States are justified in possessing nuclear weapons

I thank BlackVoid for this fun and awesome debate. I'll start by defending my arguments and then rebut Pro's arguments.DEFENCEC1) Proxy WarsMy opponent says that all my examples of proxy wars refer to the United States. This isn't true as my examples refer to both the US and the Soviet Union, the two states that have the most nuclear power. The five states mentioned in Pro's source: China, Israel, South Africa, India, and Pakistan have a combined total of 556 Nuclear warheads whereas the United States and the Soviet Union have a combined total of 19,500 nuclear warheads [1]. My opponents source mentions 5 states that have 3% of the nuclear weapons in the world. My examples refer to 2 countries that have 97% of the world's nuclear weapons. Since my exampes are more relevant and accurate with regards to who actually possesses nuclear weapons, my point about Proxy wars stands. Nukes cause indirect fighting and proxy wars which involve other states like Vietnam and Korea because the nuclear states don't want to directly fight each other. It doesn't reduce fighting but causes more states to be involved."So even though some proxy wars may happen, empirically they are less frequent after nuclear acquisition. This disproves my opponent's main argument."Less frequent after nuclear acquisition in states that possess 3% of the world's nuclear power. Note that my opponent's source does not include the USA and the USSR which makes the source highly inaccurate as it cherry-picks countries which barely have any nuclear power at all. C2) Non-proliferation treatyMy point about the NPT was that states are not justified in possesing nuclear weapons as they can use means such as the NPT to unfairly restrict other states from posessing them. The unfairness makes it unjust for only some states to possess them and not all. C3) Accidents I'd like to clarify my point. Pro says:"Con's sources 7, 8, and 9 all make the same mistake. They all refer to nuclear energy, but nuclear weapons aren't powered by nuclear energy. They're powered by uranium and fission."Pro however did not mention that nuclear energy is the use of sustained nuclear fission to generate heat and electricity [2]. He says that nuclear weapons are powered by Uranium and Fission. With the source of energy being the same (Uranium and Nuclear Fission), the potential accidents that can be caused by Nuclear power and Nuclear Weapons are the same. Pro admits that I made a great case. Extend all my arguments on this point. To summarize, I mentioned the Chernobyl disaster, radiation and cancer.REBUTTALS R1) Deterrence"He tries to use his proxy war argument to say that wars still happen between nuclear states. Extend the Sechner evidence which indicates that all types of wars happen less frequently after nuclear acquisition." - This is only true when considering states that possess 3% of the world's nuclear weapons.- Extend arguments on proxy wars. My opponent's source omits the US and USSR which skews the results dramatically and gives a completely inaccurate picture of the likelyhood of proxy wars and whether nukes are a deterrent."My opponent's source 9 and 10 say nothing about the South Asian Association, nor do they ever mention India and Pakistan cooperating in order to compete with other countries." I apologize for the confusion. It was supposed to be source 10 and 11. My source does mention the South Asian Association for regional co-operation on page xii, the right hand column, first paragraph [3]. I quote: "Since the mid 1980s, the problematic nature of the relationships between South Asia and its general international environment changed considerably for two main reasons (1) South Asia began to develop some regional infrastructure and organization, notably the SAARC and (2) The main constellations of power and influence on the world stage at large underwent some striking changes."There are much larger reasons for the decrease in warfare between India and Pakistan such as the SAARC. My opponent shows corelation between having nuclear weapons and decrease in warfare. However, I have shown:1) The corelation for India-Pakistan depends on factors other than nuclear weapons.2) The same corelation does not exist between the US and USSR.Pro tried to explain the causation by saying that nuclear states are afraid of attacking each other directly. I negated the point by showing that they still engage in Proxy wars. Pro chose 5 obscure countries with 3% of the world's nuclear power to attack that point. For this reason, my evidence is more accurate.R2) Bio/chemical weaponsPro makes a point that nuclear weapons deter warfare and then says that biological weapons are even more dangerous. That means that biological weapons should deter warfare as well according to Pro's own logic. Pro goes to great length and uses many reputable sources to prove this point, However, it does not affirm the resolution. This is a summary of what Pro proves:- Nukes deter the use of bioweapons- Bioweapons are even more destructive than nukes killing just as many if not more people than a nuclear warWell, Pro wants to advocate nuclear weapons as it deters war as he contends by his C1 (my R1: Deterrence). This point directly negates C1 as by Pro's logic, an even more dangerous type of weapon would deter war even more. As I mentioned, states are not justified in possesing nuclear weapons just because they deter bioweapons. Pro does not advocate bioweapons because they are destructive. However, he advocates nuclear weapons because they are destructive. For that reason, this point negates itself in addition to negating C1 as I mentioned above.R3) AsteroidsPro doesn't address my point about large and small asteroids. My point in Round 3 already negates Pro's Round 4 argument. He doesn't show for which size of asteroids, nukes are effective.R4) Military spending Pro again uses the same flawed Sechner evidence and tries to negate my point by saying that the US is an outlier. As I already mentioned, the states that he mentioned have 3% of the world's nuclear power. Extend argument.Pro's Conclusion"If I win any of my first three contentions, the ballot must go Pro."That is pretty unfair, isn't it? Voters should use their discretion in deciding which points are left standing and which are negated. Pro can't throw in four arguments and say that if he wins any of them, he wins the debate. I could say the exact same thing if I wanted :PI thank BlackVoid for this debate. It was really engaging and interesting. Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://books.google.com...