All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

First I want to apologize to my opponent for dropping the Israel example. I initially wanted to address the rouge state issue in totality without focusing on too many specific nation examples. So let me address the Israel question first. The fact is that Israel who is a nuclear weaponized country is more of a threat to the countries around it than said countries (i.e. non nuclear Iran) are to Israel.(1) This is evidenced in the multiple human rights violations that take place ever year in Palestine committed by Israeli soldiers and the Israeli government.(2) So while it is easy to feel sorry for Israel as every country surrounding them pretty much hates them, they are partly responsible for the situation they find themselves in. In fact the have also been condemned by the UN for violations against Palestinians. My opponent has said that the UN has an obligation to prevent a governments transgressions against other countries as well as its own people, and as such not all nations should be allowed to have nuclear weapons. Lets now look at the current nuclear weaponized countries and see which of these countries violates human rights (and/or other countries rights) and as such should be stopped by the UN having nuclear weapons.(1) USA, has violated its own peoples rights by spying illegally on its citizens, as well as interfering in other countries inner workings as is evidenced by the highly publicized Wikileaks. China, has committed multiple human rights violations against its own people such as enforced disappearances.(3) Israel has committed multiple human rights violations against the citizens of Palestine, such as blocking exports from the country.(2) India has re-criminalized homosexuality making it an offense to express your sexuality. Pakistan clearly discriminates against its female population.(4) Russia like India displays extreme prejudice based on sexuality, as well as imprisonment of government critics (e.g Pu$$y Riot).(5) France has a ban on the full burqa worn by Muslim women.(6) The United Kingdom is also very well known for its mass surveillance of its citizens.(7) North Korea, well lets just say they are also involved in obvious human rights violation. These examples show clearly that every currently nuclear militarized nation is in clear violation of UN stipulations. As such all these nations should not have nuclear weapons. If these nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons then every nation should be allowed to have nuclear weapons as they all violate UN laws. As such we cannot disregard the equality argument as all countries are either guilty or not guilty of human rights violations which should prohibit them from having the right to nuclear weapons. I think the most important arguments in this debate all boil down to this simple argument of equality. Moving onto the argument for sovereignty. Both my opponent and I agree that the UN should stop sovereign nations in some circumstances from hurting their civilians. The question then becomes, how do we decide where this line of hurt is as I pointed out in the examples above. While my opponent may not agree multiple nations around the world do not trust the USA to be responsible and not use their nuclear weapons against them. We just have to look how the United States has constantly violated national sovereignty by spying as is the case of recent NSA revelations as well as the highly publicized Wikileaks cables. As such the USA is clearly a threat to other nations and should not have nuclear weapons as they do not care about borders, this is contrary to what my opponent would have you believe when he states “the U.S. isn't currently engaging in such rights violations validates our continued ownership of nuclear weapons.” My opponents arguments against Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) are interesting and I want to address them separately. Also, may I say I love this acronym. First, he says this MAD argument only holds for rational actors. However, the idea of rationality is based on what people believe. For example, as I pointed out above Israel is not as innocent as everyone believes so I would maintain they are not rational actors. Additionally, North Korea has had access to the use of nuclear weapons with two distinctly “irrational” leaders yet they have not used them. As such the rational/irrational argument fails as two irrational nuclearized nations prove that MAD can work in all cases. Remember, these two nations are not even targeting nuclearized nations (so MAD is technically not applicable) and they have not used them. Next my opponent says there are always wars and as such the opportunity of MAD increases. Interestingly the nuclear powers of the USA, Great Britain and Russia have been involved in major conflicts in Korea, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Afghanistan again, Balkans, Falklands, Somalia etc. Yet, no nuclear weapons have been used by these nations and as shown above the irrational argument fails. The last argument for psychology neither helps my or my opponents argument, as such I will leave it be. My opponents argument that terrorists are more likely to get hold of nuclear weapons if more nations are allowed to have them is reason enough then that no nation should have nuclear weapons. This is based on the equality argument, as well as the fact that with nuclear weapons currently available they can fall into the wrong hands, with which my opponent agrees. Personally, I think that putting trust in the current nations that have nuclear weapons is not a good idea as I have pointed out their human rights violations above. Regarding the rogue states issue please see the various responses I have outlined above. I will specifically reiterate again that the current nuclear nations are not as innocent as everyone believes as is evidenced by their human rights violations. So while Iran may be committing human rights violations, how are they any different to Israel or Russia? My opponent states that North Korea and India are different beasts, again this is subjective as how do we determine where the line is. Remember there was national outcry when it was discovered that the NSA was spying on its citizens, so much so that some people were calling for the resignation of the President. So yes, one fault does not justify another. But who is at fault, when as I pointed out this is subjective and we are discriminating against others by denying them the same rights we have. The argument for utilizing nuclear weapons in ones own country again is an argument from irrational/rational thinking. I think I have answered this adequately above. So, yes nuclear weapons can make countries think twice about invading another country. But, as pointed out above the current nuclear powers are no better than other nations when it comes to human rights violations. As such either everyone should disarm, or all countries should be allowed to have them. Regarding the possibility of nuclear war. Again, if accidents can happen then either everyone needs to disarm or everyone should be allowed to make the mistake. As I am sure Con sees now, all my arguments boil down to the equality argument. As such, I hand the debate back to my opponent. (1) http://www.infoplease.com... (2) www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/israel-palestine (3)https://www.amnesty.org... (4) http://www.pakistaniwomen.org... (5) http://www.globalequality.org... (6) http://america.aljazeera.com... (7) hhttp://www.theguardian.com...Sidenote: The band name from Russia: Pu$$y Riot is considered a profanity lulz.