Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

As our debate comes to an end I will present my case one last time. I would like to thank my opponent for an energetic and ebullient debate;-) Benjamin Franklin said, "There has never been a good war, or a bad peace." However, most everyone in the U.S. would argue that The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are exceptions to this generally true statement. The reason is that these two Wars are examples of Just War. These were wars where peace meant persecution, where peace was demeaning to human rights, where human beings intrinsic right to defend themselves and their liberty justified something we seldom refer to as "good." These were Just Wars, and if they were not fought the peace that would have supplanted them would have been "bad." Peace is "attainable and sustainable," but it is not always desirable. Antebellum peace wasn't desirable for the slaves because it meant the continuation of slavery. Peace is not always in the interest of the Common Good. In order for it to be a desirable peace it must meet the Common Good, imagine if nations had had a peace on the Axis powers' terms? Therefore I must disagree with my opponent that peace always trumps war even if often Peace is a universal goal. Because the principal of peace does not always take the common good, "general well being, and happiness into mind." There is a considerable difference between the abhorrent peace before the Civil War and the peace that brought the dawn of the 14th amendment. Therefore I remain a defender of humans' right to engage in Just War to defend their Human Rights, and use justifiable force in these conflicts which may include Nuclear Weapons. These weapons have been deterrents to large scale wars, have been used justifiably (also their potential justifiable use is what makes deterrence work), and are well supervised by the global community . It is because of this that I stand in firm negation to the proposed resolution "nations ought not possess nuclear weapons" Contentions 1: Nuclear Weapons are a deterrent for large scale wars My opponent admits that MAD works but argues that threatening to do something immoral is immoral. I must argue that, the only threat being issued is from the potential victim. The threat is that if attacked, they will retaliate. "If you hit me, I'll certainly hit you back." I see no immorality in exercising a right to defend your life, especially since as my opponent pointed out with Russia and the U.S, it deters the attack from taking place. Deterrence defends human rights without anyone dying, and is compelling reason enough to keep at the very least a modest arsenal. My opponent has failed to refute my contention that nuclear weapons act as deterrents, and even endorsed it with her own example; therefore this contention stands. Contention 2: Nuclear Weapons may be used justifiably I argue that as there are just wars, weapons may be used justifiably in these wars. The examples of the Civil War and the American Revolution were relevant to my case because they demonstrated the justifiable use of force. The force of that time period was the canon, whereas the force of this century is the nuclear warhead. They are both used for the same purpose, devastation to the enemy, be it the Confederates or the Japanese Empire. A Just War is fought with justifiable force; my opponent has failed to prove that the use of Nuclear Weapons is never justifiable, or at least so often unjustifiable to merit a ban. She has mentioned that devastation was wrecked on Japan; this is true, but in a War to defend China, the South Pacific, and the U.S. from Japanese Imperialism. Nations have a right to defend themselves and the U.S. warned Japan to end the War. Japan threw the first punch, and the U.S. delivered the last blow. Since then not one warhead has been used unjustifiably, they have merely sat in silos, providing deterrence. My opponent has failed to disprove this contention and so it stands. Contention 3: Supervision of Nuclear Arms My opponent has not been able to address the key point of this contention. Nations have been responsible. Since supervision began there has not been one nuclear "worst case scenario." There have been inspections, non nuclear proliferation treaties, reductions agreements, and transparency among the nuclear powers. There has not been any unethical use of these weapons since their supervision began. These nations understand "with great power comes great responsibility." They have proven themselves capable. If these nations desire to have these weapons, they have proven with their responsibility that there is no reason not to trust them or those that hold them accountable. My contention that nations have successfully supervised and regulated the World's arsenal of nuclear weapons stands. Just Wars are fought for human rights; it is the last recourse of the persecuted. In these wars justifiable force is used. Nuclear Weapons provide deterrence to large scale wars; they defend human rights without ever being fired. Nuclear weapons qualify as justifiable force in just wars, provided they are used in defense of a nation and not as a preemptive strike. The supervision of nuclear weapons has safeguarded against their misuse for decades; these nations have shown they are responsible and capable of maintaining these weapons. Due to their reliable deterrence, justifiable use, and their exceptional regulation by the global community, I must negate the resolution that nations ought not possess these weapons, and urge a vote in negation.