States are justified in possessing nuclear weapons

Looking forward to this. I'll defend 4 main contentions.C1: Nukes deter conventional warfare. Justin Pollard writes, "Imagine a situation in which engaging in a dispute involved risking the possibility of such unbearable destruction that a participant would never enter that dispute in the first place. This explanation may be an equally convincing story when trying to describe the consequences of nuclear proliferation. The spread of these weapons could, in fact, could make the expected cost of conventional war so high (due to the potential for a nuclear strike) that no country would be willing to risk its consequences. If this logic is valid, the spread of nuclear arms could actuallycontribute to a more peaceful world" (1)In other words, its highly unlikely that a nuclear state will ever attacked by another nation because of the strength of the weapons they possess. Thus, the possession of nuclear weapons serves as an effective deterrent to both nuclear and conventional warfare by making the ramifications too costly.B. Deterrence is empirically proven. There have been,Zero nuclear wars between two possessing states. Zero conventional wars between nuclear states.Zero conventional wars initiated by a non-nuclear state against a nuclear state. Zero nuclear wars between two non-nuclear states. (who would have thought?)I'll also isolate a couple specific scenarios where nuclear deterrence has played an imperative role.India - PakistanHistorically, this has been one of the most heated border rivalries in the world. Three full-scale wars have been fought between them (2), costing hundreds of thousands of lives.But since their acquiring of nuclear weapons in '98, the conflict has almost been nonexistent:"Getting their hands on weapons of mass destruction didn't do anything to lessen their animosity.But it did dramatically mellow their behavior. Since acquiring atomic weapons, the two sides havenever fought another war, despite severe provocations. They have skirmished once. But during that flare-up...both countries were careful to keep the fighting limited and to avoid threatening the other's vital interests." (3)U.S. - Soviet UnionIts commonly believed that during the Cold War, it was the presence of nuclear weapons that prevented an all-out assault between the US and the USSR. A war between the superpowers would have had global ramifications, but the risk of nuclear retaliation prevented either side from engaging, once again saving millions.Nukes will continue to be imperative in preventing war as long as hostilities between countries remain. Their presence will continue to make the costs of war too high for anyone to engage in. The impact is the saving of millions of people who would otherwise be killed as collateral damage.C2: Nukes deter biological and chemical weaponsConventional war isn't necessarily a threat from all countries, as many don't have strong militaries in the first place. But they can still turn to a biological or chemical assault, whereby poisonous gas or some other canister is launched in an attempt to spread a highly contagious disease across a country. The magnitude of a bio-attack equals a nuclear strike. Gompert writes, "Ten kilograms of anthrax is at least as deadly as a 10-kilogram nuclear explosive, and it is cheaper, easier to assemble, and more portable." (5)A successful biological attack would essentially be an epidemic, as millions of people would be infected with what is designed to be a fatal disease. The impact is actually greater than a nuclear strike because there's no definite range. An artificial disease can spread across the entire country and into foreign nations if the infected go abroad, which would have global consequences. At least nukes have a definite range of the explosion.B. Nuclear deterrence is keyVictor Utgoff explains that use of bioweapons by any nation is highly unlikely due to the unsureness of what the response would be, due to nuclear weapons (6). The logic of conventional deterrence explained earlier applies here, as the fear of a nuclear response to a bio-assault is so great that it would stop anyone from attempting it. DoD secretary William Cohen said, "We think the ambiguity involved in the issue of nuclear weapons contributes to our own security, keeping any potential adversary who might use either chemical or biological (weapons) unsure of what our response would be."Nukes played a key role in deterring Iraq's use of chemical weapons during the Persian Gulf War (6, 7). The Bush administration sent a letter to Hussein that strongly implied a nuclear response to the use of bioweapons, and despite the fact that Iraq was in direct conflict with the US, no bioweapons were used.C3: Nukes are necessary to deflect asteroid strikesA. An asteroid strike is probableA near-earth asteroid (NEA) is space rock who's path brings it in close proximity to the planet. More and more of these are being found every year, increasing the probability of a collision: "In 1980, only 86 near-Earth asteroids were known to exist. By 1990, the figure had risen to 170; by 2000, it was 921; and as of this writing, it is 5,388." (8). In other words, there are over 5,000 asteroids in Earth's orbit.741 of those asteroids would cause a "global calamity". John Kunich writes that a strong asteroid collision would cause such massive dust to be sprayed into the atmosphere, that it would block out the sun for months (9). This kills most planetary life. Then factor in the explosion from the impact itself, which is also highly destructive and on par with a nuclear strike. NASA classifies 186 of those "global calamity" asteroids as impact risks (8). Furthermore, this is only among those that we've detected. NASA has only found 90% of roids that could cause extinction (10), which means that 10% are undetected. This means there could be one on a collision course with earth that we don't even know about. William Ailor of the Aerospace Corporation estimated the chance of a disaster strike this century to be 1 in 10. (11) So I'm giving you a straight up 10% chance that this is going to happen. That may not seem huge, but remember, this is a 10% chance of global cataclysm. B. Nuke the asteroidPhysicist David Dearborn points out that a strategic nuclear strike would create enough force to deflect the asteroid off of its collision course and away from earth's orbit (10). His simulations indicate that the nuclear option would be effective even if we only had a couple weeks in advance to plan for it. Considering the magnitude of an asteroid collision discussed earlier, the implication is that the presence of nuclear weapons would be saving millions of lives from being lost. C4: Nukes reduce military spendingTodd Sechser monitored the military spending of China, South Africa, Israel, India and Pakistan to determine how nuclear acquisition affected their budgets. "all five of these states spent a smaller share of their GDP on defense in 2000 than in the year they first acquired nuclear weapons", leading to the conclusion that "the acquisition of nuclear weapons appears to be associated with long-run declines in conventional military spending". (12)And in general, nations with nuclear weapons don't have to worry about having a strong military. They make force comparisons irrelevant. Even if other countries have militaries ten times stronger, nobody's going to attack a nuclear state. This means less money spent on war and more on solving poverty, or some other problem. Economy advantage is on my side. Even without the direct savings, I'd still get Economy since war is a billion dollar operation, and nukes deter war. The conclusion is obvious. The benefits of nukes are far too great to insinuate that their possession isn't justified. I patiently await my opponent's response. Sources - http://www.debate.org...