Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

Empire Building I would not count empire building as obsolete. The Soviet Union and other Communist nations recently engaged in empire building,so much so that about a third of the Earth's population was under Communism.While the main strategy of Communism is ideological warfare, there came many points where people of a victimized ideology refused to capitulate, and actual warfare ensued.Nuclear weapons were considered at several points of open conflict during the Cold War. (Vietnam[2], Korea[1],Cuban Missile Crisis. Other examples of modern empire building attempts are: PRC's expulsion of Republic of China to Taiwan,and their desire to eliminate eachother. Georgian-Russian conflicts over the territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Falkland War Iran-Iraq War [4] these days wars are not being fought for territorial reasons or for empire building is an incorrect statement. Often wars are now fought between nations and the nations that lose still retain their independence without the need for ridiculous heavy or large bombing The perception of lack of heavy bombing in modern warfare can be cured by reading up on the conflicts I just mentioned. nuclear weapons were conceived and used in a time when wars were fought in a very different,obsolete,manner. The American Civil War was the last ancient war,and the first modern war.WWI proved the obsolescence of most ancient tactics,and it wasn't until modern tactics were fully combined with modern technology that the stalemate was broken. WWII was the first fully modern war.Many things have changed since then, but too many advances that are the basics of current warfare were deployed during WWII to call it obsolete.The advent of the assault rifle, time-on-target artillery,guided rockets, aircraft carrier warfare,first over-the-horizon naval battle..I think the point is made. Religious wars are very rarely fought these days Religious and Ideology I lump into one.Religion is ideology.The two best known ideological conflicts of the last century have been -the Cold War(Communism attempts to become religion of the state, a humanist religion), -Resurgence of Jihad,as you mentioned. However, it is important to regard the Pakistan-India conflict.Nuclear weapons have been brandished in that conflict[5,6] between nations and armed groups of individuals hiding within nations.Groups that cannot be fought through nuclear warfare It's true that the nuke terrorist scenario presents a huge problem for a nuclear power,as proportional retaliation is unthinkable to most.This does not mean that a lesser nuclear power would not be tempted to exploit this as a means of proxy attack upon a more capable foe. Nationalism and Racism: I've already answered the Empire Building argument.Nukes are currently the biggest deterrent to war...next weapon comes along that is even more lethal or accurate then nuclear weapons will be obselete My resolution states that a more powerful weapon would supersede the atomic,which would just as much bother those who wish the weapons to disappear.Nukes are primarily kept around as a deterrent,which is a reason for them to stay,not disappear. Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time See third sentence of[4].Iraq had already built chemical weapons, and was working on a nuclear program.Pro admits that nuclear weapons are here to stay unless a far more effective weapon is found. That's part of my resolution.The same people that think they can rid the world of nukes would focus their energy on the new weapon.In case someone hasn't read between the lines,this is philosophically about the ultimate weapon,not just atomic weapons. every time my neighbor's cat sh*ts in my yard My opponent does not take into account larger animals his neighbor could own.DaVinci's tank..Nukes could face the same fate if they are shown to be too obsolete or if it was somehow proven that nuclear weapons kill an unnecessary number of civilians His tank was never built until recently:it was not known to be effective at the time. Civilian death is unfortunately seen as necessary by many combatants.(Fire bombing of London, Tokyo, Berlin.) Also see [5].War is horrific.If only my opponent were right on this.If World War 3 were to break out It is considered strategically foolish to commit all of one's forces at the same time in most situations. There would be a reserve of some kind just in case the other side retained a few,so you're not the only one without. The US and Russia are disarming Doesn't matter.Russian scientists are helping Iran build new ones.Syria and North Korea are also getting into the business.Just because the biggest players might be reducing,doesn't mean everyone is. 1 http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 http://www.gwu.edu... 4 http://www.globalsecurity.org... 5 http://www.youtube.com... 6 http://www.lewrockwell.com...