Argument: Existing international treaties that grant nuclear weapons to the US and other countries no longer reflect the changing global balance of power.

The Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty is inherently unfair, in that it prevents countries that did not have nuclear weapons as of 1964 from developing them, but makes no effort to force those who already possess nuclear devices to disarm.

The result is that the list of countries with such weapons, the United States, Russia, Britain, France, and China, represents the balance of power as it existed at the time that the non-proliferation treaty was drafted. Countries that have entered the club subsequently, like India and Pakistan, did so in violation of the treaty and international law.

Any sort of treaty that seeks to limit access to nuclear arms has to provide opportunities for countries like Brazil to enter the “club” as they gain political or economic power. In the absence of any such mechanism the current treaty system is nothing more than a tool of Western dominance in order to keep the status quo which is favorable to the current nuclear powers something which is bound to build up resentment.

This would in effect offer not only to the pursuit of nuclear weapons by the targeted regimes, but to the rest of their policies. States like South Africa and Brazil already find it difficult to support a strong international line against Iran [1] due to seeing the inequality of allowing some countries nuclear weapons programmes but seeking to punish others, especially when the nuclear weapons states that are signatories to the NPT have not moved towards disarmament as the treaty stipulates. [2] This would in effect alienate them completely.

Second, even if the harm was justifiable by the ends, it would seem that in the long run, invading- or even censuring- every country that attempts to develop Nuclear Weapons in violation of the NPT is impractical as the United States and the rest of the world have de facto admitted by ending sanctions on Pakistan and India in 2001, two years after their nuclear tests. [3] As such, there needs to be a political means that can separate states like Brazil from states like Iran, lest the policy collapse under its own weight.

The West, rather than using force, should attempt to repair the existing non-proliferation treaty framework, such that the standards for possession of nuclear weapons are based on behaviour rather than history.

[1] Charbonneau, Louis, ‘Q+A: How likely are new U.S. sanctions against Iran?’, Reuters, 9 November 2011, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/us-iran-nuclear-sanctions-idUSTRE7A86Z220111109

[2] Spektor, Matias, ‘How to Read Brazil’s Stance on iran’, YaleGlobal, 16 March 2010, http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/how-read-brazils-stance-iran

[3] BBC News, ‘US lifts India and Pakistan sanctions’, 23 September 2001, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1558860.stm

Candidate 1: "The United States would ideally move with the backing of the world community, but even if that is not present, we think that the United States is more than capable of making clear that it is not anyone’s puppet and that it is intervening solely to uphold international law.

Any military action whether justified or not will cause resentment, but this not a reason to let genocide run amok or dictators get away with invasions nor is it a reason to let the same dictators get their hands on nuclear weapons, security is a vital interest whereas being liked by the rest of the world is not."
Candidate 2: "What is not at issue is whether Iran will invade anyone. No one expects that, at least not immediately. Rather, the harm of Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is that they will provide Iran with immunity from retaliation which will encourage it to escalate its Cold War against Saudi Arabia in the Gulf, and increase its assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas.

As noted above, Pakistan has in fact behaved in exactly this manner. Safe behind its nuclear shield, it has provided increasingly blatant backing to anti-Indian terrorist groups and opp is right to note that there is little that can be done about that. The best bet is not to allow Iran to do the same thing"
Candidate 3: "Not all states are inherently rational, either by our standards or generally. North Korea is a xenophobic state based on the belief that they are racially and ideologically superior to all other states. [1] A government that does not consider its enemies fully human in its official propaganda is unlikely to blanch at the prospect of nuking them, even at their own expense. Even seemingly rational states make tactical mistakes, like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait.

Nuclear Weapons raise the stakes, and have the potential to make the consequences of those errors far more serious and deadly.

Furthermore, MAD does not operate solely due to the possession of Nuclear Weapons, but rather it requires that a state possess a “Second-Strike” ability. A “second Strike” ability means that a country has the capacity to nuke another country after it has already been attacked, whether through hardened silos or submarine launched warheads. Without such an ability, a state like Israel would risk losing its nuclear deterrent in an Iranian attack, and would therefore have every incentive to strike first if it thought such an attack might be about to occur. Iran, which is far less likely to be able to develop a “Second Strike” capability due to financial and technological limitations, would in turn almost constantly face a “use it or lose it” situation of its own.

[1] Myers, B.R., ‘Excerpt: The Cleanest Race’, The New York Times, 26 January 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/books/excerpt-cleanest-race.html?pagew..."
Candidate 4: "Regardless of its origins, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of an international system that has prevented the rapid proliferation of Nuclear weapons for nearly half a century.

The dangers of Nuclear weapons, especially in the wrong hands, mean that the ownership of nuclear weapons is an issue which transcends moral standards of “fairness”. It may be true that the treaty should be revisited in the case of say India or Brazil, but this debate is not about the nuclear ambitions of fundamentally stable, democratic states that would willingly comply with all of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty if they were permitted to become signatories. Rather, the question of America’s right to act to enforce the treaty should focus on rogue states that present a significant danger to their neighbours, and whose acquisition of such weapons is likely to destabilize regional balances of power, and make the entire world less secure. Iran, Syria and Pakistan’s use of the language of anti-colonialism is a sign of nothing more than political opportunism."

Regardless of its origins, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is the cornerstone of an international system that has prevented the rapid proliferation of Nuclear weapons for nearly half a century.

The dangers of Nuclear weapons, especially in the wrong hands, mean that the ownership of nuclear weapons is an issue which transcends moral standards of “fairness”. It may be true that the treaty should be revisited in the case of say India or Brazil, but this debate is not about the nuclear ambitions of fundamentally stable, democratic states that would willingly comply with all of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty if they were permitted to become signatories. Rather, the question of America’s right to act to enforce the treaty should focus on rogue states that present a significant danger to their neighbours, and whose acquisition of such weapons is likely to destabilize regional balances of power, and make the entire world less secure. Iran, Syria and Pakistan’s use of the language of anti-colonialism is a sign of nothing more than political opportunism.
