Neg. Arg. Significant Harms

Neg. Arg. Significant Harms - Argument BriefsNegative COMS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Argument Briefs—Negative COMS 250 Skiles 1 May 2010 Significant Harms Take Out—Proliferation Prevents, Not Causes, War A. Proliferation of the NPT will pose major threats. Levy and Sidel 2007 Levy, Barry & Sidel, Victor. “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and Abolition.” American Journal of Public Health 97.9 (2007): 1589-1594. RAL The threat posed by the proliferation of nuclear weapons has 3 major aspects: 1. The development of the capability for producing or acquiring nuclear weapons by countries that do not currently have nuclear weapons (horizontal proliferation), 2. The increase of weapon stockpiles by countries that currently have nuclear weapons. The improvement of technical sophistication or reliability of these weapons, and the development of new weapons, such as "mini-nukes" or battlefield nuclear weapons (vertical proliferation). 3. The acquisition of nuclear weapons or the materials and knowledge by individuals or nonstate entities, often termed "terrorists," to produce nuclear weapons (another form of horizontal proliferation). If we decide to ratify the NPT, it will open up the possibility for the creation of more nuclear weapons. The NPT will allow new nations to acquire nuclear weapons that don’t already have them. Nations, such as Russia, under the NPT will be able to improve upon their current technology. Therefore, ratifying the NPT is not the route we should take in advancing to a nuclear weapons free world. The NPT is not the solution to our problems. B. The “Nuclear Black Market” is not as big of a threat as we think. Gavin 2009 Gavin, Francis. “Same As It Ever Was.” International Security 34.3 (2009): 7-37. RAL According to terrorism expert Robin Frost, the danger of a “nuclear black market” and loose nukes from Russia may be overstated. Even if a terrorist group did acquire a nuclear weapon, delivering and detonating it against a U.S. target would present tremendous technical and logistical difficulties. Finally, the feared nexus between terrorists and rogue regimes may be exaggerated. As nuclear proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione argues, states such as Iran and North Korea are “not the most likely sources for terrorists since their stockpiles, if any, are small and exceedingly precious, and hence well-guarded.” Chubin states that there “is no reason to believe that Iran today, any more than Sadaam Hussein earlier, would transfer WMD [weapons of mass destruction] technology to terrorist groups like al-Qaida or Hezbollah.” Even if a terrorist group were to acquire a nuclear device, expert Michael Levi demonstrates that effective planning can prevent catastrophe: for nuclear terrorists, what “can go wrong might go wrong, and when it
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
comes to nuclear terrorism, a broader, integrated defense, just like controls at the source of weapons and materials, can multiply, intensify, and compound the possibilities of terrorist failure. A big argument towards the ratification of the NPT is that eliminating nuclear weapons
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

Neg. Arg. Significant Harms - Argument BriefsNegative COMS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online