The recent attempts of North Korea and Iran to build up their own nuclear weapons have raised the international awareness and have intensified the debate concerning the spread of nuclear weapons. The western world states that these countries are not stable enough to possess nuclear power. But does really this community have the right to determine who shall have nuclear defences and who shall not? In fact, until now nuclear weapons have been used by only one state – the USA. Why shall the citizens of only nine countries be protected from nuclear attack and the rest shall not be. After all, this contradicts with the fundament human freedoms. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Let us commence the debate by defining the main terms in today’s topic.
1. Under the term ‘all countries’ we understand all politically independent countries recognized by the international community around the world.
2. Under the term ‘should have the right’ we understand that countries working on or having such nuclear defences should be treated as any other country without any international restrictions such as laying an embargo or something of the kind.
3.Under the term ‘nuclear defence’ we understand such facilities that can prevent a certain country from being attacked or defend a certain country from any nuclear weapon launched at any time wherever in the world.
All the Yes points:
- The pursuit of nuclear defence (respectively the possession of nuclear weapons) by more countries is a guarantee for peace.
- All the people worldwide have the same rights and are equal to one another.
- Thus the super power model will be broken and small countries will be finally given the chance to have political independence without the need of protection from a ‘big brother’.
All the No points:
The pursuit of nuclear defence (respectively the possession of nuclear weapons) by more countries is a guarantee for peace.
To prove that claim we will use an example from the recent history. During the Cold War period the keeping of the world peace was very difficult. A few times the world was on the verge of a Third world war. However, the peace was maintained because of the balance of power. The two major world powers(The USA and The USSR) possessed a host of nuclear weapons and knew that if one of them uses a nuclear weapon a mass destruction would have followed all over the world. In fact, that is what prevented the two countries from going into a global war – the fear from each other. The Cuban crisis from 1962 is the best illustration that shows that even when the tensions are very high the presence of nuclear weapons preserves peace. Nevertheless, there were a lot of local conflicts during the Cold War and there are still many conflicts now in the twenty first century. These conflicts, these wars are causing the death of thousands, maybe even millions of people. They are also the cause of ruin, despair, and decline in the attacked countries. And why are such things happening? Because the mightier countries use their power to subject, to humiliate, to spread their influence over the smaller countries. Thus the USA has attacked Vietnam, Iran, Afganistan. Similarly, The USSR(today’s Russia) has attacked Afganistan and Georgia. This happens because there is no balance of power between a nuclear country and a non-nuclear one. If the aggressors in these wars knew that there was a real threat for retaliation from the attacked countries they would have never started these conflicts. Another example that proves our assertion is the relationships between India and Pakistan in the previous century. After World War Two there were several local conflicts between these two countries causing great suffering and destruction. However, since the time when the two states acquired nuclear weapons there has been no serious confrontation in the region. Actually the presence of nuclear weapons preserved the peace. That is why only the spread of nuclear defences(and nuclear weapons) is the only way through which a world peace can be secured.
All the people worldwide have the same rights and are equal to one another.
Every human being has the same cost – it is priceless. Therefore, all the people around the world have the same rights. Why shall the French people be protected from nuclear attacks and the Spanish will not be? That contradicts with the main principles of human equality defended by the United Nations. The first principle of the UN is as follows: All human beings are born with equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms. The third article of the declaration of rights states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. ‘[[You can download the UN Declaration of rights from here: http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/hrphotos/declaration_eng.pdf ]]’. In the same train of thought we can easily deduce that it is just not fair to treat some countries differently from others. Thus you treat some people differently from others. It is not fair to sanction countries like North Korea and Iran for developing and possessing nuclear weapons and not to sanction other nuclear powers. This obviously contradicts with the Declaration of Human Rights. Apparently, if we want to defend the rights of human equality we have to allow every country to construct its own nuclear defences.
Thus the super power model will be broken and small countries will be finally given the chance to have political independence without the need of protection from a ‘big brother’.
It is a common knowledge that in the Cold War period the world was divided into two just because the major arsenal of nuclear weapons was concentrated in two countries – the USA and the USSR. Now more states have nuclear weapons but still countries which do not possess such weapons are obliged to cling to a superpower. Such is the case with Japan and South Korea. Both states are extremely developed economically with very high standarts of living but now when they are threatened by North Korea they are seeking the help and protection of the USA, they have negotiated the extension of the US nuclear umbrella. ‘[[In this press conference Obama reaffirms the extension of the US nuclear umbrella over South Korea http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/06/16/obama_south_korea_press_conference_transcript_97020.html%5D%5D’ ‘[[US agrees to strengthen nuclear defence over Japan http://thenews.jang.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=188739%5D%5D’ In this way it turns out that the majority of the countries worldwide no matter how well-developed they are always needs the help of a ‘big brother’. “Everyone has their own right to protection. You can’t just feel safe because “big brother” promises that he will take care of you.” says Samarjit‘[[The second quotation is that of Samarjit]]’. And because of this no country is absolutely politically independent until it acquires nuclear defences or nuclear weapons.