Topic Analysis
Jan/Feb Resolved: The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral.
NEUTRAL ANALYSIS
This one has some tricks in the wording.
1. "possession" - be very careful about what qualifies as possession. The purpose of possession can be brought into play, but only if direct links can be placed to mere possession.
2. "nuclear weapons" - seems trivial, but look again. Atomic weapons do not technically apply as nuclear. Neither do most weapons of mass destruction (watch it when using that old res. analysis). Also, note the term "weapons." Nuclear submarines may or may not qualify, but nuclear power plants are definitely non-topical (this rules out Chernobyl and Three-mile Island) Reading the Atomic Energy Board's Anomaly Reports might be a good idea for both sides.
3. "is" - always have to look at the little things. Is means in the present. Past nuclear disasters with inferior technology won't be enough. Look for current foul-ups or safety measures.
4. "immoral" - important for both sides. Avoid arguments concerning necessity and justification. I can need to or justify murder. It still isn't moral. Also note, the neg doesn't have to make having nukes moral, just not immoral. Run with that if you like.
AFFIRMATIVE ANALYSIS
The aff has a few things they have to set straight before they start with contentions and arguments. Definitions, as always, are critical. In this case, nuclear weapons is particularly important because of the belief that conventional defenses and weapons are adequate. If you're feeling sleazy, try slipping in something about nuclear accidents at facilities that produce weapons grade plutonium. It's a stretch, and your opponent might be prepared, so be careful and be willing to kick the argument if needed. But if you do slip it through, you open up a whole new area of argumentation. If you really feel like sacrificing your dignity, delineate between Nukes and A-Bombs. It's a technicality, but allows for atomic defenses to exist as a substitute for nuclear ones. It's at your own risk.
As far as values go, Morality is pretty obvious. In fact, it's blatantly obvious and one of the easiest values to support. Besides morality, Maximizing Safety or Freedom of Natural Rights is pretty strong, too. They are easily supported by harms of accidental launch/detonation and by dangers of deterrence. Look for some conventional defenses that can make up for the loss of nuclear arms. It is also possible to run Societal Progress or Welfare, but value justification is slightly more difficult with those two. Talking about "lost" missiles and "broken arrows" would be a good idea here. I'll leave it up to you. Remember, costs of weaponry don't equal any number of innocent lives lost.
When preparing your own defenses, be on the lookout for non-topical examples. About the deterrence argument. You can let them have it, as It gives you some inherent dangers to throw at them. However, if you want, you can simply defeat it with the post event justification theory. I'll let you figure that one out. Don't concede that deeming something immoral requires we eliminate it. Claim we would still have nukes out of necessity, just like we have self-defense laws that justify murder in certain circumstances.
NEGATIVE ANALYSIS
Things are strong on this side of the river, too. Look for the definition to be FUBAR by the aff. Don't let them be abusive. Take advantage of the terms "possession" and "weapons." If you're feeling frisky, bring in Nuclear Attack and Missile Submarines. This area of defense makes up a significant portion of modern international defense capabilities and a large minority of oceanic surveillance and defense. Don't get too arrogant and try to work in nuclear power facilities that produce weapons grade plutonium as a byproduct. Yes, you will open up the power sector as argumentation ground, but there are hundreds of nuclear energy facility accidents even in the last ten years.
Concentrate everything on possession. Never let your opponent throw nuclear annihilation probabilities at you. You may have to concede risk of accidental launches on the deterrence argument, but don't budge on the MAD theory. The theory does not equal delayed genocide. Valuing Maximizing Safety or Governmental Obligations would be a good place to go with this one. There are obvious implications of for safety and GO. If you're feeling lucky try to demand establishing a moral imperative requires we eliminate our possession of nukes. Team that with the observation that affirming the res doesn't mean everyone will stop having nukes, just like having any law doesn't mean we won't have crime, and you will have your opponent on the defensive in the beginning.
Watch for claims of innocent lives lost. Counter with the SC concerning tacit consent. Don't ever EVER give up the deterrence argument. You need a purpose for the possession to counter the generic harms of simply having nukes.