Nuclear weapons be banned internationally.

My opponent [having the burden of proof] has not stated any evidence supporting his proposal and therefore his arguments may be invalid." As I said before Most information about nuclear weapons such as the cost are probably CLASSIFIED INFORMATION! Which means I cannot see that information and it is blatantly obvious that the technology and resources required to make nuclear weapons is VERY expensive. "In some cases precision bombing won't win a war. If the cold war had gone hot, we wouldn't have been able to win just by busting soviet Russia's bunkers." If there where no nuclear weapons there wouldn't be a cold war. "No I guess it isn't a bad thing." "My opponent has conceded one of his arguments." Ok I agree not using the weapons since WWII is a good thing but let rephrase that I also think that this shows that they are not use and are just stock piled. "I think that there is no need for evidence to show that nuclear weapons is an expensive technology and it is most likely classified information on how much it costs to create a nuclear weapon." "Voters please note this under the sources category. "No need for evidence". There is no need for evidence because it is so obvious how expensive these weapons are. 1. Nuclear Weapons Are Useful. As I stated before, if the US did not have nuclear weapons, there would be no M.A.D. or Mutual Assured Destruction, which is a deterrent for using nuclear weapons. If we simply had bunker busters, we would be dead. If we both had "Nukes" then we surely would have had a war simply because we wouldn't be worrying about killing each other with "Nukes". "The contender is contradicting the argument here. The topic is that "nukes" should be INTERNATIONALLY banned not just in the US thus making the quoted statement void as there would be no need to have a deterrent for nuclear weapons if no one had them." "2. If we do ban them... If we do ban nuclear weapons it is inevitable that they will go underground, being manufactured by people who may not know what they are doing and will sell them to the terrorist organization with the highest bid. Also if Nuclear Weapons are banned, this also means that if a terrorist organization actually obtains one of these weapons, they will not fear launching it for they know that they have the only one (or one of the few) "Nukes", therefore they won't fear a counter nuclear attack." If countries came up with a safe and reliable way of getting rid of their "nukes" Then the weapons would not go "underground". Like the countries could de-weaponize and drop the warheads into the ocean above an abyss where the immense pressure would crush the de-activated warheads (which wouldn't blow up) and anyone who tries to retrieve them would also be crushed under extreme pressure. "Also studies have shown that a nuclear weapons explosion generates EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) waves that will effect any electronics in the area and where ever the waves travel to including locations that were not intended to be harmed." "This is another pro, EMPs can effect ENEMY electronics, therefore being useful." This is an other statement that doesn't make any sense with my statement I made. I stated that the EMP wave would travel to countries that are NOT targeted and cause damages to the electronics in a country that isn't involved. Furthermore you don't need to use EMP waves against enemy electronics if they have been destroyed by the nukes. Ex. Hypotheicaly if we nuke north Korea then the fallout and EMP waves would affect surrounding countries and south Korea that isn't supposed to be harmed by the bomb. "people of the country it is used on." "That's the point, weapons are weapons." My response to this is that when the US is at war it is a war crime to kill innocent civilians. A nuke does kill civilians which is a war crime. In war weapons are only used on a threat not innocents. In conclusion, the contender is basing most of his arguments off of only one country not having nukes instead of all countries as this debate is focused on and that it is positive to induce damage to the environment to the extent of nuclear fallout and EMP waves that travel to other countries around the world That would have been unaffected of conventional weapons. There are so many alternatives to "nukes" That are much safer, cost effective, and reliable. I will urge a Pro vote if the contender does not reflect his arguments on the idea that all countries would not have nukes instead of just one. Also the contender is failing to see one of my points that it is not positive to effect other countries by nuclear weapons that shouldn't be involved. And in case you don't know what an EMP does it "fries" the electronics in its AOE (Area O Effect) making the need to replace the electronics effected by the EMP.