Over 130 students gathered in the Glass Pavilion Monday night for the Alexander Hamilton Society's (AHS) Nuclear Zero vs. Nuclear Deterrence Debate. Professor Daniel Deudney debated RAND Corporation adjunct staff member Elbridge Colby on the feasibility and desirability of a world without nuclear weapons.
Deudney and Colby disagreed about whether nuclear weapons make the world safer, and whether widespread nuclear disarmament was even possible.
Deudney advocated the destruction of all nuclear weapons, but asserted that countries should maintain the ability to re-arm if another nation appeared to be re-arming. Deudney said his proposal would not eliminate the threat of nuclear war, but would "lengthen the fuse" of time required to start such a nuclear war.
"Right now the amount of time required to launch a nuclear war is almost zero," Deudney said.
He emphasized that a bad intelligence estimation or poor decision in an impending crisis could lead to enormous damage.
Colby argued, conversely, that nuclear weapons prevent war by making the potential cost of a war unbearably high. He also cast doubt on whether an international organization could effectively ensure that all countries really disarmed.
"In dealing with Iraq and Iran, we've learned that is that it's very hard to see what sort of nuclear technology another country has, and that countries don't like to have foreign powers interfering in their affairs," Colby said.
The debate was sponsored by the Hopkins chapter of the Alexander Hamilton Society (AHS) a national organization devoted to promoting debate about international relations and foreign policy. The group is led by senior Armen Garo Melikian, president, and sophomore Ari Schaffer, vice president.
"We think all opinions should be heard and given a fair say in the most professional way and by those who have experience in whatever field they're discussing," Schaffer said. "We're nonpartisan. We try to get two opposite sides of the political sprectrum."
Schaffer said he was pleasantly surprised to see the two panelists contest the other's claims so directly.
"I was not expecting the debaters to engage with each other to the level they did but it definitely improved the debate and enhanced the audience's ability to really weigh the different sides," he said.
Freshman Zach Hecht, VIP Relations Chair for AHS, enjoyed seeing the pairing of Deudney and Colby.
"Deudney offered a more theoretical perspective, and Colby offered more of a policy maker's perspective. They balanced each other well," Hecht said.
Alexander Alden, a doctoral candidate in International Relations, moderated the debate. After both Deudney and Colby presented opening statements and rebuttals, Alden questioned both panelists. The audience also had the opportunity to ask questions, many of which were directed at Colby concerning the dangers of nuclear weapons in the possession of terrorists or rogue states.
Colby mitigated this concern, claiming that nuclear weapons are better secured from terrorists than most people think. He also said that he thought that even rogue states like North Korea and Iran were capable of maintaining the "minimal rationality" necessary to abstain from starting a nuclear war.
"Ultimately, Iran's leaders are going to be deterred from using nuclear weapons for the same reason other states are," Colby said.
"The other day heard Rick Santorum talk about how Iran couldn't be trusted with nukes because the Iranians are religious," Colby said. "A lot of Americans are religious too, that doesn't mean they want a nuclear war."
The event was co-sponsored by JHU Politik, the Coalition of Hopkins Activists for Israel, College Democrats, and J Street U.
