All nations have a right to nuclear weapons

Thanks to my opponent. I just want to clarify why I brought up the non-nuclear option, as it was not and is not my intention to argue for that. So let me reiterate, if the nations that are currently nuclear powers are allowed to have then everyone is allowed to have. My reason for this is that they are just as dubious as the non-nuclear powers. I was not trying to steer the argument towards no nuclear power, I was doing it to clarify the equality position. While I can argue here over and over again about different countries as I have done in previous rounds I am not going to. The reason for this is simple, as I believe that these arguments can be boiled down to two differing arguments. My argument that everyone deserves equality, and my opponents argument that some people are better than others i.e. "Iran, which my opponent barely addressed, is led by radical Islamists taking this to the extremes by repeatedly calling for the erasure of Israel as a country, and engaging in full-scale invasions into several neighboring countries." Who cares if they are Islamists? Are the lesser people than us because they believe in the wrong god? Also, Iran has not invaded any country in the last 100 years despite what my opponent will have you believe.(1) With this insight let me address the main issues I have with the arguments presented in totality, and not address various countries specifically. I think when people read names like North Korea, Libya, Iran, Afghanistan and Iraq it can influence there thinking due to the way these countries are portrayed in mass media. But there are other countries like Switzerland, Brazil, South Korea, Japan and Australia that people would not have issue with to have nuclear weapons. There are also countries like South Africa that have voluntarily dismantled their nuclear weapons, and some people will say they should or should not have again.(2) One of the arguments presented is basically an argument of "we are better than you", or" we have better everything and so we can do a better job than you". This argument is an argument from superiority and is not justified. In the previous rounds I have shown the so called irrational nuclear powers have not been irrational, so why do we believe they will be irrational? Is it because they are different religion? Is it because they have different schooling? Is it because they do not fit the norms of western society? These countries may in fact do a far better job at keeping there nuclear secrets and nuclear weapons safe than we could ever think of doing. They will do this, as the realize what kind of problems terrorist groups can do. What we in the West deal with as terrorism does not even come to the terrorist groups that often act in these countries. The next argument I want to address is an argument that can be described by both my opponent and I as shifting the goal posts. The question at hand is where you have draw the line in determining what is or what is not a violation of human rights. In the last round I pointed out multiple examples of human rights violations that some people consider remarkably severe, yet others like my opponent do not. My opponent has given a definition for crimes against humanity which I will paste here, as I really like it. Crimes against humanity, as defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum, "are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of human beings." If we look at this definition, it says it an odious (unpleasant) offense that constitutes and attack on human dignity. Again I ask the question what is an infringement of human dignity? I think someone making me say a prayer is an affront to my human dignity as I am an atheist. Some people will say not been able to express their sexuality is an affront to their human dignity. While others consider these example not an affront at all, for the reason that they are on the other side of the opinion. This is why I say human rights infringements are subjective, hell the Nazis even thought they were correct when clearly they were not. This did not stop the Catholic church backing them though and hence claiming that they were not moral monsters.(3) Hence, this whole argument is subjective. Let me say I don't want anyone launching nuclear weapons by mistake. However, this can happen and nuclear reactors can fail, or a building can collapse and kill a thousand babies. The point is accidents happen everywhere at any time. If we think we can stop them all by trusting those people that we believe are better than others, then we are making a dire mistake. Let me elaborate with an example. While my opponent may trust the USA, I personally don't. Let me tell you why, the government openly spies on their own people and more importantly they infringe other countries sovereignty. My opponent has dropped this fact that the USA infringes other countries sovereignty. I believe this is as its a bitter pill to swallow and makes pretty much every argument for only some countries having nuclear weapons void. Maybe I should point out how the US fares against my opponents favorite tyrant Iran when it comes to human rights. Here are the following UN conventions with the date they were ratified by the countries. UN convention on children's rights (i.e. child labor). US,(not ratified) while Iran (Ratified 1994), Germany (Ratified1992).(4) UN convention on the prevention of genocide. US (ratified 1988), while Iran (ratified 1956), Germany (ratified 1954). (5) UN convention on the elimination of race discrimination. US (ratified 1994), while Iran (ratified 1968), Germany (ratified 1969). (6) UN International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. US (not ratified), while Iran (ratified 1975), Germany (ratified 1973). (7)Seems Iran and Germany are way more civil countries than the USA. In fact the USA is at least 30 years behind with respect to acceptance of human rights. I hand the debate back to my opponent for closing remarks.(1) http://www.historyguy.com...(2) http://www.nti.org...(3) https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...(4)https://treaties.un.org... (5) https://treaties.un.org... (6) https://treaties.un.org... (7) https://treaties.un.org...