States are justified in possessing nuclear weapons

I thank F-16 for his argument. A late response is better than no response.Con case - 1. Proxy WarsMy opponent lists three examples or indirect fighting and uses it to say "nukes cause proxy wars". This is a hasty generalization.More importantly, all of his examples involve the US. This means he has no argument about proxy wars for the several other nuclear states not called the United States. Also, nuclear states are less likely to engage in any kind of war, including proxy. The Sechser evidence in my source 12 monitored 5 countries' participation in interstate conflicts: "four of the five states examined here participated in fewer interstate conflicts, on average, once they became nuclear states... These data tell us that proliferation optimists are right to expect a decline in the frequency of interstate wars as more states acquire nuclear weapons."So even though some proxy wars may happen, empirically they are less frequent after nuclear acquisition. This disproves my opponent's main argument.2. Non-proliferation treatyCon spends some time saying that this treaty is unfair, but I'm not sure what the nuclear NPT has to do with this debate. We're debating a cost-benefit analysis of nuclear possession, not the fairness of a treaty.Furthermore, the NPT being unfair is actually a Pro argument. The NPT restricts nations from getting nukes, which my opponent would want given his position on this debate topic. If restricting nuclear possession is bad as my opponent says, it follows that states are justified in possessing nuclear weapons.3. AccidentsAll my opponent's arguments here are completely nontopical. Chernobyl isn't a nuclear weapons plant, its a nuclear power plant. They're completely different. Con's sources 7, 8, and 9 all make the same mistake. They all refer to nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons aren't powered by nuclear energy. They're powered by uranium and fission. Con has made a good critique of nuclear power, but thats not what we're debating. Nuclear power =/= nuclear weapon.Pro case: 1. DeterrenceHe tries to use his proxy war argument to say that wars still happen between nuclear states. Extend the Sechner evidence which indicates that all types of wars happen less frequently after nuclear acquisition. India Pakistan: My opponent's source 9 and 10 say nothing about the South Asian Association, nor do they ever mention India and Pakistan cooperating in order to compete with other countries. Furthermore, remember that the reason for India and Pakistan's wars were because they both believe they rightfully own the area of Kashmir. However, the South Asian Association "has intentionally laid more stress on "core issues" rather than more decisive political issues like the Kashmir Dispute" (4). Also, "SAARC has also refrained itself from interfering in the internal matters of its member states", which would include Kashmir, the reason India and Pakistan were fighting. Thus, my opponent's alternatives are NOT the reason these 2 countries have stopped fighting wars, and you should prefer their acquisition of nuclear weapons as the real reason.2. Bio/chemical weaponsCon says virtually nothing on this. He claims I never explain how nukes deter bioweapons, which must mean he skipped my entire subpoint titled "nuclear deterrence is key", which explains all that. This means he has dropped and therefore conceded the Utgoff evidence, which states that nukes deter the use of bioweapons, and the Payne evidence giving empirical proof through the deterrence of Saddam Hussein's chemicals attacks. He also concedes the Gompert evidence which shows that bioweapons kill just as many if not more people than a nuclear war.Con later says that he doesn't advocate states possessing biological weapons. Well I don't advocate states engaging in proxy wars. But we have to deal with it. The resolution doesn't give either of us the ability to use pixie dust and say "so yeah, nobody has bioweapons in my world." The resolution deals with nuclear weapons, which means that other types of weapons stay the same.This is a key point in the round. Since he's conceded that a biological assault would have global ramifications on par with a nuke war, this immediately takes priority over his proxy war argument. Global disease outbreak > a few indirect conflicts. Its also never been disputed that nuclear weapons make states too nervous to use pathogens as a weapon, which means that nukes are 100% necessary to prevent bioweapons from being used. 3. AsteroidsCon says we can launch a spaceship into an asteroid (kinetic impact) instead of nuking it. You will prefer nukes for the following reasons:1. Building a spaceship costs over 58 times more money than a nuke. NASA's most recent spaceship costs $1.7 billion (1). Whereas a nuclear ballistic missile costs around $29 million (2). The cost is magnified even more if we need to deflect more than one asteroid, which is probable given that there are 186 of them. 2. A study from Science and Global Security finds that while kinetic impact would likely be effective, depending on the size of the asteroid we need to hit, full development of the the technology could take anywhere from 5 to 100 years (3). In contrast, nukes exist right now. 3. The previous timeframe is just to build the ship and work out the technology. We haven't even developed a kinetic spaceship yet. There likely won't be a major push to create one until we actually locate an asteroid with a 100% chance to hit Earth. But at that point we would have to rely on nukes, since the asteroid would likely hit before we actually created the ship.He also quotes an article that says we would need a gravity tractor to prevent the asteroid from coming back in a few years. Thats not a positive argument for him because we can easily use the gravity magnet after nuking the asteroid as well. He's dropped the Dearborn evidence which states that a nuclear strike would be effective in deflecting an asteroid, so you know voting pro solves for this problem. His alternative would take 5-100 years to create. Also remember my previous argument, that an asteroid hitting Earth would be a "global calamity", blocking out the sun with the dust sprayed into the atmosphere, and equaling the damage of a nuclear assault. This outweighs his proxy war argument.4. Military spending I don't have to prove that the reduction in military spending is "entirely" due to nukes. So long as I prove thats its a significant contributing factor, I gain the economy advantage. That analysis is provided; I explained last round that nuclear states don't need strong militaries because they're never attacked. Thus, less military spending.Con also says that the US's total spending hasn't necessarily gone down after we got nukes. However, this is cherry picking data. The US is a crazy interventionist state thats been involved in 2 wars and plenty of humanitarian missions for most of last decade. Thus they're going to have high military spending. But the US is an outlier; the other nuclear states don't engage in wars like the US does, and the Sechner evidence shows that they war even less after acquiring nukes. So on balance, military spending goes down.ConclusionIf I win any of my first three contentions, the ballot must go Pro. If nukes deter war, even some war, then thats saving millions of lives. If nukes deter biological weapons (that entire contention is pretty much unanswered), thats saves billions, outweighing Con's arguments. If nukes are the best way to deflect asteroids, thats saving the world, outweighing Con's arguments about proxy wars and unfair treaties. I believe that based on the evidence I've provided in this debate, you can vote Pro on any of those arguments. Thus, the benefits of nuclear weapons outweigh any potential harm. Thanks for the awesome debate. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...