This is an example of a (read:my) plan for 2001-2002's topic in high school cross-examination debate (policy debate). It is by no means a good plan, but it has never lost...yet. Contentions are followed by evidence, and everything is cited.
We, the affirmative, agree with today's resolution that the United States Federal Government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction. The affirmative reserves the right to define all terms in this debate.
Observation One: Harms
Peter Popham, The Independent (London), October 14,1999. Pg. 14. A nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan would result in 17 million immediate deaths in Pakistan and 30-35 million in India.
- Contention 2.Pakistan is unstable; if the government should fail, terrorists and rogue nations will have easy access to nuclear capabilities, due to the lack of security.
Richard N. Haass, vice president and director of Foreign Policy Studies at The Brookings Institution, Newsday (New York, NY), February 18, 2000. Page A49. A failed Pakistan-one that would resemble Afghanistan or Sudan-would be a nightmare and threaten the stability of the region and, indeed, the world with terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. It would strengthen the hands of those radical, nationalist groups that are most opposed to the United States and the west.
Popham, cited earlier. Pakistan is on the verge of bankruptcy. It will be compelled to do whatever is necessary. Senator Daniel Moynihan said, "Pakistan is not a stable country and it is an impoverished country. That country will be selling nuclear weapons."
- Contention 3.There is much animosity towards America in Pakistan and India, and there is the possibility of nuclear war
CNN article. Anti-U.S. protests turn violent. October 10, 2001. Islamic groups in Pakistan have called on Muslims to rise in jihad, or holy war, against the U.S. Pakistan's nuclear foe India, too, has been the scene of protests, with some of the country's leftist groups staging protests in several cities this week, including one in Calcutta.
- Contention 4.Pakistan and India are engaged in a nuclear arms race. This could potentially lead to nuclear war.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, February 23, 2001, p. LN Pakistan's navy said Thursday that it may put nuclear missiles on its submarines. Such a move would aggravate tension with nuclear neighbor India which also announced its intention to deploy nuclear armed submarines.
The Statesman (India), June 4, 1999, p.LN ...the basis for an arms race. It is well known in the doctrine of deterrence that first generation nuclear weapons do not create deterrence. The prerequisite for deterrence is an unceasing buildup of nuclear arms. Both Prime Minister Vajpayee and external affairs minister Jaswant Singh have talked about India's need for credible deterrence without clarifying what that means. ...they are hinting at a second strike capability...so, India and Pakistan are heading for an expensive arms race now extended to nuclear weapons with dangerous implications. Unless they consciously try for restraint, they are bound to be involved in a ruinous nuclear arms race.
- Contention 5.Pakistan is a poor country. Their people are suffering from starvation and malnutrition, because of the weak economy, and the massive debt owed to other countries.
Lowell Feld. Energy Information Association. "Pakistan" February 2001. Pakistan's external debt is equal to more than half of its annual GDP, and its debt payments due each year exceed its receipts from exports.
According to, The World Bank Group. World Development Indicators database, July 2000. Pakistan has a malnutrition rate of 38.2% for children under the age of 5. India has a malnutrition rate of 47% in children under 5 years of age.
The Hindu, February 20, 1999, p. LN. Persistence with nuclear weaponisation would make an arms race in the sub- continent inevitable. The time to stop this dangerous trend is now.
- Contention 8. Pakistan sponsors terrorism. Their nuclear arsenal could be bought by those who should not possess nuclear weapons.
Yonah Alexander, professor and director of The Inter-University Center for Terrorism Studies and Milton M. Hoenig, Washington DC -based nuclear physicist, The Jerusalem Post, April 11th, 2000, pg. 8 The possibility of terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons, or engaging in other forms of nuclear catastrophe, is a clear and present global threat. The terrorist escalation in South Asia is a case in point. Last month 35 Sikhs were massacred by Pakistani supported terrorists. There are over a dozen terrorist groups that are supported by Pakistan.
Observation 2: Advantages
- Contention 1.Ends India/Pakistan arms race
- Contention 2.Israel has less fear of a nuclear Muslim nation.
All Muslim nations are hostile, if not overtly so, to Israel. At this point, there are no Muslim nations with nuclear capabilities except for Pakistan.
- Contention 3.By forgiving the countries' debt, we allow their respective governments to reinvest in their countries' economy, and therefore let them get back on their feet. This results in fewer starving people in India and Pakistan.
- Contention 4.Because we forgive debt, and eliminate the possibility of nuclear war in South Asia, other countries will better appreciate the U.S., giving us much more power in Middle Eastern affairs and abroad.
Observation 3: Inherency
- Contention 1.Pakistan and India do not want to give up their nuclear capabilities
Plan
- Mandate 1.We cover India and Pakistan's debt to the world in return for their nuclear weapons.
The present value of debt of India in U.S. dollars is 70.5 billion. The present value of debt of Pakistan in U.S. dollars is 25.1 billion. According to The World Bank Group. Cited earlier.
- Mandate 2.India and Pakistan will sign a treaty promising to stop production of nuclear weapons.
Funding
- 1. The American government would cover the 95.6 billion dollars of debt that India and Pakistan owe the rest of the world up-front. The American people would then reimburse the government over a period of ten years. According to the 2000 census, there are 281 million people in America. The tax burden would be fairly spread out among the income levels. This tax hike would not be substantial.
Administration and Enforcement
Solvency
- 1.By eliminating nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan, we are eliminating the chance of death due to nuclear detonation.
- 2.Because Pakistan and India will no longer have nuclear weapons, terrorists and rogue nations will not have access to them.
- 3.By forgiving debt and providing aid to the area, we significantly lessen anti-American sentiment.
- 4.We will effectively end the India/Pakistan nuclear arms race, by eliminating nuclear bombs in both countries
- 5.By forgiving debt, both nations will be able to focus more on growing their economy
- 6.The incentives offered in our plan will motivate India and Pakistan to give up their nuclear weapons, thereby overcoming the attitudinal barrier that India and Pakistan wish to keep their weapons.