Part II: The Negative
The advantage of negating, as previously mentioned, is that the majority of people seem to agree that possession of nuclear weapons, at least for the US, is necessary and probably moral because of this necessity. The disadvantage of negating is that there are not that many arguments on the negative side. There is one argument that seems implicit in almost every negative position and that is deterrence. For example, one negative is argument on the negative side is that disarming would leave the US vulnerable; vulnerable because we would be less able to deter attacks. Another is that nuclear weapons maintain stable relationships among the superpowers; this is because these weapons deter the superpowers from attacking each other. Another is that the US needs nuclear weapons to protect its allies, but this too rests upon nuclear deterrence as it would be this deterrence that theoretically protects US allies. Hence, even arguments that may not, on the surface, rely on deterrence, do rely on deterrence.
This means the negative would be prudent to prepare to defend both the effectiveness and morality of the theory of deterrence or the negative may not be too successful in many rounds. The first negative case we offer defends the value of morality, for the same reasons as the affirmative cases but argues that the way to achieve morality is by embracing a foreign policy of self interest. The case quote Peter Schwartz who writes, “the designers of a rational foreign policy would understand that self-interest can be successfully defended only if it is embraced as a consistent, moral principle—a principle in keeping with America's founding values.” This means that the moral duty of the US government is to fully embrace a foreign policy of self interest so as not to sacrifice the interests and even lives of its citizens for the interests and lives other nations, especially enemy nations.” So the criterion to achieve the value is embracing a foreign policy of self interest. The thesis of this case is that possessing nuclear weapons is in the self interest of the United States and so is moral. The first point in this case argues that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter attacks on vital interests of the US. This means that possession of nuclear weapons is in the self interest of the US as they deter attacks on our interests.
The second point argues that affirming would make the US vulnerable. This means that getting rid of nuclear weapons would make the US vulnerable to attack from nations who developed them in the future The second negative case defends the value of morality but argues the way to achieve morality is by avoiding war. War is inherently destructive to property and to the environment so it destroys what is necessary for life and life must be the basis, the foundation, of any moral code. Additionally, war asks citizens to become destroyers and killers as opposed to productive individuals. Citizens of a nation are asked to destroy, burn, and kill the property and people who could be fellow citizens or strangers from another land. In other words, it requires people to perform acts that they would generally consider immoral. War results in death, meaning it destroys the foundation of morality and many, if not most, of these lives are innocent lives who have had no say in the decisions of those in power. Finally, war is immoral because it is inherently destructive. Life requires productivity and so war is, in its essence, anti-life. So, the criterion to achieve morality must be reducing the chances of war. The first point of this case is that nuclear weapons make maintaining peace essential for powerful states. This means that nuclear weapons force the most powerful nations on earth to always consider peaceful alternatives to war because going to war is too dangerous for either side. This means possessing nuclear weapons deters war and so is moral. The second point argues that there is no alternative to nuclear weapons for making war obsolete. This means that there exists no alternative to nuclear weapons that could be successful in deterring war so if we affirm, increased war is inevitable meaning negating is the only moral option.
The LD File Nuclear Weapons
One negative approach that is slightly different from deterrence is that proliferation of nuclear weapons is inevitable. This is because the technology is already “out there.” While researching this file, this author came across a website that purported to explain how to build a nuclear weapon. This author has absolutely no way to verify if the site is accurate, but the point is that even if all current nuclear states disarmed, and abolished the infrastructure needed to create and test nuclear weapons, the knowledge of how to construct them would still exist and a so states could always, eventually, construct nuclear weapons independently. This argument is powerful because much of the possession argument rests upon the notion that disarmament would end proliferation, however, this seems unrealistic. Thus, disarming would effectively only change the balance of power rather than easing concerns about nuclear disaster. This is a powerful and important topic for debaters to learn about. As always, keep your judge in mind. Younger judges are more likely to be against nuclear weapons as college students tend to be more idealistic. Older judges are more likely to support possession as necessary. Of course, this is not categorically true, but as debate is ultimately about persuading judges, bearing this in mind will help. Best of luck from TFF!!