Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

This is the debate topic for September/October. I thank my opponent ahead of time for what I know will be a fun and challenging debate. :-) I'd like to start off by defining some words and phrases. "States", as defined by Merriam Webster, is a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory; especially one that is sovereign. According to Patricia Greenspan, a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Maryland, "ought not" means a moral obligation to not do something. Saying "ought not" implies a specific reason not to do something. Weapons of mass destruction that are powered by nuclear reaction. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com... defines "nuclear weapons" as types of nuclear weapons that include atom bombs, hydrogen bombs, fission bombs, and fusion bombs. The core value I uphold is that of Peace. Benjamin Franklin, a well-known political theorist, said about peace, "There was never a good war, or a bad peace." I think everyone can wholeheartedly agree with this. Nothing has ever proved immoral and unethical about peace. When you take a look at war, however, almost every aspect can be considered immoral. This is especially true when nuclear weapons are involved, and I will expand throughout my case. The judging criterion that supports my core value is Common Good. Common good is described as a specific "good" that is shared and beneficial for all members of a given community. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) In this case, the "goods" are protection, justice, and liberty. Again, I will expand on how nuclear weapons infringe upon these values throughout my case. -Contention 1: Nuclear weapons unnecessarily cost too much money. In the history of nuclear weapons, only two have ever been used. In both cases, the United States used the weapons on Japan at the end of World II. The U.S. was winning the war at that time, but Japan was putting up a fight. It was concluded that in order to win, the U.S. had to invade Japan, a move that would result in more American lives lost. So President Truman made the decision to drop atomic bombs on two of Japan's cities instead. Those two cases are the only times a nuclear bomb has been used outside of testing. The use of nuclear weapons is simply not prevalent enough to have spent $5,821.0 billion since 1940. In the 1996 study, "The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project" found in Atomic Audit: The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940, the costs of maintaining weapons like these was estimated. I will post the link so my opponent and any onlookers may view the statistics more easily. http://www.brookings.edu... Considering that bill, I must ask my opponent if it is really necessary to spend that much on such a rare use of national security. These facts prove that this money can go to much better areas, such as education, transportation, or research to benefit the common good instead of areas like construction of an object that clearly does not support peace. -Contention 2: In just the two occurrences stated above, unthinkable damage has been done. This is arguably one of the most common arguments one will encounter on this resolution, but it is also one of the most important ones. In the Hiroshima alone, 150,000 people died instantly in the bombing. In Nagasaki, 75,000 people were instantly killed by the nuclear power of the bomb dropped. (http://www.aasc.ucla.edu...) Was it really worth our win in the Second World War to essentially vaporize thousands of innocent Japanese civilians? If war like that means innocent lives lost over a decision that didn't need to be made in the first place, the answer is obviously no. Anyone would agree that lives lost in those numbers is unnecessary. Other damages caused by these weapons are radiation and thermal effects, which caused much pain and suffering for the survivors of the bombings. Furthermore, minor earthquakes and the collapsing of structures miles away from the drop site caused less obvious but still notable damage. The aftermath of nuclear war is obviously not upholding peace (since it's a type of warfare) or common good (since many people suffer). -Contention 3: There is no proof that this method of war is effective in attaining world power or achieving a warfare goal. I keep stressing the point that only two nuclear bombs have ever been used. This is for a good reason. Those two times do not prove anything good of nuclear weapons. If as a basketball newbie you make two free throws, are you proven a strong basketball player? If as a first-time competitor in a spelling bee you spell a word correctly and win two rounds, are you guaranteed to win the next rounds? If as a novice debater you win two debates, are you a debate champion? The answer to all of those questions is no. Succeeding twice in something as subjective as any of those things or nuclear warfare does not always make you expert or "winner." That being said, we can gather that it is too early in nuclear weapon history to declare them a successful deterrent to war. It is said that they scare off other countries that want to wage war, however, many wars have taken place since the beginning of nuclear warfare. Supporters of nuclear weapons argue that holders of the weapons hold more power than countries that don't. The world's superpowers are the U.S., Russia, China, the U.K., France, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and India. Holders of nuclear weapons include the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Isreal. (Federation of American Scientists: Status of World Nuclear Forces) To say that the 66% of world superpowers that possess nuclear weapons are in power because of the weapons is an overgeneralization. In fact, every statement I've addressed in this contention is a post hoc fallacy. To say that every war is prevented due to nuclear weapons and nations in power are there because of them is incorrect and not provable. Because nuclear bombs are immoral, unethical, and illogical, and because they do not uphold peace or the common good, I affirm the resolution Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.