We negate.

Contention 1 is angering east asia.

The US signing an NFU would spark a massive arms race in East Asia.

The first ally that would nuclearize is South Korea.

The Economist explains in 2019 that South Korea needs a nuclear threat in order to deter North Korea.

Crucially, Oswald 18 explains that the majority of South Koreans who support nuclearization is steadily rising, and that this support could be catalyzed into a movement if doubts grow about the reliability of the US security umbrella.

Keck 17 furthers that South Korea has a massive stockpile of plutonium and an advanced nuclear system, finding that South Korea could build a nuclear weapon in six months if they had an incentive to.

The second is Japan.

Japan’s own Ministry of Defense 20 writes that Japan views China as steadily strengthening their ability to invade Japan’s territory around the Senkaku Islands, with Japan’s defense minister stating that they are open to the development of nuclear weapons.

That’s why, despite Gasbarri 14 explaining that the US nuclear umbrella has historically eliminated any need for Japan to develop nuclear weapons, Monteiro 18 finds that non-proliferation is now on the brink. He concludes that the perception of US abandonment would trigger massive instability in East Asia and force Japan to develop a nuclear weapon despite any risk of sanctions because of fears of Chinese aggression.

That warrants why the Economist 19 finds that countries such as Japan and South Korea lobbied against the implementation of a US NFU policy during the Obama administration.

Crucially, Bakanic 08 explains that because of the lack of relationships and paranoia in East Asia surrounding Japan, even the perception of Japanese proliferation would trigger a nuclear arms race in China and the Koreas.

This is problematic, as Keck 14 explains that Japan has the technology necessary to build a formidable nuclear arsenal within 6 months, and Winn 19 furthers that Japan has already stockpiled 11 tons of plutonium, enough for 6,000 nuclear warheads.

The impact of an arms race is a nuclear war.

Cirincione 16 explains that the nuclearization of historically non-nuclear states like Japan and South Korea would collapse the nonproliferation regime by sparking a nuclear domino effect.

Critically, Tan 15 finds that an East Asian arms race would lead to misperceptions, conflict spirals, Chinese expansion, and open conflict. This would draw in the US, causing it to rapidly escalate to a nuclear war between China, North Korea, the USA, South Korea, and Japan, a war which Meixler 17 quantifies would kill as many as 2.1 million in Tokyo and Seoul alone.

Contention 2 is Taiwan.

Easton 17 writes that China has a strong incentive to invade Taiwan because it would allow them to dominate trade routes and strike Japanese communication lines and ships.

However, Bush 16 explains US security guarantees have historically deterred Beijing from invading Taiwan due to the possibility of a US nuclear response.

Unfortunately, Kulacki 16 explains that an NFU would be seen as appeasement by Chinese military leaders, leading to increases in military aggression. Pfaltzgraff 09 furthers that accepting nuclear vulnerability with China would cause them to ramp up asymmetric capabilities in order to take advantage of these vulnerabilities.

Gregory 16 finds that since a No-First Use policy would undermine extended deterrence and protection of allies like Taiwan, Chinese officials would view an NFU as appeasement and ramp up military aggression levels.

This is problematic, as Rehman 14 continues the perception of US abandonment of its security guarantees to Taiwan would push Chinese leaders to view the US as weak, greenlighting Chinese expansion and an East Asian arms race in a last-ditch effort to counter Beijing.

Pfaltzgraff notes that the US accepting nuclear vulnerability invites China to exploit these vulnerabilities, leading to rapid escalation and an invasion of Taiwan.

This invasion would be disastrous.

Cole 15 writes that because simply acceding Taiwan to China would incentivize aggressive expansionism that has historically caused world wars, both the US and Japan would be forced to engage in the conflict.

Allison 17 explains that even in the best case scenario, a small conflict only fought over air and sea, thousands of combatants would be killed on both sides and we would say a second coming of the Great Depression, which Bradford 13 writes would push 900 million people into poverty.

Talmadge 18 finds that a military confrontation in Taiwan would go nuclear due to China’s fear of the US’ conventional capabilities.

Devastatingly, Hayes 10 writes that a study of a conflict scenario found that even a limited nuclear war in the region would lead to a nuclear winter and agricultural collapse, killing hundreds of millions. Furthermore, it could lead to global instability, with nuclear weapons falling into the hands of non-state actors [1] and lead to global spillover.

Choi 14 furthers that multiple studies have proven that even a small regional nuclear war would disrupt the climate and wipe out the ozone layer, causing global famine through nuclear winter, causing extinction