NATO Should End Its Nuclear Sharing Programmes
For the purposes of this debate, we wil define the motion as NATO stands for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation formed to provide member states with collective security. It has 26 member states from Europe and North America. Its nuclear policy was made public in 1999 through a document called Strategic Concept, which delared that nuclear weapons will remain in Europe indefinatey. The primary goal of nuclear weapons in NATO policy has consistently been described as political: to deter potential adversaries and preserve peace. Nuclear sharing is a concept of nuclear detterrence where member states of NATO wthout nuclear weapons would be provided some member states. The chief puporse of these weapons would be for NATO member states in times of war conflict. The heightened attention on NATO’s nuclear policies is a reflection of several factors which have, together, raised the profile of nuclear disarmament in general and created what many observers describe as a window of opportunity to re-examine existing assumptions and policies. First among these is a new approach by the U.S. administration, outlined in President Obama’s speech in Prague on April 5, 2009, which raised the prospect of a nuclear weapons-free world. Our argument will be based on international law, threat to global peace and security, internatinal relations among other issues.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
Nuclear Sharing in Conflict with the international law [ NPT]
The start of negotiations over the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in the 1960s threatened the legality of NATO’s nuclear policy. The NPT, which entered into force in 1970, establishes international legally binding norms on arms control and disarmament for its near universal membership. All NATO members belong to the NPT, and official NATO documents refer to the obligations its member have under the NPT. This is a serios violation of international law.
The NPT designates countries that tested a nuclear device before 1967 as NWS and therefore limits the number of NWS to five: China, France, Great Britain, Russia and the United States. Countries such as India and Pakistan, which have conducted nuclear explosions since 1967 cannot accede to the NPT as NWS. .
Article I of the NPT prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from NWS to other states:
“Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices.”
Article II requires NNWS not to receive nuclear weapons:
“Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transfer or whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices.”
NATO argues that its nuclear policies are compatible with NPT obligations. In a 1968 US Senate hearing on the Draft NPT, the US announced that nuclear sharing does not “involve any transfer of nuclear weapons or control over them unless and until a decision were made to go to war, at which time the treaty would no longer be controlling.” This means that in war time the NPT would lose its legally binding status, and the use of US nuclear weapons by a NNWS, for instance any NATO member country, would be legitimized.
We agree and support the concept of NPT, because it makes the world a safer place to live in. This is one of the main reasons why NATO members are implementing the treaty by reducing the nuclear arms. Thanks to NPT the number of nuclear arms has drastically decreased. NATO acceptance of this treaty is with a purpose of contributing to world peace.
Nevertheless, the world is a dangerous place and even though NATO is no longer threatened by the Warsaw pact, there are still countries whose nuclear weapons are risk to NATO. That’s why NATO must continue with this program in order to maintain the balance with its potential foes. Having experience from the Cold War, NATO and the world can’t allow another nuclear arms race.
The idea of Nuclear Sharing Program (NSP) is to allocate the existing nuclear weapons instead of producing new ones (which is contrary to the NPT). With this Program the members which already have nuclear weapons (USA, Britain and France, but only the United States has provided weapons for nuclear sharing),the participating countries carry out consultations and take common decisions on nuclear weapons policy, maintain technical equipment required for the use of nuclear weapons and store nuclear weapons on their territory. However, the nuclear weapons stored in non-nuclear countries are guarded by US soldiers in US bases and the codes required for detonating them are under U.S. control. This means that the nuclear weapons can’t be misused and that the NPT articles aren’t broken, because the competence over them remains in the arms of the NWS, not of the NNWS.
This not only prevents new nuclear build ups, but also increases the safety of NATO Alliance and with that they are fulfilling their own goal.
Threat to global peace and security
It seems that NATO is out in search of a dragon to slay. It appeared that way during the Kosovo and Serbian crisis, where it was decided that NATO would go in and start the bombing in order to help the Kosovars and to undermine the Government of Serbia. But our own rules under NATO say that we should never attack a country that has not attacked a member nation. So this was sort of stretching it by a long shot in order to get us involved. I think that does have unintended consequences, because it turns out that we supported Muslims, the KLA, in Kosovo who were actually allies of Osama bin Laden. These things in some ways come back to haunt the whole world.
But overall we oppose this because we support a position of a foreign policy of noninterventionism, foreign noninterventionism out of interest of the United States. We know the other side of the argument, that United States interests are best protected by foreign intervention and many, many entangling alliances. We disagree with that because we think what eventually happens is that a country like ours gets spread too thin and finally we get too poor. We think we are starting to see signs of this. USA have 250,000 troops around the world in 241 different countries.
NATO does not have a good record since the fall of the Soviets. Take a look at what It did in Serbia. It allied with the KLA, the Kosovo Muslims, who have been friends with Osama bin Laden. It went in there and illegally, NATO illegally, against their own rules of NATO, incessantly bombed Serbia. They had not attacked another country. They had a civil war going on.
These are allsigns of the bad side NATO
Firstly, we don’t see the connection between your point (where you explain the NATO’s intervention in the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo) with the motion as it refers to the NATO’s nuclear sharing program. Even if it was the matter of concern you have stated many illogical arguments such as those with the NATO’s attack over Serbia, the existence of noninterventionism etc.
So, as one of the purposes of NATO is to contribute to effective conflict prevention and to engage actively in crisis management, including crisis response operations, they have just done that. Although Serbia did not attack another country in the literally meaning, Kosovo was on the edge of its independency and the only obstacle that was keeping it away from it, was exactly Serbia, by oppression, breaking their rights and trying to make an ethnic cleansing. As a result of that intervention the people in Kosovo are living now freely, fulfilling their rights as every human being deserves. In addition, they gave them the chance to settle down and try to solve things in a peaceful way. Also, NATO agreed Kosovo would be politically supervised by the United Nations and when voting for the proposal about intervening in this war, UN security council adopted 14 non-against. And Russia was one of them, even though she’s not a member in NATO. NATO and certain governments asserted they had a legitimate interest in developments in Kosovo, due to their impact on the stability of the whole region. Nevertheless, if there is not intervention at all, it would be an excellent opportunity for the stronger countries to make a monopoly and to threaten the more weak countries.
However, this does not change the fact that existence of nuclear weapon overall is not act of grace, but the need of protection and security excuses this act, having in mind that NATO claims that it wouldn’t use it, unless is forced to do that.
Threat to international relations
Internatinal developmentis a product of good international relations. NATO is an organization that has outlived its usefulness. It was formed as a defensive military alliance, designed to protect western Europe against the Soviet threat. With the Soviet collapse in 1991, however, NATO bureaucrats (and the governments backing them) were forced to reinvent the alliance and justify its continued existence. So the "new NATO" began to occupy itself with issues totally unrelated to defense, such as economic development, human rights, territorial disputes, religious conflicts, and ethnic rivalries. In other words, "nation building." The new game was interventionism, not defense.
The new approach manifested itself in Yugoslavia in the late 1990s. The defensive alliance became a military aggressor, in direct violation of its own charter. When NATO bombed Yugoslavia, a country that had neither attacked nor threatened a NATO member state, it turned its back on its stated purpose and lost any credibility it once had. Predictably, the NATO strikes failed to produce peace or stability in the former Yugoslavia, and UN occupation forces likely will remain in the Balkans indefinitely.
Now Congress has endorsed the expansion of this purposeless alliance, of course taking the opportunity to grant 55 million of your tax dollars to the former Soviet bloc countries that want to join. This expansion may be profitable for weapons manufacturers and bureaucrats, but it represents another example of U.S. taxpayers subsidizing foreign governments and big corporations. It is time for the restructuring of the NATO since its continued existence has resulted in sour relations between several countriesis has transacted to the ailure to agree on intrnation evelopment issues. climate change eems unabated becue of lack of agreed consensus.
It’s correct that NATO was formed to protect Western Europe against the Soviet threat but we disagree that the organization has outlived its usefulness. After the Soviet collapse NATO continued its work to protect Western Europe and other countries in the world. The NATO bureaucrats were not forced to reinvent the alliance; they just expanded their prime goals to continue the work of the alliance. We agree that NATO occupies itself with issues like economic development, human rights, territorial disputes and a variety of conflicts based on ethnical and religious background but we believe that these few matters are the key ingredients of keeping the balance and the peace between the countries in the world, which is the main goal of the NATO alliance. You say that the “new game” is interventionism, not defense. Well you can’t defend anything if you do not intervene.
If the NATO alliance didn’t intervene in the conflict between Serbia and Kosovo there would have been many victims, huge losses of resources and the problem wouldn’t have been solved for a long period of time. Also if NATO didn’t took military action after the Srebrenica massacre the lasting of the war wouldn’t have been defined. With this NATO intervention the war came to an end. NATO’s prime aims with these actions were: safe return of all refugees and displaced persons and unhindered access to them by humanitarian aid organizations, to promote stability and security and to help to achieve a peaceful resolution of the crisis.
So by giving these examples we strongly believe that NATO’s actions aren’t threat to international relations. On the contrary we think that NATO is like a mediator that contributes to inter-ethnical peace and reconciliation. With this new role of NATO we understand the need of the Nuclear Sharing Program (even if we don’t approve the use of nuclear weapon). NATO needs this kind of weapon to maintain the position of an intermediary.
Drawback to globalisatin and integration
Neither terrorists, nor failed states nor the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction present us with our greatest threat. By far the biggest danger facing the world is the structural shortage of welfare, democracy and peace. The billions spent on armaments by NATO countries would therefore be better invested in the social, economic and democratic development of the world. It is this which we should be debating here. Money is wasted into NATO if this money is invested into mitigating the negative impacts of globalisation like poverty, diease and hunger the word would be somewhere. The benefits of world economic integration are put to stern test a countries do not have an qual footing due to the 'nuclear muscle' other nations have. The dominating problem today and we cannot evade it, is that of the relations between East and West. As regards diplomacy and the best way to use it we will concede that the East has us at.a disadvantage. It has the benefit of unity of concept and of action, besides being out of reach of all internal criticism, a position which it cannot obtain in an Organization such as NATO, made up as it is of 15 very different nations. Some of them are in the New World, others in the Old, some are as great as the United States, while others are definitely small, and in Europe alone they range from Turkey to Norway. The most noteworthy feature of our Alliance - a possible factor, of weakness but also a source of power - is our diversity,our need to retain our individualism, our yearning for the exercise of full freedom.
As of now, it is a fact that the U.S. government and the American foreign affairs nomenklatura see NATO as an important tool of American foreign policy of intervention around the world. Since many American politicians do not anymore support de facto the United Nations as the supreme international organization devoted to maintaining peace in the world, a U.S.-controlled NATO would seem to be threatening globalisation.
It’s not the shortage of democracy and peace that are the biggest threat in the world; it’s the proliferation of nuclear weapons and terrorists. Out of all 28 member countries (your information in the introduction is incorrect) in the NATO alliance, only the U.S. is producing weapons of mass destruction for nuclear sharing. But the U.S. is not the only country in the world that is producing this kind of weapons. NATO needs this kind of weapon to maintain the position of a mediator and in addition to this as a protection of terrorism and wars. We agree that wasting money on weapon is worse than investing them into mitigating the poverty in the world but spending the money for the Nuclear Sharing Program is not a drawback to globalization and integration because in a way it bonds and encourages NATO member countries to use the weapons together when needed.
These days NATO member countries are faced with many threats that are dangerous for their safety. That is the main reason why NATO is spending so much money on weapons. It’s not logical to prevent the Nuclear Sharing Program because it would weaken NATO’s position as a biggest defender of the world peace. With its programs this serious and superior organization promises excellent inter-ethnical relations and a worthy co-operation between its member countries and world wide.
Despite the fact that we don’t want weapons of mass destruction to be used and we want a nuclear-free world, it is better that the nuclear weapons are in the hands of the good guys, the NATO alliance.
As for your last paragraph, NATO is not a tool of the U.S. government for the U.S. to intervene around the world. It’s an organization that brings together a number of countries who are obligated to declare peace around the world, to deter and defend against any threat of aggression, to promote partnership and cooperation and to provide stable security environment.
Fading commitment to disarmament.
NATO members have an obligation under the NPT of disarmament. While it welcomed disarmament measures at the 2000 NPT Review Conference, recent communiqués exclude reference to NPT disarmament commitments. This is a clear testimony of negligence in the noble cause. The three NATO NWS, France, UK, USA are still required to engage in systemic steps towards nuclear disarmament. NATO defence ministers at the 2005 June meeting issued a communiqué which reaffirmed ‘the fundamental political purpose of NATO’s nuclear forces: to preserve peace and prevent coercion’. This announcement came after Germany and Belgium called for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from their states’ territories in April 2005. On July 2005, the Belgian parliament adopted a second resolution calling for the removal of NATO weapons from Belgium. This tension and turmoil if continue unabated may lead to another world war. Therefore it’s imperative to ban these nuclear weapons.
As we already mentioned all the members of NATO have signed the NPT. Also is good to know that NATO has official documents that obligate its members to the NPT. However there are no documents to be found where NPT mentions NATO by name.
Also “ The NPT designates countries that tested a nuclear device before 1967 as NWS and therefore limits the number of NWS to five: China, France, Great Britain, Russia (inherited from the Former Soviet Union) and the United States. Countries such as India and Pakistan, which have conducted nuclear explosions since 1967 cannot accede to the NPT as NWS “ [[http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/nato-nuclear-policies/index.htm]] Concluding to the mentioned these countries are allowed to keep their nuclear weapons .
We would like to emphasize that NATO NWS had approached to decreasing their nuclear weapons as sign of a good will for creating a peaceful world and at the same time keeping a part of the weapons as a preventive measure for their own security, having in mind that the nuclear genie is out and can’t be put back in.
The world is a better place without nuclear sharing.
To tie the knot, we have been moving the motion that NATO should end its nuclear sharing programme. The foregoing motion has been based on five substantive arguments which stand to refute the NATO nuclear sharing programme. These arguments include the fact that it is being a threat to global peace and security, drawback to disarmament, threat to international relations, threat to globalisation and integration as well as a cancer to the global outcry of the need to guarantee peace and not war.
NATO should end its nuclear sharing programme because it is a threat to global peace and security. This comes in the wake that possession of such weapons of mass destruction fuels terror and war and will inevitably be a time bomb which will one day explode. The continued possession of these weapons is once again creating an arms race which will foster the need to engage in war. The rationale behind this is that beating plough shares into spears guarantee strife while the reverse promotes a peaceful world thus peace cannot be promoted by securing it with what fuels war. Hence NATO’s initiative is retrogressive to international peace and security.
Since the first and second world war and also in respect of Wilson fourteen points the progressive world has taken a step towards disarmament. This direction has been respected as the only feasible route to promoting global unity. However, the very nations that bear the unforgettable memories and scars from the World War have so soon forgot that arms race fuelled conflict barely less than a century ago. The cracks of true wisdom allows the past to inform the future, so can NATO stand guided today and disarm if they have a conscience any where?
More over the nuclear sharing programme is a threat to globalisation and integration. Hence national boundaries and such groupings which promote pockets of global collectivism promote terror rather than integration. In addition to the foregoing nuclear sharing is also a threat to international relations. This comes in the wake that by giving weapons to NATO’s cliques concentrates power to a single grouping and there is bound to be abuse of power. This makes nations outside the grouping vulnerable and cannot relate well.
Current global trends for example US invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan are clear signs of some super powers are there only to reign terror in the world. Therefore it is imperative that, the world be proactive and avoids yet another destructive world war. The world needs more of cooperation and integration to counter contemporary challenges.
It is therefore in light of the foregoing that we move the aforementioned motion that NATO should stop its nuclear sharing programme in the interest of global security, peace and integration.
The need of controlling the nuclear weapons
We don’t approve weapons of mass destruction as well but the reality is that it does exist and it’s better to be controlled by NATO which has it for defensive purposes and not for starting conflicts and wars. NATO’s sharing program gives peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region which is a prime goal to its organization. It balances the relations between the countries of this region and secures them from any external attacks.
After the collapse of the Eastern front, NATO continued to exist as an alliance taking care of its members. It managed to expand its borders and to take bigger part in protecting and maintain the world peace, proving its noble intentions.
Even the Cold War came to an end; the NATO alliance faces new threats like the possibility of a nuclear attack which is the main reason why this organization generated the Nuclear Sharing Program. It is important to know that the alliance has never threatened any country with this kind of weapon, nor showed intimidating aspirations about the destroying the people’s freedom, rights and peace. The existence of the alliance is beneficial for our society because it enlarges the welfare and security in the world.
The sharing program is a great way to prevent the happening of another arms race because it eliminates the lack of nuclear arsenal of the member countries. It also disables the countries without nuclear arsenal to purchase or produce weapons of mass destruction but offers the chance to use the shared weapon in case of a war. The need for the Nuclear sharing treaty is an essential part of the organization because it enables the non nuclear power member countries to use the nuclear power together if needed. Having this treaty adopted and implemented is vital in order to maintain world peace. The presence of tactical nuclear weapons on the continent and integration into NATO force structure provide a tangible demonstration of Alliance commitment to mutual security.
You highlighted that you don’t approve weapons of massive destruction; logically it means that we have to end them. It’s essential to think globally and act locally, global peace and security is more important and once achieved in the first instance will lead to peace guarantee in the Euro-Atlantic region. Weapons of mass destruction remain a threat to international security, lets internationalise peace and security and not war in the line of nuclear.
Why do we want to control something that we can prevent? Let’s try to be proactive in dealing with delicate issues like nuclear sharing. Why do we allow some countries to share a time bomb? The world cannot be a united front that well. If we allow this nuclear sharing? What about other countries which may also want to form their nuclear ‘cartel’? Consequently we will be having two nuclear infested bodies in the world. The ultimate result will be chaos and instability. It should be put on record that dangerous weapons are always dangerous despite this romantic idea of them being managed.
Your argument of nuclear sharing is a fallacy. You can’t say you are controlling by giving it to others. What will be the consequences? Controlling cannot be done by sharing especially if it is discriminate, if it was a good thing why not sharing with every nation on the globe.
In addition nuclear production is also a threat to global climate. Hence NATO is fuelling climate change of which developing countries will suffer the most in particular Africa. Hence considering the life threatening impacts of climate change, NATO has to stop its nuclear production.
Providing security to NATO Allies
Firstly we would like to emphasize once again that we do not support the existence of the nuclear weapon itself, however, we do believe that in case of war, nuclear or nonnuclear hosting countries, should be adequately prepared and protected.
Throughout our key points we will show you why it’s better NATO not to end the nuclear sharing program. We would like to talk about the effect of decentralization of the nuclear power and the readiness in case of treats.
We would like to point out the fact that none of the NATO nuclear weapons in targeted against any country, which proves that their aim is not to offend, but in case needed to defend from foreign offenders. Although as is stated that the most important goal of NATO is to maintain world peace, NATO countries cannot be unprepared in case of war. If it wasn’t the sharing of nuclear power the only countries that would’ve had nuclear weapons are United States, Russia, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel. Germany, Belgium, Canada, Greece, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey are NATO countries, and as a result of the NATO nuclear weapons sharing program, these nations have deployed and stored nuclear weapons that have been provided by the United States. This program is believed to be compliant with the NPT, as the US possesses absolute custody and control of these nuclear weapons, but then again, they are allowed to politically veto the use of those nuclear weapons that are under NATO command and in case of war, control over US nuclear weapons is handed over to NATO Allies. After the order has been given and the aircraft has taken off with the weapon armed and on board, the weapon is no longer under national US command and control.
By this nuclear weapons are distributed all around, providing some security to the countries in case of nuclear offends. On the other hand by not pointing them to any country at this point it proves that their purpose is to provide protection and not to threat anyone.
Lets guarantee peace and not war.
Let’s be frank enough and wear a human face. Which is better a war with or without nuclear weapons? Have you forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Your misinformed argument on preparing for war as a justification for nuclear weapons! Why do we want to prepare for war when peace is there to prepare!
The essence of nuclear sharing program so far has been only for the benefit of the big brother “USA". The programme has ensured that USA has access to the territories of other countries to enhance its nuclear dominance in the world. For example the programme states that the nuclear producing country would have to share its programme with the non producing ones. Over the years USA has managed to station its nuclear artillery to other countries. Thus USA has managed to expand and penetrate its program in the world.
The issue of the non producing nations determining the extent in which the weapons could be used is more an illusion than real. Surely, the nuclear producing countries have the codes (keys) to these weapons. Therefore, they have the final say on how they should be controlled as opposed to the nation that is host of the weapons.
Additionally, the programe has constantly ensured that the issue of the nuclear weapons remains to be controlled by the few nations if not by one nation. the other members of the NATO have not been able to stand up and produce their own nuclear weapons, partly because they have been kept under close check producing ones. Under the guise of nuclear sharing the other nations have been under the belief that they can be protected by the nuclear sharing ones ( USA). Thus, partly creating a dependency syndrome which has remained unchallenged and surprisingly has proliferated into the third world. USA has been and is the dominant power because of its nuclear program thus its military activities have gone unchallenged as a power house.
Preserving the Status Quo
If the Sharing Program is banned and the nuclear weapons are settled only in the NWS it would weaken their position in the eyes of their rivals and they would be considered “easy prey”.
This is supported by the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) which actually says that if each side has enough nuclear weaponry to destroy the other side and that either side, if attacked for any reason by the other, would retaliate with equal or greater force. The catastrophic results of using nuclear weapons discourage conflict. So, it wouldn’t be in their interest to attack each other, so the risk of war is much smaller.
This shows that the Sharing Program is not doing any harm to the security and stability of the region and the world overall, considering the fact that not every country is in good relations with the Western World.
We will give you a simple example: it’s better to keep a gun in your home, even though you don’t like it, but it’s better to have some kind of protection, rather than live in fear. We see the gun as nuclear weapon and the home as NATO country.
All in all, we need desperate measures to achieve a bigger goal, because whether we like it or not the nuclear weapons exist and for now there’s nothing we can do to banish them from the face of the Earth. So, it’s better to nave a bigger control over it that to leave it in the hands of just a few countries.
their rivals, are we preparing a rival world or we cherish a peaceful and well coordinated world. the argument still remains why keeping something that you know if it explodes will cause mass destruction.
in other words there are issues of climate change and the global financial crisis to channel all those waisted effirts in nuclear production. a weapon remain a weapon. Lets be proactive in global issues guided by the notion that THINK GLOBALLY AND ACT LOCALLY.
Throughout this debate the opposite team pointed out noble points which were far from the reality. Of course we want a world without nuclear weapons but in reality things flow differently. World leaders don’t share the idea of a nuclear weapon free world. The ideal of global nuclear disarmament is great in theory but won’t work in practice. Countries won’t disarm themselves if they fear and know that there is always a possibility of an existence of a secret nuclear armory of another competitive state. This previous mentioned reality complements with our earlier points about the Nuclear Sharing Program. As we pointed out and refuted over and over the security issue is one of the prime goals of the existence of the Nuclear Sharing Program.
The proposition never disputed the fact that the Nuclear Sharing Program provides peace and security or gave any examples of proving the opposite. Even though we successfully managed to defend the Nuclear Sharing Program at some point we had to prove NATO’s existence as a crucial part of providing world peace and security because since the start of the debate the proposition accused NATO of outliving its usefulness. We mentioned few examples where NATO intervention in Serbia and Bosnia granted peace and stability and prevented the loss of many human lives, preserved their rights and freedom, by that justifying NATO’s new role as a mediator in preserving the world peace and stability.
NPT played a big part in this debate. The proposition stated that the NSP is actually contradictory with the NPT and by that interfering with the international law. We refuted this by pointing out that there are no documents to be found where NPT mentions NATO by name. Also there is not known case in the international law where NATO is accused for violating the NP Treaty. Nevertheless, we repeated the fact that all of the NATO members have signed the NPT.
Furthermore we stated that we don’t approve the existence of nuclear weapons but the reality is that it does exist and it’s better to be controlled by NATO which has it for defensive purposes and not for starting conflicts and wars. AS we already know the NSP is making decentralization of the nuclear arms which is a reason plus for its being as well as providing mutual security for all its member countries.
Overall the reason why we think we won this debate is because we pointed out better statements showing that NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Program is good for the security and stability for the Alliance and the world. At the end we would like to express our gratitude to our opponents for the wonderful debate and everyone else who observed it to the end.
What do you think?