DEC 2019: Eliminating Nuclear Arsenals

TOPIC: Eliminating Nuclear Arsenals

Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
Shared Folder: LD Research Folder [2020-01-01] = Eliminating Nuclear Arsenals.

BACKGROUND:

Can Predictive Policing Be Ethical and Effective?,
New York Times (Debate Section), November 18, 2015
https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/11/18/can-predictive-policing-be-ethical-and-effective

Nuclear Disarmament Resource Collection (Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI), August 7, 2018)
More than seven decades after their development and use during World War II, nuclear weapons continue to be the basis for a number of states\’ national security policies. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) prohibits non-nuclear weapon state parties from developing nuclear weapons. However, the NPT exempts five de jure nuclear weapon states (NWS) (France, the People\’s Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States) from this ban. These five states had tested nuclear weapons before the treaty was negotiated in 1968. This \”exemption\” is, however, countered with a legal obligation in Article VI of the NPT for the five nuclear-weapon states to fully disarm. Three other nuclear-armed states—India, Israel, and Pakistan—have never joined the NPT, but possess nuclear weapons. North Korea also possesses nuclear weapons, but unlike India, Israel, and Pakistan was previously a member of the NPT obliged not to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 2003 and has tested nuclear devices multiple times since 2006 despite international condemnation and sanctions. Approximately 14,900 nuclear warheads remain in the arsenals of the nine states, approximately 4,000 of these warheads are actively deployed. Five European NATO countries (Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey) also host approximately 150 U.S. tactical nuclear weapons as part of NATO\’s extended deterrence mission. The United States has reduced its globally deployed tactical nuclear weapons, but tensions between Russia and NATO make further near-term reductions unlikely. Large stockpiles of fissile material, including directly weapons-useable highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium, also still exist globally. On 7 July 2017, a United Nations conference adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, the first international treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons comprehensively, including banning the development, acquisition, test, use, the threat of use and possession of nuclear weapons. Although no nuclear weapons possessing states have signed the treaty, the treaty’s passage is a significant development in disarmament politics.

States ought not to possess nuclear weapons (Debatewise.org, Last updated: March 2, 2017)
The issue of nuclear proliferation has become one of today\’s most pressing issues, as countries such as Iran and North Korea desire to join the elite group of nuclear powers. While many people call for total disarmament and the movement towards global zero, a world without nuclear weapons, others are proponents of the right of states to own nuclear weapons. Do nuclear weapons actually make the world safer, or do they pose too great of a risk to consider keeping?
IMPORTANT: Please read this entire article, but Please Do NOT use it as one of your sources. Simply research each of the ideas that you deem as worthy! 🙂

REQUIRED RESEARCH VIDEOS:

In rare meeting, North Korean leader Kim Jong Un calls for \”offensive measures\”,
CBS News, December 30, 2019 [2 min]
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/north-korea-kim-jong-un-urges-party-to-take-offensive-measures-to-ensure-sovereignty-security/

Is nuclear disarmament set to self-destruct? – BBC Newsnight,
BBC News, February 1, 2019 [9 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P967pRXOvM&feature=youtu.be
Note: The US is withdrawing from a key Cold War-era nuclear arms control treaty with Russia. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced the US is leaving the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty, signed by Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987. What effect will the move have? Kirsty Wark is joined by Thomas Countryman, former US Assistant Secretary for Nonproliferation and Chairman of the Arms Control Association. Newsnight is the BBC\’s flagship news and current affairs TV program – with analysis, debate, exclusives, and robust interviews.

Donald Trump Says \’We All Have to Get Rid of\’ Nuclear Weapons; Russia Responds: Let\’s Make a Plan,
Tim O\’Connor, Newsweek, April 26, 2019 [1 min]
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-rid-nuclear-weapons-russia-plan-1407113

UN votes to outlaw nuclear weapons in 2017,
The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), October 27, 2016 [1 min]
http://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/un-votes-to-outlaw-nuclear-weapons-in-2017/
NOTE: The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a civil society coalition active in 100 countries, hailed the adoption of the resolution as a major step forward, marking a fundamental shift in the way that the world tackles this paramount threat.

REQUIRED RESEARCH ARTICLES:

The president said, \”We want to get rid of the nuclear weapons,\” not just in North Korea, but \”we all have to get—Russia has to get rid of them and China has to get rid of them\” in comments subsequently supported by Moscow, which had accused Washington of loosening restrictions on its nuclear posture.
\”Given the increasing role of nuclear weapons in U.S. doctrine-related documents and their gradual transition to a class of weapons that can be used on the battlefield, such statements can be only welcomed,\” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said Friday, according to state-run Tass Russian News Agency.

Who Are We To Deny Weak Nations The Nuclear Weapons They Need For Self-Defense?,
Michael Shellenberger, Forbes Magazine, August 6, 2018
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/08/06/who-are-we-to-deny-weak-nations-the-nuclear-weapons-they-need-for-self-defense/#7fca9880522f
NOTE: Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine “Hero of the Environment” and Green Book Award Winner. He is a frequent contributor to The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Scientific American, and other publications. His TED talks have been viewed over five million times.

But it is impossible not to be struck by these facts:
[x] No nation with a nuclear weapon has ever been invaded by another nation.
[x] The number of deaths in battle worldwide has declined 95 percent in the 70 years since the invention and spread of nuclear weapons;
[x] The number of Indian and Pakistani civilian and security forces’ deaths in two disputed territories declined 90 percent after Pakistan’s first nuclear weapons test in 1998.

States ought not possess nuclear weapons,
Debatewise.org, Last updated: March 2, 2017
https://debatewise.org/debates/2380-states-ought-not-possess-nuclear-weapons/
IMPORTANT: This is a source of research, but in-and-of-itself is not a source we will use when writing evidence. Please use this to find your ideas and make the T-chart as required by the homework instructions. We can find/add \’real\’ sources later, which explain these same concepts.

OPTIONAL RESEARCH ARTICLES/VIDEOS:

New Russian weapon can travel 27 times the speed of sound,
VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press, December 27, 2019 [1 min]
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-commissions-intercontinental-hypersonic-weapon-121207868.html

Russia Deploys Hypersonic Weapon, Potentially Renewing Arms Race,
Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 28, 2019
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-deploys-hypersonic-weapon-potentially-145954036.html

States ought not possess nuclear weapons,
Debatewise.org, Last updated: March 2, 2017
https://debatewise.org/debates/2380-states-ought-not-possess-nuclear-weapons/

US nuclear weapons and non-proliferation: Is there a link?,
Dr. Matthew Kroenig, Department of Government and School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Journal of Peace Research, February 15, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343315626770
According to widespread conventional wisdom, there is a link between US nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation and, therefore, in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other states, the US government must first make changes to its own nuclear arsenal. This article challenges the notion that US nuclear posture has a significant bearing on the proliferation and non-proliferation behavior of other states. Contrary to the received wisdom in policy circles, this article maintains that state decisions on nuclear non-proliferation issues are driven by a range of other security, economic, and political factors and, once these considerations are taken into account, there is little if any remaining variance to be explained by US nuclear posture. Using a dataset on US nuclear arsenal size from 1945 to 2011, this article examines the relationship between the size of the US nuclear arsenal and a variety of nuclear non-proliferation outcomes. It finds that there is no evidence of a relationship between the size of the US arsenal and: the exploration, pursuit, or acquisition of nuclear weapons by other states; the provision of sensitive nuclear assistance to non-nuclear weapon states; and voting on non-proliferation issues in the United Nations Security Council. The results are robust to alternative conceptualizations and measurements of US nuclear weapons and in various subsamples of data. This article breaks new ground on an empirical research agenda on how the nuclear policies and postures of the major nuclear powers affect the spread of nuclear weapons and have important implications for nuclear security policy.

The End of Overkill? Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,
Benjamin H. Friedman, Christopher A. Preble, and Matt Fay, CATO Institute, September 2013
https://www.cato.org/publications/white-paper/end-overkill-reassessing-us-nuclear-weapons-policy
U.S. power today makes the case for the triad more dubious. Survivability is no longer a feasible justification. No U.S. adversary has the capability to destroy all U.S. ballistic submarines, let alone all three legs, and there would be time to adjust if that changed. Nuclear weapons are essentially irrelevant in actual U.S. wars, which are against insurgents and weak states without nuclear arsenals. Nuclear threats have a bigger role in hypothetical U.S. wars with nuclear-armed powers. But cases where the success of deterrence hinges on the U.S. capability to destroy enemy nuclear forces are far-fetched. In any case, U.S. submarines and conventional forces can destroy those forces. Even hawkish policies do not require a triad.
NOTE (Benjamin H. Friedman, Christopher A. Preble, and Matt Fay): Benjamin H. Friedman is a research fellow in defense and homeland security studies, and Christopher Preble is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies, at the Cato Institute. Matt Fay is a student in the History Ph.D. program at Temple University.

Reassessing U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,
Christopher A. Preble, CATO Institute, September 24, 2013
https://www.cato.org/blog/reassessing-us-nuclear-weapons-policy
IMPORTANT: Assuming the information is relevant to your case, this article takes the report and breaks it down into a bullet-list of the main ideas discussed in the white paper.

Iran’s Nuclear Program: America’s Policy Options,
Ted Galen Carpenter, CATO Institute, September 18, 2006
https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/irans-nuclear-program-americas-policy-options
NOTE: Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of seven books on international affairs, including Peace and Freedom: Foreign Policy for a Constitutional Republic.

Brave Nuclear World,
Emma Ashford, CATO Institute, August 1, 2019
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/brave-nuclear-world
NOTE: Emma Ashford is a Research Fellow in Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, where she focuses on U.S.-Russian relations, Middle Eastern affairs, energy politics, and U.S. grand strategy.

But figuring out the questions we need to ask may end up being as important as the answers. As a new publication from the Cato Institute highlights, the nuclear challenges of today are substantially different than the ones we faced during the Cold War. In that context, it’s worth asking which of the assumptions we have about nuclear weapons still hold up — and which don’t.

…
CONTACT INFORMATION (Coach Bill):

Bill Eddy,
coachbill@magnetacademy.com
714.655.8135 (I prefer text)
When contacting me, please include your name and class information (day/time). Thanks!