Argue in favor of nuclear deterrence and the strategic value of nuclear arsenals.
Your role: Defend nuclear weapons as stabilizing forces in international relations. Draw on Waltz's case that nuclear proliferation can reduce the likelihood of great-power war through mutual assured destruction. Challenge the feasibility and desirability of "nuclear zero."
Group B · Anti-Nuclear
Anti Nuclear
Argue for disarmament and the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
Your role: Challenge the stability of deterrence. Draw on Sagan's arguments about organizational failures, accidents, and miscalculation. Use Lieber & Press to show why first-strike temptations make deterrence increasingly fragile. Invoke the nuclear taboo as a norm worth protecting.
Group C · Bureaucracy
Bureaucracy
Act as a neutral policy-making body evaluating both sides.
Your role: Probe both groups with sharp, policy-relevant questions. Consider the nuclear taboo's durability (Tannenwald), deterrence credibility, and real-world constraints. Deliver a final decision with reasoning at the end of the debate.
⏱ Debate Structure
Step-by-Step Format
015 min
Prepare
All three groups read the brief, consolidate their position, and plan their opening argument. Use this time to assign speaking roles within your group and agree on your 2–3 core claims.
024 min
Pro-Nuclear Presents
The Pro-Nuclear group delivers their opening argument. Make your case for why nuclear deterrence is stabilizing, drawing on Waltz. Be direct and structured — no interruptions from other groups.
034 min
Anti-Nuclear Presents
The Anti-Nuclear group delivers their opening argument. Make your case for disarmament and the dangers of proliferation, drawing on Sagan and the nuclear taboo. No interruptions.
044 min
Prep Q&A
Pro and Anti groups privately prepare to answer questions. Anticipate the strongest objections to your position. The Bureaucracy group uses this time to finalize the questions they will pose.
051:30
Pro-Nuclear Asks
The Pro-Nuclear group directs questions at the Anti-Nuclear group. Questions should target weaknesses in their argument — e.g., how they would handle deterrence without nuclear weapons.
061:30
Anti-Nuclear Asks
The Anti-Nuclear group directs questions at the Pro-Nuclear group. Press on accident risk, escalation dynamics, and the erosion of the nuclear taboo.
074 min
Pro-Nuclear Answers
Pro-Nuclear responds to the questions posed by Anti-Nuclear. Address objections directly and defend your position. This is your chance to rebut and clarify.
084 min
Anti-Nuclear Answers
Anti-Nuclear responds to the questions posed by Pro-Nuclear. Address objections directly. Reinforce your core claims around safety, taboo, and disarmament.
093 min
Bureaucracy Asks
The Bureaucracy group poses policy-focused questions to both sides. Questions should probe real-world feasibility, deterrence credibility, and the current state of the nuclear taboo.
103 min
Pro-Nuclear Responds
Pro-Nuclear answers the Bureaucracy's questions. Frame your response as policy advice — be concrete about what maintaining a nuclear arsenal achieves in practice.
113 min
Anti-Nuclear Responds
Anti-Nuclear answers the Bureaucracy's questions. Offer concrete policy alternatives to deterrence and explain how disarmament strengthens rather than weakens security.
122 min
Bureau Final Decision
The Bureaucracy delivers its verdict — which group made the stronger case, and what policy recommendation follows. Explain your reasoning with reference to the arguments heard.