never ever using an atomic bomb ever

I will begin my argument by addressing the specific language you have used in the outlining of this challenge and rebutting it as overly emotional and entirely lacking in sufficient analysis to be considered an appropriate proposal for a debate. Secondly, I will back up my rebuttals with my own arguments, talking about how the Atomic Bomb represents the ultimate form of calculated mass destruction and how the sporadic increase in technological progress during the last century has meant that the possession of these bombs has become a political necessity. Thirdly, I will outline how the use of these atomic bombs in the past has been in the interest of maintaining world order and Western supremacy against fascist regimes, who have been shown to use equally sadistic methods in their wartime dealings. Firstly, a quick rebuttal. You have described atomic bombs as (quote): "Sadistic weapons of mass destruction that have no place in the great world that has been given to us" Firstly I question the use of the word "Sadistic" in your description. Though I hate using definitions in debating, I went to dictionary.com and found a definition for "Sadistic": 1. Psychiatry. sexual gratification gained through causing pain or degradation to others. Compare masochism. 2. any enjoyment in being cruel. 3. extreme cruelty. Now from these 3 definitions, I am going to assume that you mean the 2 latter defnitions; that Atomic bombs display extreme cruelty and that users of them all diplay elements of enjoying the pain that they are causing by using the bombs. This is simply not true. Out of the thousands of nuclear explosions that have been triggered over the past half-century, all of them have been for the purpose of testing their effectiveness on both a weaponry-based and political scale; all but two of the explosions have done minimal harm to humans. Even the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima showed very little evidence of either cruelty or enjoyment of this cruelty. I doubt that Truman was sitting rubbing his hands and laughing with glee as he watched the destruction of two entire cities full of civilians. The droppings of Little Boy and Fat Man were the result of a long period of calculation and several occasions of re-examination by Truman and advisors in the days leading up to the bombings. The bombs were dropped on these two cities in the interest of politics - in no way were they used as tools of cruelty. Civilians are always known to suffer during wars, and compared to being gunned down in your beds, horded into concentration camps or tortured while watching your children die (as is known to have occured during the JAPANESE occupation of China and Malaya during the war), the instantaneous death that a large percentage of those present at ground zero in the two cities received cannot really be called cruel or sadistic. Arguably, the radiation poisoning suffered by others is a terrible way to die, but from a moral point of view, considering that Hiroshima contained large factories specialising in chemical weapons like mustard gas, this isn't really as relevant as it seems to be to this argument. Also, the main function of the dropping of the atomic bombs was to bring about a quick surrender from Japan and thus an early end to the war. About 500000 people have lost their lives from the bombings of the two Japanese cities; how can we say that as many, if not more people would have been killed had the war been allowed to continue? For those in positions of authority in the Allies, this was a matter of necessity. As a side point, the Allies extended a formal request for surrender by the Japanese forces, threatening total destruction and civilian death, but the request was ignored. This shows us that the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not pointless, that they were not cruel or sadistic, and that they were used in the interest of protecting Western, democratic global dominance. These bombings, while disastrous, had their uses, and we cannot deny the fact that similar tactics would have been used against Allied nations had the Axis countries succeeded in developing the necessary technology. This leads me to my substantiative argument. The modern world is the way it is today because of technology; some of these advances have been very good for us, such as the Internet (hehe), while others such as the atomic bomb, anthrax and shatter-on-impact pistol rounds have arguably made the world a much more dangerous place to live in. The world is not a "great" place as you have described it - it is cruel, its politics lead to wars and death, and every nation in the world is forced to look after its own interests above the interests of others. When the A-bombs were first used, only the USA possessed the technology to create the nuclear explosion. This was the main reason it was used; the sight of such an unbeatable weapon in the hands of the Allies brought about early surrender from the Japanese and ultimately a shorter World War II. By contrast, today, 9 countries have official claims to possession of the atomic bomb. Though there have been no repeats to the Japan bombings, thousands of nuclear tests have been carried out by these countries, and one could argue that many other countries around the world could have developed the necessary technology in secret. Nevertheless, threats go back and forth between these nations, many of which are not in agreement with eachother, and the possession of nuclear weapons by major world powers is viewed by those nations as a necessity in order to maintain the great stalemate currently at place: because all of these countries have the technology and the means to kill huge numbers of opposition with nuclear warfare, no one country can risk attacking another country and having the other 7 countries retaliate against them. Though it may seem ironic, the only thing really standing between the world and nuclear fallout is the perceived THREAT of nuclear fallout. Therefore, nuclear weapons must be regarded as necessary in order to maintain peace. And logically, as the POSSESSION of nuclear weapons cannot now be called intolerable, the possible use of these weapons is ever looming above us.