States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons Essay Example for Free

States Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons Essay â€Å"I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. † Ronald Reagan spoke these words in office and not for the fact that he was in office, but for the fact that these words are true do I agree with him. We used our nuclear weapons once, merely one time, saw the cause and effect, yet we keep them in our possession to potentially attack again. We not need these weapons laying around, but to be dismantled and done away with entirely, which is why I affirm the resolution that states: Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons. For clarity, I present definitions and observations; States; independent nations. Ought; used to express obligation, advisability, natural expectation, or logical consequence Observation One: To have possession of a weapon is signifying the ability, preparation, and willing to execute their use, because taking lives is immoral then possession for something of that same cause is immoral. Within today’s round, we must recognize what the main goal of nuclear weapons is, to protect the nation that controls them. Because of this, we must value Societal Welfare above anything else in this round. The winner of this round must be able to recognize a world where Societal Welfare, being the maximization of a country’s wellbeing by increasing the economic, political, physical security, and prosperity of its people, are improved. For this reason with costs, consequence, and benefits of an action, we must do this through Utilitarianism, which emphasizes doing the most good for the most people. Contention One: Nuclear Weapons Do Not Improve Lives â€Å"Nuclear weapons represent a structural and existential trap, of which there are only two ways out: with bombs being exploded, or bombs being dismantled. Either we disarm, or we perish. † Jonathan Schell ’82 The Fate of the Earth 215-17. I agree with the latter we disarm we survive, because Murphy’s law states, â€Å"Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong. † For one reason were nuclear weapons created, to kill, like any other weapon. Killing thousand upon millions of people is not beneficial to any society thus we must dismantle any and all nuclear weapons. As humans we try and do prevent war, diseases, and suffering, it is in our nature, but nuclear weapons do all of this at the push of a button. Instead of focusing on improving the quality of human life, we become fixated on the prevention of war, while simultaneously never attaining peace. Instead, we sit at the threshold of mass destruction in the form of nuclear war. Robert Jay Lifton, Professor of Psychiatry and Eric Markusen, Professor of Sociology, University of Minnesota, wrote in The Genocidal Mentality. The threat of nuclear war will prevail as long as states possess nuclear weapons and brandish them for security. This will inevitably result in their use. The proposition that nuclear weapons can be retained and never used, accidentally or by design, defies credibility. † Ronald McCoy, Conflict and Survival. He continues by saying, Human beings are fallible. In conventional war, mistakes cost lives, sometimes thousands of lives. However, if mistakes were to affect decisions relating to the use of nuclear forces, there would be no learning curve. They would result in the destruction of nations. Contention Two: Nuclear Weapons Serve No Beneficial Purpose â€Å"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce. † Winston Churchill, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, said that if we continue to have an arms race the eventual result will be world destruction. So thus nuclear weapons serve no beneficial purpose if the whole point of them is to obliterate their target. So if we possess them they will never serve a purpose unless we use them. Charles Glaser , Associate Professor, the Irving B. Harris Graduate School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, 1998 said, â€Å"Disarmament would leave all countries vulnerable to the political demands of a successful proliferator. 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 enjoyed a nuclear onopoly. † Robert Jay Lifton, Professor of Psychiatry and Eric Markusen, Professor of Sociology, PHD, University of Minnesota, wrote in their book The Genocidal Mentality, â€Å"At the psychological and material heart of the transformation in consciousness we are suggesting is the replacement of dissociatied deterrence with an integrated mind-set and a policy of national defense that is neither genocidal nor threatening. This goal requires the rejection of the entire deterrence system because that system is inherently genocidal. To reject the genocidal system requires breaking out of its closed reasoning and recognizing that destroying the world in response to a perceived attack is politically unacceptable. †