Selling nukes to rogue states

[ray245]

I've come across this motion in a debate tournament, on the motion that this house would sell nuclear weapons to rouge state if they abandon their nuclear development program.

I have to wonder, is it even a fair or even feasible motion for you to argue as the proposition? The only argument I can think up is the assumption that selling Nuclear weapons to them actually creates a scenario that can deter two or more nations from engaging in open conflict yet ensuring that the tension does not escalate into a nuclear arms race.

I have to wonder, is there any other more plausible arguments I can make in regards to this weird motion?

Also, hearing what you guys have to say on this motion would be interesting, given the fact that the team that argued for the motion didn't even understand what is this motion all about.


Changed the title from 'rouge' to 'rogue'. On the assumption you weren't talking about effeminate communist countries or something. - Lagmonster

[Rogue 9]

Wait. What? He's saying that in return for not developing nuclear weapons, we should give them nuclear weapons? Doesn't that, I don't know, defeat the purpose?

[ray245]

Wait. What? He's saying that in return for not developing nuclear weapons, we should give them nuclear weapons? Doesn't that, I don't know, defeat the purpose?

Which is why I find this motion to be rather weird. The only way I can even think up of an argument is to proof that having a nuclear enrichment program is more dangerous than you having a nuclear weapon. Basically, instead of allowing you to have the chance to build or stockpile enough weapons to blow the entire region up, you only have weapons to blow one or two cities up.

[Captain Seafort]

It would also restrict the ability of the state in question to develop more advanced weapons. Neither of these, however, refute the incredible stupidity of the proposal.

[KrauserKrauser]

Exactly what are the other countries going to do if the country kindly takes the nukes and then proceeds to sit behind them while developing their own nukes. That is retarded logic.

[Kanastrous]

To the degree that it's any kind of logic, at all...

[KrauserKrauser]

It's not like you can put too many sanctions on them because, well, they have nukes thanks to your dumb ass. Good luck on the campaign trail as your opponents smash your face in with your complete ineptitude when it comes to foreign policy.

Hey, by doing this you're even more retarded. If they somehow sneak the device in somewhere and set it off, who gets the blame? The residue says you made it but they are going to deny having used any of the ones you gave them. Talk about fun!

[Ender]

So basically, this is the way the hyperleftists reconcile their contradictory ideas of "nuclear technology is evil and should banned" and "nuclear warheads for everyone because only the superpowers are evil enough to interfere with others and use them!", correct?

[Lord of the Abyss]

So basically, this is the way the hyperleftists reconcile their contradictory ideas of "nuclear technology is evil and should banned" and "nuclear warheads for everyone because only the superpowers are evil enough to interfere with others and use them!", correct?

Or perhaps this a hypercapitalist position that it's bad for them to develop their own nukes, but good if we sell nukes to them ?

Really, this is sufficiently wacky that unless the OP identifies the debater as "right" or "left", I don't think it's fair to call it a left wing idea. It seems more likely to me to be an example of someone who decided to "solve the problem of rogue states developing nukes", without taking into consideration WHY we'd want to stop them.

[aerius]

It sounds like a great plan. Seriously. Just as long as the nukes are rigged up in such a way that they "accidentally" go off after the rogue state takes delivery. If you do it right you could take out or cripple the rogue state, and if you do the PR right you can say something like "this is why you shouldn't mess with nukes, clearly, they tried to tamper with the nukes we sold them which must've set them off".

[Lord of the Abyss]

It sounds like a great plan. Seriously. Just as long as the nukes are rigged up in such a way that they "accidentally" go off after the rogue state takes delivery. If you do it right you could take out or cripple the rogue state, and if you do the PR right you can say something like "this is why you shouldn't mess with nukes, clearly, they tried to tamper with the nukes we sold them which must've set them off".

I doubt many people would buy that excuse. Nukes haven't ever gone off accidentally, to my knowledge. All you'll do is kill a lot of mostly-innocent people, and get the blame for nuking them. And make the rogue nation into a martyr, and make it clear that you are a bigger rogue.

[SirNitram]

Compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty would be more intelligently: Stop all of this development, we'll see you nuke power.

[Sea Skimmer]

Compliance with the Non-Proliferation treaty would be more intelligently: Stop all of this development, we'll see you nuke power.

As has often been pointed out, that only works to curb nuclear weapons if the country is willing to become totally dependent on importing fabricated nuclear fuel and paying for reprocessing in foreign nations. You won’t find many nations that willing to gain less less energy independence by going nuclear even if they don’t want nuclear weapons in the first place. Buying someone else’s nuclear fuel rods is a lot more restrictive then importing oil.

[ray245]

So basically, this is the way the hyperleftists reconcile their contradictory ideas of "nuclear technology is evil and should banned" and "nuclear warheads for everyone because only the superpowers are evil enough to interfere with others and use them!", correct?

Or perhaps this a hypercapitalist position that it's bad for them to develop their own nukes, but good if we sell nukes to them ?

Really, this is sufficiently wacky that unless the OP identifies the debater as "right" or "left", I don't think it's fair to call it a left wing idea. It seems more likely to me to be an example of someone who decided to "solve the problem of rogue states developing nukes", without taking into consideration WHY we'd want to stop them.

The debater isn't arguing for his own personal stance, that is a given motion.

[Samuel]

I believe this is a test in how to hold up completely indefensible/insane propositions.

Try not to destory him too ruthlessly.

[ray245]

I believe this is a test in how to hold up completely indefensible/insane propositions.

Try not to destory him too ruthlessly.

Like I said, this isn't what I would agree with, nor did I come up with the motion. I'm just trying to find a argument that an extremely stupid team would not be able to argue against. Sometimes, in debating competition, luck played a huge role in deciding you being to win or not.

[Raw Shark]

I'm just trying to find a argument that an extremely stupid team would not be able to argue against.

Keep looking, then - What you've found here is an argument that an extremely smart team would not be able to argue for.

Sometimes, in debating competition, luck played a huge role in deciding you being to win or not.

Only if it's a shitty debating competition. The ones I used to compete in back in high school, which were hardly special, judged the debate by ability to make and defend points, not by the validity of the claim being defended.

[ray245]

Keep looking, then - What you've found here is an argument that an extremely smart team would not be able to argue for.

Well, you would hardly wish to quit when you reach the final round of the debate.

Only if it's a shitty debating competition. The ones I used to compete in back in high school, which were hardly special, judged the debate by ability to make and defend points, not by the validity of the claim being defended.

Well, the Malaysia debates Open is hardly a competition that can be labeled as unimportant, as it is considered one of the top few competition within Malaysia, with University teams participating in it.

[Raw Shark]

Keep looking, then - What you've found here is an argument that an extremely smart team would not be able to argue for.

Well, you would hardly wish to quit when you reach the final round of the debate.

If they were judging me by the validity of the position I was assigned to defend rather than my ability to defend it, I would walk way before the final round. Under those conditions, whomever decides the topics could effectively choose the winner.

Only if it's a shitty debating competition. The ones I used to compete in back in high school, which were hardly special, judged the debate by ability to make and defend points, not by the validity of the claim being defended.

Well, the Malaysia debates Open is hardly a competition that can be labeled as unimportant, as it is considered one of the top few competition within Malaysia, with University teams participating in it.

Appeal to Popularity. Lots of important things are shitty, IMHO. If the competition operates as you implied, with luck playing "a huge role" in [something brokenly-articulated about winning], then it's a lottery, not a debate. The most fair way to do it is probably to have all participants debate both positions, as we had to.

[Patrick Degan]

Like I said, this isn't what I would agree with, nor did I come up with the motion. I'm just trying to find a argument that an extremely stupid team would not be able to argue against.

My suggestion would be to simply start laughing the moment this resolution is floated at the beginning of the debate. Then proceed to point out just why this is a fundamentally stupid idea.

[Posner]

Sorry, this is pretty off-topic, but the google bot must have seen all of this talk about rogue nuclear states and decided that advertising for Persian online dating and chat was the best way to generate hits. Kinda funny.