Nuclear Weapons is the best invention ever made

First of all, I would like to point out that my opponent is forgetting what exactly we are debating. Specifically in the resolution, there is the word invention. Hardly ever, does my opponent talk about nuclear weapons as being some sort of invention. All Amanda does is talk about nuclear weapons as being bad, but under the resolution, all we are talking about is the invention, or the capabilities if you will. For example, if we were to name hammers as being a good invention, it would be obvious as being a good invention, but it has the capability to kill someone, but a hammer is still a good invention even though it can kill someone. In other words, you must see nuclear weapons as a capability. Under appropriate use, it can stop wars. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, would we still be in WWII? No one knows. If it weren't for nuclear weapons, how many more countries would be at war now? No one knows. Nuclear weapons have stopped more wars than can be imagined. MAD is one of the greatest things to exist today, something that must be acknowledged as a capability (that has been accomplished) from the nuclear weapon invention. Let's move to the arguments on the flow. .. (First to my case) >Where she said that WWII was stopped only in an inhumane way. .. off that I am going to say that it stopped a greater evil. -When we used nuclear weapons against Japan, we did stop a greater evil. If we were not to use the nukes, there would of been more deaths and a worse solution to the war. When you really think about it, more people survived WWII because of nuclear weapons because they were used appropriately and with warning. >I actually don't know what she was trying to accomplish with this second argument so I would like her to clarify here. >Onto the third argument where she said that the environment is important. Off that I am going to state 2 arguments. .. 1. All nuclear waste is necessary. -Basically what I mean by this is that when there is nuclear waste, it is necessary to develop this invention. Pretty much all nuclear waste has some sort of purpose just like gasoline wastes only when necessary. 2. Nuclear waste is minimal when compared to other forms. -One problem that the American society has when perceiving nuclear waste is how minimal the effects are. I challenge my opponent to show stats of how much damage nuclear waste has created and weigh that with the benefits we have received from that waste. If you would like to look into it, I am sure you will find minimal damages to society especially when you look to other forms of waste such as gasoline. Let's move to her case. .. >Where she asked me to provide some MAD evidence, I will show you this quote from: . http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil... "MAD, of course, is an evolutionary defense strategy based on the concept that neither the United States nor its enemies will ever start a nuclear war because the other side will retaliate massively and unacceptably. MAD is a product of the 1950s' US doctrine of massive retaliation, and despite attempts to redefine it in contemporary terms like flexible response and nuclear deterrence, it has remained the central theme of American defense planning for well over three decades. " -Basically what this is saying is that MAD protects from "first strike" of nuclear weapons. It AT LEAST forces countries to rethink their use of nuclear weapons. Therefore, it protects from necessary use. Also, when you look to this evidence card, you can see that it has been around since the 1950's. When is the last time a nuclear weapon has been used? .. . Right before then. .. which proves that nuclear weapons is the product of safer countries. >Group her second and third point together, basically she re challenges me to provide MAD evidence as I just did while assuming nuclear conflicts. If there are so many nuclear conflicts, I challenge the Pro to come up with a mere 5 major conflicts. -In the end of this round, you have to see that Pro provides the benefits of the INVENTION while Con basically just says it's bad. I have proved all of the benefits that nuclear weapons contain and have proven that it is a good invention.