States ought not possess nuclear weapons

States ought not possess nuclear weapons Yes because

States ought not possess nuclear weapons

States ought not possess nuclear weapons. Advocates of nuclear disarmament argue that global nuclear weapons stockpiles must be reduced dramatically weapons for each the US and the Russians and reduced and eventually reduced to zero in order to eliminate the risk of nuclear war.

US President Obama has been a strong proponent of sizable nuclear reductions. Disarmament promoters argue that unless the weapons are eliminated that they will eventually be used in war, that norms against nuclear weapons use need to be strengthened, and that denuclearization will boost multilateral cooperation that is needed to solve global problems.

They also argue that US leadership on denuclearization will strengthen nonproliferation norms that will reduce, and eventually eliminate the spread of nuclear weapons.

Given this, Con teams may wish to suggest eventual disarmament as an alternative to striking nuclear proliferators. In their report, Global Zero U.

Resolved: States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons

They argue that these reductions and negotiations will set the stage for multilateral negotiations that will lead to further cuts for all sides. The reductionsand States ought not possess nuclear weapons proposed under this illustrative plan could be carried out in unison by the United States and Russia through reciprocal presidential directives, negotiated in another round of bilateral arms reduction talks, or implemented unilaterally.

In any case, these cuts would lead to yet another round of talks that would reduce the nuclear arsenals on each side to total weapons. These cuts to total weapons apiece should be sufficient to bring China and other nuclear weapons countries to the table to begin multilateral negotiations for further cuts on the path to global zero.

The consensus of former Russian senior military officers in Global Zero, led by Col. The strategic warheads would be deployed in either of these configurations: Victor Esin personal communications, February These deep cuts will arguably strengthen the Non Proliferation Treaty, reducing the spread of nuclear weapons.

A strong case can nevertheless be made that unilateral U. While preserving effective deterrence against all but non-state actors, unilateral steps would lay the groundwork for increasing security cooperation among the former Cold War adversaries and encourage them to consider comparable unilateral actions.

More broadly, this illustrative agenda with its deep cuts and de-alerting would strongly validate the Non-Proliferation Treaty and help preserve it in the face of challenges by North Korea, Iran and other prospective proliferators.

In strengthening the NPT, inhibiting the spread of nuclear weapons and setting the stage for multilateral negotiations among the nuclear weapons countries to reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear arsenals, this initiative would go far toward building a new security architecture embodying the vision of Global Zero — a world without nuclear weapons Although some see below argue that it will be difficult to get Russia on board with the reductions, Podvig argues that the US can pressure Russia to negotiate.

One of the problems that the United States will face in its attempts to get Russia on board with new nuclear reductions is that it has few incentives to offer, especially if it stays within the framework of New START.

For Russia, the numerical ceilings established by the treaty are hardly a matter of importance.

Recent Opinions

It is well aware of the fact that the United States maintains a sizable arsenal of reserve warheads—a hedge—that would allow it to deploy more than 4, strategic warheads on existing delivery systems, almost three times as many as the notional New START limit.

This discrepancy may seem like an opening for future negotiations—the United States could offer to reduce the hedge and establish a verifiable limit on non-deployed warheads. But Russia has shown no interest in this kind of proposal; it accepted the reality of the US hedge, judging probably correctly that these numbers are not as important as they may seem.

Also, for Russia a lower ceiling would mean curbing its strategic modernization program—under which it plans to build new nuclear warheads and delivery systems—just as money has started flowing to its defense industry.

One of the most important benefits of New START is the transparency and verification framework provided by the treaty. But this is the part of the treaty that Russia is likely to miss least, as it values secrecy much higher than transparency.

This leaves only one option: For Russia, the value of the treaty is not necessarily in the numerical limits or verification provisions. Indeed, the Bush administration came very close to this stance when it pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in and openly questioned the need for new arms control agreements.

That was not a happy time in Moscow, as it realized it was losing its coveted position as equal partner in nuclear arms control negotiations.Aug 30,  · Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Often I like to separate V/C pairs into advocacies--those that trend Aff or Neg. However, it seems that many of the arguments cut both ways, as you'll see below. States ought not possess nuclear weapons Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.

States ought not possess nuclear weapons

You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page. States ought not possess nuclear weapons The issue of nuclear proliferation has become one of today's most pressing issues, as countries such as Iran and North Korea desire to .

I wish to negate the statement "States ought not possess nuclear weapons." First, don't countries reserve the right to protect their citizens? Protection and security of a . Aug 15,  · Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

The September-October NFL LD topic for has been released: Simple, clean, and full of lovely clash. Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

For clarity, I show more content Whatever danger proliferators pose today would be far greater in a disarmed world, even though the previously nuclear states would eventually be able to rebuild nuclear weapons, they would be unwilling to accept a period during which a proliferator.

States ought not possess nuclear weapons | CreateDebate