Matt Marxer
Negative Blocks
1. Response to diplomacy over war
Diplomacy has been historically proven to fail in almost all instances with the United States and
countries considered to be a threat to national security. According to The Wall Street Journal on
November 29, 2009, the efforts of the United States to diplomatically engage with the Iranian
government to stop the nation's efforts to enrich uranium have failed. Iran is still attempting to
gain access to enriched uranium, nearly 4 years later, showing that efforts by the U.S. to
diplomatically engage have failed. This means that since diplomacy fails at having any real
results, military action is much more likely effective. Looking at the Gulf War that the U.S.
engaged in during the 1990s shows that military action in many cases is much more efficient
than diplomatic discussions.
2. Response to a multilateral response is better
A multilateral response is not the correct way to go about stopping nuclear proliferation because
of all of the bureaucratic red tape that is associated with multiple nations, or organizations like
the U.N., working to try to stop conflict. A good example of this comes from Inter Press Service
News on June 10, 2013 while discussing the ongoing conflict in Myanmar by stating "the
international community, like the United Nations, is very slow in responding to such
emergencies. Moreover, it is too bureaucratic in nature." When multiple nations come together to
try to solve conflicts, they are marred by bureaucracy and red tape, slowing down their ability to
be effective. What this means is that a single nation working on its own, like the U.S., are much
more effective in being able to quickly respond to a serious situation.
3. Answers to MAD solves
The theory of MAD is false. The MAD theory relies on rational actors being able to make
rational decisions, but in the event of an irrational actor, this theory doesn't apply. According to
Foreign Policy News, "MAD's credibility plummeted even further during the last stages of the
Cold War, as the Soviet military buildup convinced U.S. policymakers that the U.S.S.R. did not
believe in MAD and was seeking nuclear advantage. " The U.S. very nearly got into a nuclear
war with the U.S.S.R. during the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s, as the Soviet Union wasn't
rational. North Korea is a modern day example of this with their continual testing of ICBMs.
When an actor is not rational or does not care about their life, MAD no longer works, thus
military action is necessary by the U.S. to solve this problem.
4. Response to imperialism
The U.S. responding militarily is not actually imperialist. According to Webster's Dictionary,
imperialism is "the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a
nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political
or economic life of other areas." Simply using military power to stop nuclear proliferation does
not give the U.S. territorial control of said nation, and is thus not imperialist. Historically, when
the U.S. engages with other nations militarily, it does not keep the territory after the war, and is
not imperialist by definition.
5. Response to military action causes more conflict
Military action, when executed properly, does not actually lead to more conflict. Look at the
Gulf War as proof of this, or of the U.S. bombing Libya several years ago. This sort of action is
successful in achieving goals militarily, and not creating more conflict. Also, even if it does
cause more conflict in the short term, if it is against an irrational actor, the lives lost in
conventional war would be less than in a nuclear war. (Refer to MAD response)
6. Response to monetary cost
Although the cost of militarily intervening to stop proliferation may be expensive, when carried
out correctly, air strikes and military intervention (again Libya and Gulf War) show that the costs
of military action are not necessarily very high. Also, when reacting against an irrational actor
(MAD again), the preservation of innocent human life in the long run should always outweigh
the monetary costs. Life is always more important than money (use your own logic here, should
be easy.)
7. Response to U.S. is not world's police.
The United States can act as the world's police for a variety of reasons. The first is that the U.S.
spends much more than any other nation on their military. According to the Huffington Post in
2012, the U.S. made up 58% of all global military spending on their own, meaning the nation has
the ability to address conflicts better than any other nation (apply multilateralism fails here too if
needed). On top of that, according to the Heritage Foundation, the United States also makes up
22% of all U.N. funding despite the U.N. having 192 member nations, meaning the U.S. makes
up by far the largest funder, and therefore should have the ability to exert its influence
internationally.
8. Response to hypocrisy
Although the U.S. has many nuclear weapons, unlike other nations that are oftentimes unstable
while trying to proliferate, the U.S. is an extremely stable and capable nation that can
successfully manage its nuclear weapons arsenal. On top of that, the U.S. is nearly always
involved in trying to stop radical regimes from implementing harsh policies against the citizens
of the world, and as thus is a rational actor (cx MAD again). It is therefore not hypocritical for
the U.S. to have nukes in the interests of protecting society, whereas other unstable nations
would be much more likely to use them for offensive purposes in modern times.
9.Response to U.S. shouldn't carry out duties of the U.N.
(Cross apply evidence from U.S. military spending and U.N. spending here). Since the U.S. is a
member of the U.N. Security Council, it is relied upon as one of the most influential nations in
the world, and is looked at to help bring peace and stability around the world. What this means is
that even without the approval of the U.N., the U.S. has the moral obligation with such a large
military and economy to help to ease the problems of nuclear proliferation when it poses a threat
to the interests of the U.S. and the international community on the whole. Since the U.S. is the
most capable of doing this, and by itself avoids the bureaucratic red tape of the U.N. (cross apply
that evidence), it does have the obligation to help society from being harmed by proliferation.
Requirements for blocks:
-Minimum of 800 words/ 2 pages for both Aff and Neg blocks
-Minimum of 9 responses
-Must have a claim, warrant, and impact in each block
-Minimum of 6 sources. (Not every block needs a source, but all must use some sort of empirical
warrant)
-Must attach sources in final version of blocks