Resolved: The Possession and Use of Nuclear Weapons is Immoral

In this 1AR, or 1st Affirmative Rebuttal, I will be showing how I, in fact, am still winning this round despite my opponents attempts to tear down my case. First of all, my opponent is assuming what would happen in a nuclear war. I highly doubt he is a PhD in nuclear physics or a military general, so he cannot accurately predict what would happen in a nuclear war. Response 1: Purpose of Nuclear WeaponsThis response applies to my opponents contentions a) and d)My opponent said that nuclear weapons have no other purpose than national security, and I agree. We use nuclear weapons to keep other countries in check, to make sure that terrorist organizations cannot attack random cities without retribution. My opponent showed you several worlds in his AC, but I would like to show you one more. Imagine a world where terrorists can kill at random, attacking cities without anyone to keep them in check. The purpose of national security to ensure our country is kept safe. Nuclear weapons uphold that value. My opponent states that "MAD doesn't even apply to non countries" in his contention d), I would like to point out that this is the point of nuclear weapons. We cannot control what terrorists do, what weapons they obtain. If the US is not armed with nuclear weapons, terrorists can fire these weapons at whoever that want, without retribution. This leads into my second response...Response 2: WMDs Have Always ExistedMy opponent assumes that without nuclear weapons, the world will immediately have peace. This is not true. Let me bring up the example of Biological Warfare. Before nuclear weapons had ever even been used, the world considered Biological Warfare the biggest WMD, or Weapons of Mass Destruction. The US, Russia, China etc... stockpiled these chemicals because they thought they were the ultimate weapons. Why would we want to get rid of nuclear weapons just to have another, worse weapons come along. What if a terrorist organization creates a new weapon, and we have nothing to stop them with. You see, nuclear weapons, though grisly, are used to protect our people. If the US just gets rid of all of our NW (Nuclear Weapons) we will be vunerable to attacks from the smallest of countries. Response 3: Responding to My Opponents Responses to My ContentionsMy opponent stated that I brought up the example of India, when in fact I just used a quote from a specific person. My opponent actually admits to my entire case by stating that "nukes just keep other countries from nuking you". This is exactly right. The reason India and Pakistan have not launched nuclear weapons is because they are keeping each other in check. Once again he says that the US and the USSR fought the Cold War without nukes. My opponent has, multiple times, in fact, admitted to my entire case. He is bringing up responses that not only help me, but should win me the round. I do not mean to sound haughty, but it is true. In response to my 2nd contention he is using Ad Hominem, specifically banned in the rules. You did not refute my contention at all, all you did was list what happened because of the bombings. Can you justify the loss of American lives? No, the answer is no. My opponent states that he knows that Japan would surrender, but I doubt it. We have seen, at Guadalcanal, Iwo Jima, etc... That the Japanese fought till the last man to defend useless pieces of rock in the ocean. How hard do you think they would have fought if their very home islands were threatened. My opponent states that killing civilians in war is unacceptable, tell that to the fourteen million Chinese citizens who lost their lives because of the Japanese invasions, tell that to the millions worked to death to make the Japanese war machine go.