NEGATIVE DETERRENCE GOOD/BAD


A critical argument whenever nuclear weapons are discussed is whether their use is so terrible that they will never be used. This is the doctrine of deterrence. It states that no one will use nuclear weapons against a state with nuclear weapons because the result would be mutual destruction, thus the name of the often mentioned Mutually Assured Derstruction (MAD) doctrine.

If deterrence arguments are true, nuclear weapons stop military attack and assure peace. If deterrence arguments are true, no one will attack the USA with a WMD. If deterrence arguments arwe falsem the nuclear situation we find oursrelves in is highly dangerous, with a catastrophic nuclear war bound to happen eventually.


DETERRENCE FAILS

WE CANNOT COUNT ON DETERRENCE TO KEEP US SAFE

NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT DETER CONVENTIONAL WAR

MODERN UNCONVENTIONAL THREATS CANNOT BE DETERRED

DETERRENCE DOES NOT PREVENT WARS

NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAVE NO USEFUL PURPOSE


DETERRENCE SUCCEEDS

DETERRENCE PREVENTS WAR AND PRESERVES PEACE

DETERRENCE MEANS NO ONE WILL ATTACK THE USA

USA RETAINS OPTION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE AGAINST THREATS BY CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS

DETERRENCE STOPS BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACKS

DETERRENCE CREATES CRISIS STABILITY AND EVEN COUNTRIES LIKE NORTH KOREA WOULD ACT RATIONALLY

TURN: LESS RELIANCE ON USA NUCLEAR DETERRENT MAKES THE WORLD A FAR MORE DANGEROUS PLACE

INHERENCY: NEW BUSH APPROACH TO DETERRENCE MAKES IT EFFECTIVE


| Table of Contents | Background | Definitions | Affirmative | Negative | Counterplan | Disadvantages | Critiques|