We have a weekly newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox!

Nuclear Weapons and Colonialism

January 27, 2025
Adrienne Wang

Nuclear weapons have had a history being intertwined with colonialism’s legacy. From its testing and production, all the way to its possession providing symbolic value and intimidation against non-western nations, this makes critical literature very tenable for debaters on LD’s January-February topic of “The Possession of Nuclear Weapons is Immoral.”

The concept of nuclear colonialism comes from nations extending their colonial influence through nuclear power to disproportionately affect marginalized communities, often targeting Indigenous peoples. This can be displayed in multiple ways. First through testing and creation, where the process of gathering resources used for the weapons contributes to a cycle of exploitation and colonial politics. For example, 70% of the world’s uranium is mined from Indigenous lands in Kazakhstan, Australia, and Canada, miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo being overworked and experiencing unsafe conditions , and radiation contamination from nuclear testing has caused deaths, disease, and dispossession. Secondly would be how western countries have leveraged nuclear weapons to form what is called the “global nuclear order,” where they are able to claim colonial legitimacy and enforce power dynamics through systems of racism and privilege. In non-proliferation policies, racialized language is often used to reinforce a hegemonic order and uphold western security structures, framing power as only to be held by them.

From the information gathered, what can debaters do with learning about the exploitative practice of nuclear colonialism? There are many ways to leverage these points on the affirmative side. Because the resolution is a value statement, it is intuitive to declare nuclear weapons as immoral because their possession sustains a colonial legacy. Debaters can argue that possession cannot exist without their creation, which extends over the entire world, and that even just the possession itself is a showcasement of civilizational mantras of the logic of west versus rest. To effectively preempt common disadvantages like deterrence and assurances, it would be helpful to have framing mechanisms in the 1AC, such as arguments to prioritize suffering over existential risks, as well as a focus under presentism.

Affirmatives described previously can garner offense off solely the resolution, however, there can also be frames that derive offense outside of just the scope of the topic. For instance, debaters can read cards stating the impacts of colonialism are valuable and shape our subjectivity, which come at a prior level to other forms of research. Additionally, they can forward a critical methodology to challenge hegemonic structures and argue that it is a good idea, or it can be something that is exportable. If someone were to use these strategies, they would have to be prepared for a topicality debate, such as extra-t.

For the negative, there are several approaches versus affirmatives like these. Debaters can read alternative framing, advocating for utilitarianism and extinction outweighs, paired with a disadvantage. Impact calculus would favor the negative because extinction is the largest risk, precluding any future progress. This comes first under reversibility since there is always time to prevent structural violence in the future but nobody can come back to life. Not to mention, plan inclusive counterplans are also a viable option. A common PIC is the subaltern PIC, where possession of nuclear weapons is moral only under the condition that subaltern actors possess them. The negative can say it solves for the case since it only defends non-western countries controlling nukes. Lastly, debaters can look into a kritik of suffering representations. These kritiks make the claim that pain centered research only upholds the colonial paradigm, often by being commodified by the academy and rendering marginalized communities powerless.