Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Nuclear weapons, right to possess
Section C. International relations

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons limits the possession of nuclear weapons to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council: the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. When it was signed in 1968, they were the only nuclear-armed nations, but since then, India, Pakistan and North Korea have openly joined the nuclear club. All are outside the NPT, as is Israel, which is widely accepted to have nuclear weapons in spite of official denials. Iran has also attempted to join the nuclear club, and states including Libya and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have made much more preliminary attempts to do so, while South Africa remains the only state to have voluntarily given up its nuclear weapons. This debate is principally about the moral question of whether any such right exists, but it is also partly about the merits of acknowledging it in international law.

Pros

[1] It cannot be denied that the consequences of a nuclear weapon being used are horrific, but we should not preclude the possibility that they might occasionally become necessary. If a state needs to defend itself and its very existence as an independent nation, or to prevent mass atrocities against its population, then those interests are so fundamental that nothing should be ruled out in defending them, including the use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction. We always have to weigh the loss of civilian life on one side with the equally potent potential loss of civilian life on the other side, but states are entitled to care more about their own populations, and because of that, they must be given a margin of discretion in deciding how to defend themselves, which extends to nuclear weapons.

[2] In any event, the point of nuclear weapons is not to use them, but to maintain a credible threat that they might be used. In practice, no state will ever be called upon to fire them, so a right to possess them can be established very easily. As long as states never actually fire them, then none of their harmful consequences ever come about, and so they are merely used as a bargaining chip, which is essential in a world where other states possess them and so can use that bargaining chip too.

[3] It is telling that the only times nuclear weapons have been fired in anger were in Japan in 1945, when there was only one nuclear power in the world (the USA). Since then, the nuclear states have always kept each other in check through the principle of Mutual Assured Destruction, or MAD. As long as there is a risk of retaliation in nuclear form, that risk is great enough to prevent states from firing a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as more states acquire nuclear weapons, there are more potential nuclear retaliators, so MAD is reinforced, and the risk of nuclear attack decreases.

[4] Acknowledging a right to possess nuclear weapons allows for the establishment of a proper system of regulation and tracking; for instance, states could sign up to regular International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections, and register all their weapons, both to ensure high safety standards and to make sure that they would never fall into the hands of terrorists or criminal gangs, and that if they did, it would be easier to get them back. At the moment, the large number of nuclear weapons outside state control is a cause for huge concern.

Cons

[1] The use of nuclear weapons is never acceptable. When A-bombs explode, every living organism for miles around is instantly incinerated; they have incomparable destructive potential, which should never be used. They rely on indiscriminately targeting populations, rather than attempting to avoid civilian casualties, which dissolves all of the normal rules of war. Moreover, radiation remains lethal for many, many years afterwards, which means that people who cannot possibly have been legitimate targets (as they have not yet been born) will be affected. It is not possible to have a right to do something fundamentally immoral.

[2] The consequences of a nuclear weapon ever being deployed are sufficiently catastrophic that anything which raises the risk of their ever being used is immoral. States cannot guarantee that they have adequate command-and-control structures in place to prevent these weapons being fired in the wrong circumstances; nor can they prevent a change of government that makes them less restrained. So it is never acceptable to possess nuclear weapons, even if they are ultimately never intended for use.

[3] There is a reason it is called MAD; this principle is a precarious means of preventing potentially catastrophic consequences for the world. Unless the suggestion is that every state will come to possess nuclear weapons (which is near-impossible given the enormous costs of developing and maintaining a weapons programme), there will be some countries against which nuclear powers can always use aggression. Moreover, while it may be the case that relatively stable and advanced states have not fired nuclear weapons in anger, that principle weakens as governments which care less about their population’s welfare gain control of these weapons.

[4] Regulation does not alter the real problem; when nuclear weapons are more plentiful, it is more likely that they will fall into the wrong hands. Extending the right to nuclear weapons extends it to governments which do not have the capacity to deal with the enormous task of managing a nuclear arsenal. Even in the existing structure, many former Soviet nuclear weapons are thought to have passed to terrorists or, more often, the mafia, who do not know how to handle them (or intend to handle them maliciously), increasing the chance of nuclear disaster. This can only be prevented if the number of nuclear weapons overall is reduced.

Possible motions

This House believes that every state has a right to a nuclear weapon.

This House would repeal the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

This House would give every country a nuclear weapon.

Related topics

Pacifism

Armaments, limitations on conventional

Military drones, prohibition of

Nuclear energy