Topic Analysis: Nuclear Weapons
Overview
The 2025 January/February LD resolution is “Resolved: The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.”
Historical Context
Explanation
Understanding the moral debate requires grounding in nuclear history:
Scientific discovery of nuclear fission enabled weapons of unprecedented scale
The Manhattan Project was driven by fear that Nazi Germany would acquire nuclear weapons first
The U.S. used nuclear weapons twice on Japan, establishing their role as tools of mass destruction
The Cold War arms race normalized possession as deterrence rather than use
In response to escalating risks, states attempted regulation rather than abolition:
SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks) fostered détente and slowed the arms race
START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) reduced long-range nuclear arsenals
NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty) aimed to prevent spread while legitimizing possession by certain states
Today, nuclear weapons are possessed by:
The United States, Russia, China, France, the UK, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea—a fact that raises core justice and inequality concerns.
Possession ≠ Use
A central debate axis is whether possession itself is morally relevant.
Affirmatives argue possession involves threat, preparation, and normalization of mass violence
Negatives often argue immorality only attaches to use, not deterrent capability
AFF Arguments
Advantages
Subset AFFs
Focus on specific nuclear states (e.g. U.S., Russia, North Korea, Israel, Pakistan)
Argue immorality based on unique doctrines, instability, or proliferation risk
Weapons-Based AFFs
Target specific systems (e.g. ASATs, B-2 bombers, ICBMs)
Argue these technologies increase accident risk or first-strike incentives
Phil AFFs
Kant: Nuclear weapons treat humans as means rather than ends
Structural Violence: Nuclear possession entrenches global inequality, creates hierarchies between nuclear and non-nuclear states
NEG Arguments
Theory
T–Subsets: Resolution requires evaluating possession generally, not cherry-picked states or weapons
T–Definition: Challenge expansive definitions of “immoral” or “possession”
Counterplans
Advantage Counterplans
Retain nukes while solving harms through arms control
Agent CPs
International bodies (UN, IAEA) instead of unilateral action
Consult CP
Require allied or international consultation before disarmament
PICs
Asteroids PIC: Keep nukes for planetary defense
NFU CP: No First Use doctrine solves moral concern without disarmament
Moratorium CP: Pause modernization instead of abolishing possession
Disadvantages
Assurances / Proliferation DA: Disarmament encourages others to build nukes
Conventional Shift DA: Loss of nukes increases conventional wars
Deterrence DA: Nuclear possession prevents great-power conflict
DIB DA: Disarmament weakens defense industrial base
Waste DA: Disarmament creates economic and logistical costs
Strategic Stability DA: Nukes stabilize international order
