Nuclear weapons be banned internationally.

"As I said before Most information about nuclear weapons such as the cost are probably CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!" My opponent assumes this without even trying to look up evidence, I just typed "How much does a nuke cost" into Google and it came up with statistics. "If there where no nuclear weapons there wouldn't be a cold war." Good point, but the U.S. and Soviet Russia would have still been superpowers with the ability to carpet-bomb cities with conventional weapons, therefore they wouldn't hesitate as much to have a war. Even if we did try to ban nuclear weapons, would Russia have agreed? Probably not. "There is no need for evidence because it is so obvious how expensive these weapons are." Stating there is no need for evidence is a reason why my opponent has lost the debate. "If countries came up with a safe and reliable way of getting rid of their "nukes" Then the weapons would not go "underground". Like the countries could de-weaponize and drop the warheads into the ocean above an abyss where the immense pressure would crush the de-activated warheads (which wouldn't blow up) and anyone who tries to retrieve them would also be crushed under extreme pressure." The manufacturing of these warheads would go underground. Terrorist groups would try manufacturing their own warheads which could be fired at the US without fear of nuclear retaliation. "This is an other statement that doesn't make any sense with my statement I made. I stated that the EMP wave would travel to countries that are NOT targeted and cause damages to the electronics in a country that isn't involved. Furthermore you don't need to use EMP waves against enemy electronics if they have been destroyed by the nukes." If we need to take out a huge super power country, who cares if a few cell phone's don't work? Currently any countries we would even think of "Nuking" are so large the EMP would die before leaving. "Hypotheicaly if we nuke north Korea then the fallout and EMP waves would affect surrounding countries and south Korea that isn't supposed to be harmed by the bomb." Hypothetically, if we nuke North Korea to stop them from Nuking us, and a few electronics are knocked out in S. Korea, I think that's OK. "My response to this is that when the US is at war it is a war crime to kill innocent civilians. A nuke does kill civilians which is a war crime. In war weapons are only used on a threat not innocents." All weapons have a chance of killing civilians, period. With nuclear weapons there is a period of time where civilians can be evacuated when the Nuke is in air. You cannot move a missile silo very quickly. "There are so many alternatives to "nukes" That are much safer, cost effective, and reliable." First, weapons are not supposed to be safe. Second, with nukes you get what you pay for. Finally, reliability is not a problem because you don't even have to hit a specified spot, you can miss and the target is still destroyed. "not positive to effect other countries by nuclear weapons that shouldn't be involved." Nuclear weapons vary in size, for example you could have a gargantuan nuke that could wipe out a huge area, or you could have small precise nuke that could be used for precision targets, therefore this is not an issue. "And in case you don't know what an EMP does it "fries" the electronics in its AOE (Area O Effect) making the need to replace the electronics effected by the EMP." As stated before, a smaller nuke would have a smaller AOE, therefore this point is irrelevant. To conclude, my opponent has failed to clearly address my second point stating only that "countries could come up with a safe and reliable way of getting rid of their "nukes"". As stated before, some countries would not comply, therefore making the whole deal a failure. How would you get Nukes banned internationally? Would countries like Iran or North Korea just give up their nukes because the U.S. wants them to? No! I urge a con vote.