This House Supports Nuclear Disarmament
Proposition Case
Introduction and Characterization
Nuclear weapons represent one of the greatest existential threats to humanity. The devastating consequences of their use, as seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, extend beyond immediate destruction to long-term environmental, economic, and geopolitical impacts. Despite their intended purpose as a deterrent, the presence of nuclear weapons increases the risk of accidents, escalation, and proliferation. Today, there are approximately 13,000 nuclear warheads globally, most of which are held by just nine countries. We believe that nuclear disarmament is essential for ensuring global security, reducing the risk of catastrophic war, and redirecting resources to address urgent global challenges such as poverty and climate change.
Argument 1: Preventing Catastrophic Consequences
Claim: Nuclear disarmament eliminates the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons.
Mechanism: Even a limited nuclear conflict could cause unparalleled devastation. Studies by organizations like the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) show that a nuclear war would result in millions of deaths, long-term radiation poisoning, and severe disruption to global food supplies due to a “nuclear winter.” Accidents and miscalculations, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, demonstrate how easily nuclear weapons could be unleashed unintentionally. By committing to disarmament, nations reduce the risk of these catastrophic outcomes, ensuring that humanity’s survival is not dependent on the restraint of a few states or leaders.
Impact: Nuclear disarmament protects humanity from the existential risks of accidental or intentional nuclear conflict. It ensures a safer world for future generations by removing the most destructive weapons ever created.
Argument 2: Promoting Global Stability and Reducing Proliferation
Claim: Disarmament fosters global stability and reduces the incentive for nuclear proliferation.
Mechanism: The possession of nuclear weapons by some countries creates a security dilemma for others, incentivizing them to develop their own nuclear arsenals. For example, North Korea’s nuclear program is partly driven by the perceived threat from nuclear-armed states. Disarmament eliminates this asymmetry and creates a foundation for trust and cooperation among nations. Multilateral treaties, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), provide a framework for gradual disarmament and verification, ensuring compliance and building confidence among nations.
Impact: A world without nuclear weapons is more stable, as it reduces the incentive for proliferation and the likelihood of regional arms races. By fostering trust, disarmament paves the way for greater international cooperation on security and other global challenges.
Argument 3: Redirecting Resources to Address Global Challenges
Claim: Nuclear disarmament allows nations to redirect resources toward addressing pressing global issues.
Mechanism: The maintenance and modernization of nuclear arsenals are extremely costly. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) estimates that nuclear-armed states collectively spend over $70 billion annually on their nuclear programs. These resources could be redirected toward solving urgent global challenges such as poverty, education, and climate change. For instance, investing in renewable energy or climate adaptation projects would have a far greater positive impact on global security and human well-being than maintaining weapons of mass destruction.
Impact: Disarmament enables nations to focus on improving human security and addressing the root causes of conflict, rather than perpetuating the destructive status quo of nuclear deterrence.
Opposition Case
Introduction and Characterization
While nuclear weapons are undoubtedly destructive, their existence has played a critical role in maintaining global stability through deterrence. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) has prevented large-scale conflicts between nuclear-armed states since World War II. Unilateral or multilateral disarmament risks destabilizing this delicate balance, increasing the likelihood of conventional wars and leaving nations vulnerable to threats from rogue states or non-state actors. Instead of pursuing disarmament, we should focus on responsible nuclear stewardship, non-proliferation, and advancing technologies to reduce the risks associated with nuclear weapons.
Argument 1: Deterrence Prevents Large-Scale Wars
Claim: Nuclear weapons act as a powerful deterrent, preventing conflicts between major powers.
Mechanism: The principle of MAD ensures that no rational actor would initiate a nuclear conflict, as it would result in mutual destruction. For example, during the Cold War, the presence of nuclear weapons prevented direct military conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union despite high tensions. Without nuclear weapons, there is a greater risk of conventional wars escalating, as nations would no longer fear the catastrophic consequences of nuclear retaliation. Countries like Russia and China could exploit disarmament to expand their influence, knowing that their adversaries lack a credible deterrent.
Impact: Disarmament undermines global security by removing a proven mechanism for preventing large-scale wars. Maintaining nuclear arsenals ensures peace between major powers and stability in geopolitically sensitive regions.
Argument 2: Proliferation Risks and Rogue Actors
Claim: Disarmament increases vulnerability to threats from rogue states and non-state actors.
Mechanism: The complete elimination of nuclear weapons is unlikely, as rogue states such as North Korea are unlikely to comply with disarmament agreements. Without nuclear deterrence, other nations become vulnerable to coercion or aggression from these actors. Additionally, disarmament does not address the risk of nuclear technology falling into the hands of terrorist organizations, who are not bound by international norms. Maintaining nuclear weapons ensures that nations have the capability to deter and respond to such threats.
Impact: Disarmament leaves nations defenseless against threats from rogue states and non-state actors, increasing global instability and undermining national security.
Argument 3: Practical and Verification Challenges
Claim: Achieving global nuclear disarmament is impractical and difficult to verify.
Mechanism: The process of disarmament requires complete trust and transparency among nations, which is unrealistic given the current geopolitical climate. Verification mechanisms are complex and prone to manipulation, as nations can secretly maintain or develop nuclear capabilities. For example, the failure of past arms control agreements, such as the INF Treaty, demonstrates the challenges of enforcing compliance. Additionally, nations with conventional military advantages may exploit disarmament to dominate weaker states, further destabilizing the global order.
Impact: The impracticality of verifying disarmament makes it ineffective, while the risks of cheating and exploitation by certain states exacerbate security concerns. A better approach is to strengthen non-proliferation agreements and ensure responsible management of existing arsenals.
Conclusion
While the goal of nuclear disarmament is noble, it is neither practical nor beneficial in maintaining global security. Nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent against large-scale conflicts, protect nations from rogue actors, and ensure geopolitical stability. Instead of pursuing disarmament, we should focus on reducing the risks associated with nuclear weapons through non-proliferation, better stewardship, and international cooperation. For these reasons, we strongly oppose this motion.
