There are few weapons that have changed the relationship between states as profoundly as the nuclear bomb. Since 1945, the world has lived with a peculiar contradiction: nuclear weapons are considered so dangerous that most countries have agreed not to possess them, while the countries that already have them continue to regard them as among the ultimate guarantees of their own security. That's why we're debating the motion this evening:
"THB states should possess an independent nuclear deterrent rather than rely on collective security."
When the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was created in 1968, it recognised five nuclear-weapon states: the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China. The bargain was, broadly, that these states would move towards disarmament while the rest of the world would refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet history did not quite follow that plan. India and Pakistan developed nuclear arsenals outside the treaty, Israel maintains an undeclared nuclear capability, and North Korea eventually withdrew from the treaty and developed nuclear weapons of its own. Today, nine states are considered to possess nuclear weapons.
But the story is not simply one of countries wanting the bomb and getting it. Sweden, despite its policy of neutrality, spent decades investigating the possibility of developing its own nuclear weapons in response to the Soviet threat before abandoning the programme. South Africa went considerably further: during apartheid it secretly constructed a small nuclear arsenal, only to dismantle it as its strategic circumstances changed and the Cold War came to an end.
Perhaps the most striking case is Ukraine. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine inherited a vast nuclear arsenal on its territory and ultimately surrendered it in the context of joining the Non-Proliferation Treaty, receiving security assurances from Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum. Thirty years later, Russia invaded Ukraine. The question this raises is not simply whether nuclear weapons are good or bad. It is whether a country can ultimately entrust its security to promises made by other countries, or whether, when the stakes are existential, a state must ultimately be able to deter threats itself.
This debate will follow a British Parliamentary format with eight debaters split into four teams of two.
Participants who wish to speak are highly encouraged to bring a paper and pen. You are welcome to participate even if you have no prior debating experience.
⚠️ Disclaimer:
We aim for debates that are respectful, constructive, and welcoming.
• Respect ideas and people: Listen actively, stay quiet while others speak, and debate arguments, not identities or beliefs.
• Be concise and civil: Keep questions short and relevant; avoid hostility, hate speech, or discrimination.
• Respect boundaries and time: No unwanted advances or suggestive behavior; arrive on time to avoid disrupting the debate.
• Follow moderators: They guide the discussion and ensure fairness.
Looking forward to seeing you there 😊
