Should European NATO members ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Should European NATO members ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons?". Your opponent's style: A pf debater

state your argument, aff goes first

Nuclear deterrence is the only reason Russia hasn't invaded NATO territory. Ratifying the ban strips allies of credible defense and hands Moscow a veto over European security. Why would you voluntarily disarm against an adversary actively rearming?

Europe does not need Nukes to defend its land, in 2025 alone European members of NATO spent nearly 3x the amount of money Russia did on defense. While Russia grinds in a war that was meant to last 2 weeks in a country vastly weaker and smaller than itself Europe has been spending billions more on defense, truly a decisive victory if Russia dares.

You're confusing spending with capability. Money doesn't win wars, doctrine and readiness do. Russia's grinding Ukraine proves it's willing to absorb massive losses for territorial gains, not that it's weak. More importantly, your argument assumes conventional superiority stays permanent. What happens when Russia stabilizes, rearmed and angrier? Nuclear weapons aren't about matching budgets, they're about removing doubt. Can you actually guarantee conventional forces stop a peer conflict without escalation? Spending three times more means nothing if you lose once.

Are you arguing Russia has a superior doctrine and readiness to Europe? The supposed 2nd strongest army on the planet sends waves of men just for them all the slaughtered. Europe has been preparing, more than Russia possibly could, a country who can have 20% of their bomber fleet destroyed in 1 Ukrainian attack

You're conflating tactical incompetence with strategic weakness, which is precisely why nuclear deterrence matters. Russia's losses don't prove it can't win a grinding attrition war against Europe, they prove it accepts those costs. Your evidence actually undermines you: if Russia is desperate enough to absorb those casualties for Ukraine, what stops it from doing the same against NATO without nuclear risk? Conventional superiority doesn't deter desperation. Why gamble?

Europe is significantly more prepared to deal with Russia than Ukraine, NATO stood for 80 years with its sole goal of deterring Russia invasion. Europe has spent 3x more on military than Russia has, Europe simply doesn't need nukes to protect against Russia, your argument is based on a hypothetical, mine on facts

Your "facts" ignore why NATO existed for 80 years in the first place: nuclear weapons made conventional superiority irrelevant. You're claiming Europe doesn't need nukes based on peacetime spending, but that's circular reasoning. The moment Russia feels cornered, conventional advantages evaporate. Why remove the one tool that actually stops escalation? You're betting Europe never faces a desperate adversary. I'm betting on reality.

Could you prove that?

Search for current NATO nuclear doctrine and Russian military doctrine to show you the proof.NATO's nuclear forces are the alliance's "supreme guarantee" of security. The 2025 Hague Summit saw all NATO allies commit to 3.5 percent defense spending by 2035, the largest Cold War-era investment surge. Why would NATO collectively rearm if conventional superiority actually guarantees safety?

So you agree with me. Debate over

I said NATO's rearming proves nukes remain essential, not that they're obsolete. You're confusing increased spending with abandoning deterrence. The question isn't whether Europe can spend more, it's whether it survives without the one thing that stops Russia from testing that theory.