I am proud to negate the resolution; The Possession of nuclear weapons is Immoral.
The value for today’s debate is human life, which means to save each human, and
making their lives better.
The criteria is to promote stability. When we achieve stability we can stop violence and
stop major war. When we stop these wars, we are saving human life.
Contention 1: Deterrents.
Nuclear deterrence has created the most stable international system in modern history.
I. Nuclear Deterrence Has Prevented Major Wars
Since 1945, nuclear-armed states have never directly fought each other in war. Jervis
(1989) argues that deterrence fundamentally changed international politics by making
the costs of war between major powers unacceptably high. While the 20th century's first
half saw two catastrophic world wars killing over 70 million people, the nuclear era despite crises and tensions - has maintained peace between great powers. This "Long
Peace" exists because deterrence works.
Bell and Miller (2024) confirm this pattern continues today, finding that nuclear weapons
remain the most effective tool for preventing interstate wars. Even amid rising tensions
between nuclear powers like the U.S., Russia, and China, direct military confrontation
remains unthinkable precisely because of nuclear deterrence.
II. Deterrence Prevents Escalation
Schelling (1960) shows that nuclear deterrence creates clear thresholds that prevent
conflicts from spiraling out of control. During the Cold War, U.S. and Soviet forces
clashed indirectly in proxy conflicts, but deterrence ensured these never escalated to
direct superpower confrontation. This crisis stability has prevented regional disputes
from becoming global catastrophes.
Lieber and Press (2024) demonstrate that nuclear deterrence continues to manage
escalation risks in multiple simultaneous crises. “Nuclear-armed powers maintain
restraint specifically because the nuclear threshold remains credible and catastrophic”
If nations abandon their arsenals on moral grounds, we return to a world where great
power conflict devastates human lives which fundamentally is immoral.
Contention 2: Nuclear weapons prevent Bioweapons
Biological Weapons Pose Greater Threats Than Nuclear Weapons
Koblentz (2009) demonstrates that biological weapons present risks that exceed
nuclear dangers. Unlike nuclear weapons, biological agents are self-replicating,
uncontrollable once released, and could spread globally through natural transmission. A
single engineered pathogen could kill billions - far exceeding any nuclear arsenal's
destructive capacity. Inglesby (2021) warns, Nuclear weapons require massive
infrastructure; biological weapons can be developed in small laboratories.
Without nuclear weapons, biological weapons would be the weapon to create
detterence which bioweapons kills more people and deals a lot more damage. States
will seek protection through available means and biological weapons are more
accessible, harder to control, and more devastating than nuclear arms.
Change Bioweapons to self defense.
Contention 1:
Jervis, Robert. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of
Armageddon. Cornell University Press, 1989.
Waltz, Kenneth N. "Nuclear Myths and Political Realities." American Political Science
Review 84, no. 3 (1990): 731-745.
Schelling, Thomas C. The Strategy of Conflict. Harvard University Press, 1960.
Contention 2:
Bell, Mark S., and Nicholas L. Miller. "Questioning the Effect of Nuclear Weapons on
Conflict." Journal of Conflict Resolution 68, no. 4 (2024): 734-761.
Kroenig, Matthew. "The Case for Renewed Nuclear Deterrence." Foreign Affairs,
May/June 2023.
Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. "The New Era of Counterforce: Technological
Change and the Future of Nuclear Deterrence." International Security 49, no. 1 (2024):
9-49.
Koblentz, Gregory D. Living Weapons: Biological Warfare and International Security.
Cornell University Press, 2009.
Inglesby, Thomas V. "Pandemic Preparedness and Response — Lessons from the
COVID-19 Pandemic." JAMA 326, no. 13 (2021): 1271-1272.
Sagan, Scott D., and Kenneth N. Waltz. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring
Debate. W.W. Norton & Company, 2003.
Narang, Vipin. "Strategies of Nuclear Proliferation: How States Pursue the Bomb."
International Security 41, no. 3 (2017): 110-150.
Contention 2: Bioweapons.
I am proud to negate the resolution; The Possession of nuclear weapons is Immoral.
The value for today’s debate is human life, which means saving each human, and
making their lives better.
The criteria is to promote stability. When we achieve stability, we can stop violence and
stop major wars. When we stop these wars, we save human life.