Beyond Deterrence: Negative Arguments for Nuclear Weapons

The most obvious case position for the negative to take on the nuclear weapons topic is that nuclear weapons deter great power conflict from breaking out, ushering in an “era of peace.” However, while this is the most obvious argument to jump to, there are also several other easy-to-make points that you could either include in your own case or at least know how to respond to, in case you encounter someone else running them. 

Next to deterrence, one of the most common arguments made by many negative cases on the nuclear weapons topic has been the bioweapons disadvantage. While there are several different ways to run this argument, the basic idea behind all of them is that if the rate of possession of nuclear weapons decreases, the rate of possession of biological weapons (such as engineered pathogens) will increase. This is backed by empirical evidence, which displays that the presence of nuclear weapons in a nation’s arsenal decreases the presence of biological and chemical weapons in that same arsenal to virtually zero. It follows that the inverse would also be true: in the absence of nuclear weapons, bioweapons would increase. It’s a fairly logical link, as other sources also point to the fact that if nuclear disarmament were to occur, arms races would likely reemerge, and that these arms races would feasibly include biological and chemical weapons. The real difficulty of bioweapons isn’t establishing the link, but rather proving why the risk of bioweapons outweighs the risk of nuclear weapons. The easiest argument for this is that bioweapons come with more anonymity than nuclear weapons do. Unlike nukes, bioweapon deployments could be untraceable, and it could be impossible to tell who launched an attack, or whether an attack even took place at all. This would make deployment highly likely. No form of deterrence would exist, as countries could hide behind anonymity and plausible deniability, leading to a level of lethality comparable to or even beyond nuclear weapons. 

Another non-deterrence negative argument that you may want to run/have responses to is the asteroids argument. While the argument can be run as either a disadvantage or a plan-inclusive counterplan, the premise of both variations remains the same: that nuclear weapons will be necessary to deflect an existential asteroid from hitting earth. If the argument sounds a little far-fetched, that’s because it is. While there is some scientific backing behind the idea, there’s also a laundry list of problems with it. For one, the probability of a significant asteroid impact occurring within the next billion years is anywhere from .03 to .3. That fact alone gives this argument very little legs to stand on, as the chance of a nuke being necessary to deflect a planet-threatening asteroid is astronomically low (see what I did there). Couple that with the fact that NASA has a multitude of other asteroid deflection techniques at their disposal, and the use of nuclear weapons for the purpose of deflecting asteroids seems entirely unnecessary. The final nail in the coffin for the asteroids argument, however, is that nuking an asteroid could actually just shatter it into a million pieces rather than deflecting it, sending a frenzy of small but still deadly meteorites crashing down to earth. So, while the asteroids argument is one that many debaters choose to argue on this topic, it may be best to avoid running it yourself if you do not have good answers to some of these glaring faults in the argument’s logic. 

Finally, a rare but still notable argument is the claim that the possession of nuclear weapons lowers defense spending. While this immediately seems contradictory, the argument’s logic is actually quite sound. It is true that large sums of money are allocated towards building and maintaining nuclear arsenals, there is also evidence that nuclear weapons have allowed for drastic reductions in defense spending. Prior to the nuclear era, many countries engaged in costly arms races, which saw even greater proportions of various governments’ budgets going towards defense spending than we see contemporarily. The reduced spending argument posits that not only do nuclear-possessing countries spend less on defense, but so do their allies. Countries that fall under another nation's extended nuclear deterrence spend less on conventional military capabilities than they otherwise would, according to one report. From there, the argument could be made that reductions in defense spending free up funds that can be put towards the welfare of a nation’s citizens, or at least that increased defense spending drains money from other channels. This has been empirically seen, with a 1% increase in defense spending being associated with a .9% decrease in money spent on public health. 

While deterrence is likely to be a staple in any traditional negative case on the nuclear weapons topic, there are also many other negative arguments to be made. Bioweapons, asteroids, and defense spending are all points that you can include in your case, or at the very least should know how to respond to, just in case you end up going against a neg that isn’t solely deterrence-based. 

Read more here: 

• Michael Horowitz & Neil Narang, Journal of Conflict Resolution

• Sinan Ülgen, Carnegie Endowment

• Bruce Goldman, Stanford Medicine

• Korey Haynes, Astronomy Magazine

• Jean-Marc Salotti, Futures

• Jason Davis, The Planetary Society

• Kate Howells, The Planetary Society