Resolved: The Possession and Use of Nuclear Weapons is Immoral

Hello,In this 2AR or Second Affirmative (Pro/For) Rebuttal, I shall refute my opponents arguments in the previous round(s). Response I: Ad Hominem ConundrumMy opponent blatently accuses me of committing Ad Hominem, or an assault on the morality, conscience, or ability of an opponent. I did not commit this accusation. My alibi is as follows: I informed the judges that my opponent was not a PhD, I did not say this was bad, I was stating that he cannot assume without credible evidence. If I would have said that my opponent has no morality because he thinks Americans should die, I would be committing Ad Hominem. My opponent clearly commits Ad Hominem when he calls my argument "morally repugnant". This is an attack on my morality because I created the argument. An moral attack on my argument is a moral attack against me. If you refer back to the introductary remarks section, I specifically state that Ad Hominem is not applicable in this debate. Response II: Nuclear Weapons DO Stop TerrorismMy opponent says that MAD does not apply to terrosists, so they can fire nuclear weapons without risk. I believe my opponent has not gone to the root of the argument. The only way a terrorist group can attain nuclear weapons is through the help of another country. The USA prevents this by keeping those other countries in check. If North Korea tries to give secret plans to Pakistan, for example, they have to risk the obvious threat of war with the US, not a lucky situation. My opponent also does not mention a huge advantage the US has against terrorists, anti-nuclear weapon weapons. The US has counter-missiles that can destroy incoming nuclear weapons. If a terrorist organization somehow obtains a nuke, the US can use these systems within seconds notice. I doubt, however, the terroists could obtain enough nuclear deterance systems to destroy all the nuclear weapons the US could throw at them. The US protects national security by keeping countries that could give nukes to terrorists in check and by threating anhiliation of theterrorists.Response III: MisinterpretationWhen I brought up WMDs I was not saying that my opponent has to prove that they are good, it was merely an example that supports my argument against his contentions. I also never stated tht WMDs are worse that nukes. My opponent says that my argument does not even belong in this debate, despite the fact I clearly showed it does. This shows my opponent fallacy of a Red Herring. My opponent is avoiding my example of WMDs by saying it is not applicable. He does not even take the time to refute it. My WMD argument still stands as my opponent presents neither sufficient logic nor sufficent evidence to refute it. Response IV: You Cannot Control Other Countries:I would like to point out to the judges that this is not a perfect world, we cannot make Russia, NK, and China all disarm their nuclear weapons at once. My opponent believes that it is a good idea for the US to disarm nuclear weapons, this is false, however. If we disarmed nuclear weapons, we would be open to threats from the smallest of countries. We cannot make everyone else disarm nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons put the US at an equal level with, maybe even above, other countries. Response V: Speed of Government Powers, Especially in Wartime, Are SlowMy opponent states that Japan did not immedately surrender when faced with a nuclear bombing, this is because the government could not act quickly. The Japanese government cannot just surrender on a whim. The fact that Japan eventually did surrender just shows that the bombs did work! Response VI: Nuclear Weapons WOULD Cause an ApocalypseI will now take the time to respond to my opponent's arguments that nuclear weapons would cause an apocalypse. I have to agree. Nuclear weapons would cause an apocalypse. My opponent, however, states that nukes can suddely disappear if we will them to. This is not the case. Nuclear weapons are held by multiple countries who would like to use them on the US if possible, but the US's holding of nuclear weapons protects our national security. Trust me, if I could I would get rid of nuclear weapons, but because I am not a God, I can only agree with the best option we have, nuclear weapons. This clearly shows that holding nuclear weapons is not immoral because it our only option.