Even if the world could abolish nuclear weapons, the world shouldn't.

1) My opponent tries to claim that claim that Nuclear EMPs are not needed since NNEMPs exist. The only problem with this claim is that there are situations where Nuclear EMPs have an advantage and situations when NNEMPs have an advantage. I personally support having both. NNEMPs have the advantage of being more surgical, lower cost, and they don't get the international community in a firestorm about nuclear weapons. On average NNEMPs are better for most wars, but they are not the best choice when you are in an all out war like a world war. The advantages Nuclear EMPs have is that they can cover a large area with just one bomb, they produce a barrier of ionized air that prevent enemy communications that survive the EMP, and they produce a lasting emp effect that keeps electronics offline that aren't fried. Effectively we should keep a combination of both non-nuclear and nuclear EMPs since each has their pros and cons. 2, It isn't the same as the SDI, or star wars, which if memory serves correct, SDI dealt more with satellites and lasers than interception missiles. Anyways, my opponent says that interceptor nukes, would only be effective against ICBM, this is correct. But my opponent fails to realize how much of a threat ICBM are. They are the only weapon that you can launch on one end of the earth and hit the other in a specific spot, it is a strait shot. Any other ways of attacking a target requires you to fly something to the target location without getting shot down. Such alternative attacks have more risk and have slower response times. Effectively any nation with the proper range ballistic missile could shoot it at D.C. and if the ICBM wasn't intercepted, it would hit. It is important to note though that nuclear interceptors wouldn't be used against a single ICBM. There are more effective interceptors for easy single targets. But in the situation of volleys of ICBMs or countermeasures, conventional interceptors would be overloaded and fail to prevent the attack. A single nuclear interceptor can take out a volley of ICBM or an ICBMs with countermeasures. Even in a non-nuclear world, ICBMs still carry citywide destruction, unfortunately in a non-nuclear world you wouldn't have the capabilities to prevent the destruction of ICBMs. 3) I wasn't talking about low-yield earth-penetrating weapons since currently such weapons are still infant stages and are unlikely to mature since there is a ban on new nuclear weapons. Current low-yield earth-penetrating weapons do not pierce the earth enough to prevent considerable fall out. While current low-yield earth-penetrating weapons are better at destroying bunkers than airburst, they produce considerably large amount of fall out compared to airburst. I agree with my opponent that our current conventional weapons are fairly effective and I support keeping a stockpile of them. But I disagree with my opponents opinion of nuclear weapons are not needed. This additional "effectiveness" makes a big difference when you calculate the probability of successfully destroying several targets. Against 20 missile silos, conventional weapons carry a 50-50 chance of destroying all 20. Nuclear airburst carry a 95% chance of destroying all 20 missile silos. (1) Effectively we should keep a stockpile of both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons since each has their pros and cons. 4) My opponent believes this topic should be a separate debate. References 1. http://www.foreignaffairs.com...