear warheads are more serviceable for use in intimidation and retaliation toward enemies, as they are considerably less catastrophically destructive than those of current nuclear arsenals.

For deterrence to function, rogue states and other international actors with nuclear capabilities, such as North Korea, must believe that their would-be target will retaliate in kind if attacked, tactical nuclear weapons provide a middle option. Given that these rogue states would likely only have access to low-yield nuclear weapons, it is unlikely that they would be able to launch a nuclear attack capable of more than damaging a Western city. Furthermore, the relative difficulty of developing deliverable nuclear weapons means that rogue nations are increasingly looking toward the acquisition and development of alternative weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical, biological, and radiological weapons. Were the United States, or another nuclear power, to be attacked by any of these weapons, it is unlikely that it, or the international community would consider the deployment of a strategic nuclear strike in retaliation to be justified. The response would certainly be disproportionately large, as strategic nuclear missiles can easily level cities, even with the smallest possible payload. This means that in order to maintain effective deterrence, nuclear powers must shift from the paradigm laid out by the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction to a "flexible response" doctrine, in which countries deploy arsenals of much smaller, tactical nuclear weapons that their enemies honestly believe they will use if provoked. By equipping themselves with a range of weapons, so as to be able to scale responses appropriately, nuclear-armed countries are far likelier to deter potential aggressors in future 1. Pakistan's military serves as an example of such tactical nuclear capability ready for action; its army is armed with an arsenal of mini-nukes that can be used to destroy whole tank formations, with little radioactive fallout dispersing beyond the battlefield. These weapons serve to redress the balance between Pakistani and Indian conventional military capacity. As Pakistan is woefully outnumbered and outgunned in conventional weapons, its tactical nuclear arsenal can deliver devastating damage to massed Indian army formations, preventing any potential invasion2. Clearly, tactical nuclear weapons are useful weapons in a country arsenal, preparing it to be more flexible in its application of nuclear force. 1 Reynolds, Paul. 2003. "Mini-Nukes on US Agenda". BBC News. 2The Economist. 2011. "A Rivalry that Threatens the World". The Economist.
All countries have an inherent right to self-defense even when they lack the capacity to do so with conventional weapons.

States, as the building blocks of international society, have an inviolable right to self-defense, and this right extends to the possession of miniature, tactical nuclear weapons. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of small and poor states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. When armed with tactical nuclear weapons, all states become equal in terms of capacity to do harm to one another. If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to severely damage, or even destroy, the would-be invader's military capacity with a few well-placed miniature nuclear missiles [1]. An example of this is the 2008 invasion of Georgia by Russian troops, which would likely never have occurred had Georgia possessed an arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, as Russia would have thought twice when considering that its large tank formations could be wiped out by a single well-placed tactical warhead. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves.   [1] The Economist. 2011. “A Rivalry that Threatens the World”. The Economist. Available: http://www.economist.com
Moving nuclear diplomacy away from the fear of Mutually Assured Destruction undermines world stability.

Tactical nuclear weapons undermine the overarching structure of deterrence in nuclear diplomacy. Nuclear weapons create stability, as described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war1. If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place. Furthermore, armed with a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another 2. If a large state attempts to intimidate or to invade a smaller neighbor, it will be unable to effectively subdue it, since the small state will have the power to seriously injure, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles3. The dynamics created by MAD are entirely lost when miniaturized, tactical nuclear weapons are brought into the equation. By considering nuclear weapons to no longer fit into the rigid framework of MAD, which ensures that they are not used except in response to existential threats, their use becomes more likely and more accepted as a strategic tool. For example, the 2002 United States Nuclear Posture Review recommends the integration of nuclear weapons into the broader strategic framework of the military and defense department. Such reconsideration can only make the use of nuclear weapons more likely4. Clearly, the development of tactical nuclear weapons will only destabilize world relations, not offer greater security. 1 Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better". Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. 2 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.  3 Mearsheimer, John. 1993. "The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent". ForeignAffairs.  4 Arkin, William. 2002. "Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable". Los Angeles Times.
The development of tactical nuclear weapons by one state would lead to a new global arms race.

When one state develops a new military technology that could potentially tip the strategic balance in its favor, other countries are quick to take notice and to attempt to develop the technology themselves. During the Cold War, the nuclear arms race between the United States and Soviet Union reached a fever pitch, with both states spending vast quantities of money and resources to build newer, deadlier, and ever more plentiful nuclear arsenals. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, the nuclear arms race has been at low ebb. Recent moves by the United States, as well as Russia and China, to develop newer, smaller nuclear weapons, as well as to open discussion of tactical application of such weapons outside the paradigm of MAD, however, threaten to bring the nuclear arms race into the 21st century1. If nuclear weapons begin to permeate the tactical decisions of states, from use in bunker-busting to destroying armor formations, they will cease to hold the special power of fear that has kept them from ever being employed in combat since World War II. A race to develop easier to use, less accountable weapons, while eroding the taboo against their use, spells a recipe for disaster. 1 Jervis, Robert. 2001. "Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era". Foreign Affairs.
Designing and constructing tactical nuclear weapons allow a state's scientists to maintain a competitive position in nuclear technology.

Countries can develop their nuclear-related technologies without the need to direct efforts to the construction of extremely dangerous, miniature nuclear weapons. Rather, if superior technology is desired, the resources exist in Western countries to do most research without even touching nuclear materials, being able to do much of the research by means of computer. Dominance in nuclear engineering does not require the creation of such weapons. It is better to direct research toward peaceful applications of nuclear technology.
The feeling of security generated by possession of tactical nuclear weapons will give states the political will to decommission standing nuclear arsenals.

The unwillingness of the United States and Russia to give up tactical nuclear weapons shows some of the hypocrisy running through the New START. The treaty should make an effort to eliminate nuclear weapons completely, not just some. Furthermore, tactical nuclear weapons are more dangerous than their larger strategic counterparts because they are much smaller, and thus lend themselves to actually be used, which raises serious risks of escalation.
Many alternative remedies, such as homeopathy, offer nothing but a false hope and can discourage patients from consulting a doctor with what may be serious symptoms

The overwhelming majority of practitioners of alternative therapies recommend that they be used in conjunction with conventional medicine. However, the rights and opinions of the patient are foremost and should be respected. In the case of cancer, since that is the study considered by proposition, there are many sufferers who decide that chemotherapy, a painful and protracted treatment, which rarely yields promising or conclusive results, may well be worse than the disease. Of course there is a cost associated with alternative medicine, although it is as nothing compared with the cost of many medical procedures, notably in the US but also elsewhere. There are plenty of conventional practitioners willing to prescribe medications that may not be necessary or, at the very least, select medications on the basis of financial inducements from pharmaceutical companies. Despite legal rulings[i], such practices still take place; it would be disingenuous not to explore the extent to which commercial dealings influence the practice of conventional medicine. Clearly advice should always be given on the basis of the needs of the patient. However, there are many circumstances in which conventional medicine fails to adhere to this principle. Venality and petty negligence are not behaviours that are exclusive to the world of alternative therapies. [i] Tom Moberly. “Prescribing incentive schemes are illegal says European Court”. GP Magazine. 27 February 2010.
Although there are many accounts of the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments, not one has been demonstrated to work in a clinical trial

Partly the problem here may well be that clinical research is simply looking for the wrong things. There is enough anecdotal evidence of success to at least suggest further research – it is worth noting that there’s no money in many of these treatments so they actually get relatively little academic discussion. A meta-study of the available material on analyses of the effectiveness of complementary medicine by the Cochrane Library found positive or confirmatory outcomes in 34 percent of those papers it reviewed on the subject. It is also worth reiterating that there is a massive financial interest in ignoring, sidelining or condemning therapies that pose a threat to the medical establishment. It seems incredibly unlikely that people would come back for more than one dose of a treatment that was having no effect, and yet they do.
Overwhelmingly alternative therapies are used in conjunction with established remedies - oddly the latter tends not to get the credit for the miracle cure

Statistics for alternatives are difficult to generate as patients will often move between practitioners and frequently self-medicate. Clearly there are also conditions that any responsible practitioner would refer to a specialist in that particular field. However, many people are mistrustful of so-called conventional medicine and the alternative medicine sector has proven both popular and has often brought about changes in lifestyle as well as direct health benefits, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed. Responsible practitioners have welcomed the actions of those governments who have licensed and regulated the Complementary and Alternative sector. Although science may struggle to explain the benefits of these therapeutic technics, as they do not lend themselves to the tools of commercial medicine.
A huge number of fully accepted medical practices started being seen as something a bit off the wall, it’s wrong to deny sick people access to a treatment that may be mainstream in 20 years

This comes down to the ‘well it can’t hurt, can it’ approach to alternatives. There is simply no serious medic – or any other scientist for that matter who would suggest that it’s a good idea to ingest products that are of dubious origin and purport medical benefits without having been tested. In many cases these have been shown to be at least irrelevant and at worst actively harmful. Of course it is painful to deny treatment to a patient on the basis that the medication has yet to complete its trial stage but there is a reason for doing that in that it allows doctors to be 100 percent sure of a product before they’re prescribed.
The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper

Absolutely nobody questions that many remedies can be drawn from nature- penicillin provides one example- but there is something of a jump that happens between chewing on a piece of bark and a regulated dose of a chemical. Let’s deal quickly with the cost of medications – the second pill may well ‘cost pennies’; the first one, by contrast, costs hundreds of millions of dollars in research. On the basis that there is probably more than one medicine in the world that procedure will need to be repeated. As for the idea that there are older or more traditional remedies and that these are still frequently used in much of the world, that is, indeed true. They are the same periods of history and parts of the planet were the bulk of humankind died – or continues to die – agonizing deaths from relatively commonplace diseases that modern medicine is able to cure with ‘a pill from a man in a white coat’. It is admittedly regrettable that more of the world isn’t covered by the protection science offers but that is scarcely the fault of science.
Alternative medical practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and get a better understanding of them as a whole, as a result they are more likely to treat the person than the symptom

his is of course an excellent argument for more and better funded clinics, especially in parts of the world (including much of the West) where access to medicine is difficult. It is also evidence that when people are genuinely worried about their health they tend to consult providers of conventional medicine who are, as a result, extremely busy. It perhaps says more than anything else about many practitioners of alternative medicines that they have time to sit around bonding with their patients. Unsurprisingly, such a luxury is rare in an A and E ward or even in the average GP’s surgery.
Many alternative remedies, such as homeopathy, offer nothing but a false hope and can discourage patients from consulting a doctor with what may be serious symptoms

There are good reasons why new therapies are tested in scientific trials first, rather than just released on the public that it might work. The first is to weed out side-effects but the other is that if you give most people a medicine they will, not unreasonably, expect it to make them better. An entire industry has grown out of alternative medicines. No doubt many alternative practitioners are well meaning, but this does not change the fact that people are making money out of something that, as far as anyone can determine, is basically snake oil. Although many people take both alternative and established treatments, there are a growing number of patients who reject conventional medical wisdom (there’s an account of one such case here[i]) in cases that prove fatal the availability of alternative medicines raises serious ethical and legal concerns, and also undermines the stringent regimes of monitoring and supervision that qualified medical professionals are subjected to.. [i] David Gorski. “Death by ‘Alternative Medicine”: Who’s to blame?”. Science-Based Medicine 2008.
Although there are many accounts of the efficacy of alternative cancer treatments, not one has been demonstrated to work in a clinical trial

The National Centre for Conventional and Alternative Medicines has spent over $2.5bn on research since 1992. The Dutch government funded research between 1996 and 2003. Alternative therapies have been tested in mainstream medical journals and elsewhere. Not only have thousands of research exercises failed to prove the medical benefit ”alternative” treatments for severe and terminal diseases, serious peer-reviewed studies have routinely disproved them. It’s all well and good to pick at mistakes in individual studies. Indeed, this tactic often forms the mainstay of pleas for legitimacy made by members of the alternative medical community.  However, the odds against such consistently negative results would be extraordinary. By contrast, conventional medicine only prescribes medicines and treatments that are proven, and vigorously proven, to work.
Overwhelmingly alternative therapies are used in conjunction with established remedies - oddly the latter tends not to get the credit for the miracle cure

Thankfully only 4.4% of the 60million or so Americans who say they use alternative therapies rely on them exclusively. It is odd that in the cases of anecdotal accounts of the success of alternative medicines this statistic is rarely mentioned[i]. Equally, the impact of other treatment which may have been used by patients eager to credit complementary and alternative medicines with curing their conditions, tend not to get a look in, neither do the relative successes of conventional medicine. This is probably why in every trial alternative medicine has a success rate of between 0% and 0%. By contrast there needs only be one instance of harm caused to demonstrate that this motion must stand. Interestingly, although conventional medicine publishes its mistakes in an effort to correct them, nothing similar exists for alternatives. Moreover, there are many accounts of fatalities caused by alternatives – both directly and indirectly through delaying accurate diagnosis as seen above (Oh, the same applies to animals too[ii]). The food supplements industry alone is worth $250 a year worldwide, with little examination of the medical impact of merrily shoving things into your system that were bought at WalMart or Tesco. [i] JA Astin “Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national survey” Journal of the American Medical Association 279 (19) 1548-53. May 1998. [ii] http://www.skeptvet.com/index.php?p=1_21_What-s-The-Harm-
A huge number of fully accepted medical practices started being seen as something a bit off the wall, it’s wrong to deny sick people access to a treatment that may be mainstream in 20 years

There is a fine line between what is considered alternative and what is thought of as mainstream. Techniques do move across that line and when they do so, they are seen as mainstream. However, this process of reform, refinement and acceptance takes time. In the meantime it is simply unfair to deny treatment to patients who want it because the medical establishment is beholden to a conservative academic orthodoxy and drug and treatment providers with vested interests in ensuring that particular cures and techniques will continue to be purchased and utilised.
The pharmaceutical and medical industries are worth billions of dollars annually. They have an interest in ignoring the efficacy of remedies that are, for the most part, free or considerably cheaper

It’s understandable that the medical establishment has an interest in ignoring treatments that are freely available. Pharmaceutical companies make billions each year selling drugs that cost pennies to manufacture. There is an enormous vested interest in insuring that the world in general- and the West in particular-remain tied to the idea that the only solution to disease is to swallow a pill provided by a man in a white coat. There are other solutions that have been used for thousands of years before anybody worked out how to make a buck out of it. For much of the world these therapies continue to be the ones people rely on and the rush of pharmaceutical companies to issue patents on genes of some of these traditional remedies suggests that there must be at least some truth in them.
Alternative medical practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and get a better understanding of them as a whole, as a result they are more likely to treat the person than the symptom

Modern medicine tends to treat an individual symptom without putting it in the context of the whole person and so will often fail to see it as part of a wider pathology. Alternative practitioners tend to spend more time with their patients and so are better placed to asses individual symptoms as a part of the person as a whole rather than just dealing with symptoms one as a time as the crop up.
The media could be endangering peoples’ mental and physical health.

Pursuing stories regarding the lives of public figures could be putting the health of the person being pursued and their families lives in danger. The most extreme and infamous case of this would most arguably be the events which are said to have contributed to the untimely death of Princess Diana, whereby her car crashed into the wall of a tunnel having been pursued by tabloid journalists and paparazzi seeking an ultimately trivial story. While this was an extraordinary event it does show the extent to which journalists have been known to pursue public figures for a story which undoubtedly places stress on the targets and their families lives which could leave to both health issues and psychological distress.[1] [1] Balakrishnan, A. (2008) Chauffeur and paparazzi to blame for Diana death, jury finds. [online][accessed 14 May 2013]
Those in power need to be held to account

Of course people need to be held to account and in some cases the publication of the private affairs of public figures can be justified. However, on the whole, most reporting into the private lives of public figures is simply gossip which the public has no need to know and is holding no-one to account. Instead it is often simply being used to sell media products. There are hundreds of examples which could be cited of such intrusion, often involving actors/actresses and models which offer no real justification at all as to why they were printed. Printing stories about celebrities on holiday for example is not holding them to account or benefiting society in an actively positive way. This can also extend to those in more traditional power roles. Is it in the public interest to know all the details about the private lives of politicians and CEOs if what is being reported does not have a direct effect on their role? For example Max Mosley, the now ex-president of the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA), a group which not only represents the interests of motoring organizations but is also the governing body for Formula One, was exposed in 2008 by the now defunct News of the World newspaper as being involved in a sadomasochistic sex act which involved several female prostitutes. The reporting of this was unnecessary as the event did not have a direct effect on his running of the FIA and was therefore not in the public interest. Mosley took the case to the UK High Court claiming infringement of his private life and the court found in his favor.[1] [1] BBC (2008) Mosley Wins Court Case Over Orgy. [online] [accessed 14th July 2011]