Nuclear weapons are necessary for a state and each country should be allowed to own them

Thank you. Definitions Nuclear weapon: a weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reaction.[1] State: A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.[2] Necessity: The condition or quality of being necessary.[3] Arguments My opponent argued that nuclear technology has taken weaponry to a whole new level. While this is based on consensus, it does not support my opponent's case. The resolution directly implies that nuclear weapons are necessary for every state, and that each and every one of them should, in fact, possess them (i.e., nuclear weapons). Therefore, this point is negated. Moving on, my opponent implied that some people suggest that the human race could be wiped out if a country launched a nuclear attack on another country. This is not far from the truth. The fact is that nuclear weapons are highly destructive, and they are, without doubt, the most destructive weapons that we have developed. If a country attacks another country with a nuclear weapon, the chances that the victimized country avoids retaliation are minimal. However, that is not necessarily the case with military strikes by more decent weapons. A good example of this is the artillery attack on the South Korean island, Yeonpyeong, which happened last year.[4] The North Korean regime decided to fire artillery shells at South Korea, and yet, the South Korean regime did not retaliate. And, we should ask, why did the South Korean regime make such a pacifist decision? That is because the devastation of the attacks were not wide, nor would a retaliation have been the best decision. Today, both countries are as they used to be. A retaliation would have resulted in thousands, probably even millions, of deaths within a few months of battles. However, would such peace talks happen if sudden nuclear strikes took place? Most probably not. Had the North Korean regime decided to launch a nuclear strike, at least thousands of people would have been left dead, many more thousands would have been wounded in one way or another, and harmful radioactivity would keep devastating the targeted area for many years to come. This clearly indicates that nuclear weapons pose high dangers if abused. With the various competing governments that we have in the world, letting every single of them have nuclear weapons would probably be devastating to the world. 2. Corrupt states and leaders Imagine that all the countries in the world possess nuclear weapons in random qualities and quantities. The overall danger posed to the world is horrid, whether every country possesses 10, 100, or 1,000 nuclear weapons. According to Transparency International, over half of the countries in the world are either corrupt, or at the verge of being so.[5] These countries tend to have civil wars, citizen unrest, and/or other conflicts which are indeed to be taken seriously. Now, if all these countries had nuclear weapons, how does my opponent think that we would establish world peace? Surely, even though nuclear weapons have functioned as war deterrents in the past, and probably still do so, the fact remains that rogue states might not be deterred by the enemy's nuclear weapons. Take Somalia as an example. If some terrorist groups rose to power, and they possessed nuclear weapons, how would they handle the weapons peacefully? Who would make sure that they would not use these weapons in order to trigger a global war? The various terrorist organizations tend to worsen the lives of people by great scales, and nuclear warfare would not be unpredictable for these people. 3. Small states, easy targets Small countries like Monaco, Malta, San Marino, and so forth, these can be destroyed by one or two nuclear strikes on their soils. War usually leads to horrific consequences, and it can withal lead to positive changes at certain occasions. However, that is due to the fact that if two countries wage war, they do, in most cases, not destroy each other completely. That, however, would not be the case with two small states waging war using the most destructive weapons, namely nuclear weapons. If Monaco attacked Andorra, how would Andorra possibly retaliate, or how would it survive even if it did manage to retaliate? If Andorra attacked Great Britain, how would it stand a chance against a larger country? Where does the necessity of nuclear weapons come to question? It's nonsense. 4. Why only few countries need nuclear weapons It has been agreed upon, internationally, that further development of nuclear weapons is against international law. It means that one cannot argue for the justice of nuclear weapons possession, because development before the 90's was different to development afterwards. It used to be permitted, but it no longer is. Furthermore, as I have demonstrated above, it is highly dangerous to permit every country in the world to possess nuclear weapons, and even encourage them to do so. Various terrorist groups in the world use whatever is at their disposals to eliminate innocent targets, and nuclear weapons being in their grips is idiotic. That being reflected, even if these groups wanted to use nuclear weapons as defense tools, the fact that the international community would not be able to confront them in decent ways if the groups started spreading violence and oppression among many people, speaks for itself. An act of defense toward innocent people would not be a safe choice for the international community, since the terrorist groups would find easy ways of spreading violence by launching nuclear strikes in their favor. 5. Where is the necessity? My opponent has not made any valid argument to support his case. He merely stated that nuclear weapons should be developed further, and that they are necessary. What are they necessary for when it comes to every country possessing them? Are they beneficial to the global economy? Are they deterring war between the corrupt states? Are they cleansing the world of terrorist groups? Are they eliminating hunger? Not the least. I await a response from my opponent. The resolution is negated. References [1, 2, 3] http://fur.ly... [4] http://www.bbc.co.uk... [5] http://www.transparency.org...