the possesion of nuclear weapons is immoral

Thanks to my opponent for offering this debate on the topic of nuclear weapons. I take great interest in international relations and nuclear weapons obviously play a large role in this. From a political standpoint, I believe it should be illegal to own nuclear weapons for practical (not moral) reasons. However, political opinions are often far disconnected with the issue of pure morality. My opponent proposes the resolution that: The possession of nuclear weapons is immoral. I do not believe that it is immoral to simply possess nuclear weapons. There are very few things, perhaps in fact nothing, that I would consider it immoral simply to possess. The direct use or use as a threat of something is a different matter entirely. To prove this I will simply address each of my opponent's points and explain why they do not lead to the conclusion that possession nuclear weapons is immoral. C1: Criteria-1-1: This argument was that, in summary, nuclear war presents a huge risk to human society due to its potential devastation. That is correct. However, this seems like an argument against the use, not possession of, nuclear weapons. Just because nuclear weapons could be used to inflict massive destruction does not mean it is immoral to possess them. This would be analogous to saying that because a gun could be used to shoot an innocent man in the face, it is immoral to possess it. The use of, not possession of, dangerous objects is the crime. Objects, in the possession of thereof, lack an intrinsic moral value. Criteria-1-2: The thought process of those who created nuclear weapons in the first place does not affect their final, intrinsic moral value. I could make a ham sandwich with the intent of having man choke a man on it, but if I leave it and someone comes along and picks it up, it is not immoral for them to possess it even if they somehow knew it was made for that purpose. In any case, as my opponent stated, nuclear weapons were not created with the intent to destroy the world. Though it might be possible to use them for this purpose, that does not make possessing them immoral. Criteria-1-2a: I don't know what my opponent means by average war, but in all wars since the beginning of the 20th Century the amount of collateral damage has been huge. (1) Nuclear weapons do not change the qualitative nature of war, it has always been acknowledged that aerial bombing causes huge numbers of civilian causalities and it is used often intentionally for this purpose. Nuclear weapons simply increase the scope. Now, the bombing of innocent civilians is not moral. However, all this means is that it is immoral the use a nuclear weapon to kill civilians, just as it is immoral to kill them by bombing, shooting, throwing stones, or choking on a ham sandwich. It does not make it immoral to simply have a nuclear warhead sitting in your back yard, which is what possession is. Criteria-3: That the possession of nuclear weapons promotes the use of nuclear weapons. This is true of absolutely everything, since obviously possession of an object is a prerequisite for its use. My opponent brings the argument that the more nuclear weapons there are, the more likely they will be used. If the probability of a given weapon being used is greater than 0 than I agree, but we are not arguing about how many nuclear weapons should be produced or whether they should be hidden on Easter for children to find. We are arguing about whether it is moral simply to possess one. Possessing an object that could potentially be used in a bad way is not immoral. My computer could potentially be used to scam people, spread viruses, and steal people's money by hacking. I don't feel bad for owning it because it is not and will not be used for that purpose. Criteria-3a: Here an analogy compares the possession of a gun for home defense with the possession of a nuclear weapon. Again I have to ask, is it the possession or use of something that is immoral? It is fully possible, however unlikely, for me to buy a gun and bury it in the under six feet of dirt where it will never be found. The possession of it would not be immoral there. If someone bought the same model an hour later and shot someone with it, neither of use would have committed a moral infringement by possessing the gun. It would be the use of the gun by the crazy in my example that was immoral. Criteria-3-observation: My opponent seems to be begging the question by assuming that I will argue nuclear weapons are moral because they are used to deter. This is evident throughout the debate but most relevant here. I don't care why anyone possesses nuclear weapons. It is true that terrorists could use nuclear weapons to cause great damage. That is a practical argument in favor of dismantling them, not a moral argument supporting the resolution that the passive act possessing nuclear weapons is immoral. My opponent's task is to prove that the possession of a nuclear weapon is fundamentally immoral and practical considerations against it are not pertinent to that. From a pragmatic standpoint it is a bad decision for me to hit my own hand with a hammer but it is not immoral for me to do so. C2: Once again my opponent has given perfectly reasonable arguments why the use of nuclear weapons is immoral. Nuclear weapons cause massive destruction. Guns also cause destruction, but on a smaller scale. Rocks, smaller still, and my ham sandwich of choking is still on the scale. None of these things are immoral to possess, they are only immoral when used to create destruction. If innocent people are harmed by nuclear weapons, the answer is not to use them. Possessing them remains a morally neutral act. C3: Fear as a feeling is not inherently immoral. If people are afraid of something, that does not make it immoral to possess it. Some children are quite afraid of roller coasters, does that mean it would be immoral for someone to possess one? Criteria 1: This is about the nature of using fear as a means of control. Nuclear weapons can be used to control people through fear. However, they do not control people through fear simply by existing. It is extremely obviously that many nations would use them in this way, but that does not make possessing them immoral. Someone could use a gun to control someone through fear, that does not attribute negative moral value to the gun I buried in the weapons. The object and thus the act possession are morally neutral by themselves. Even if 100% of nuclear weapons are used for this purpose that does not mean that it is a necessary characteristic of them. Criteria 1-A: I don't care about deterrence at all because we're not talking about deterrence here, we're talking about possession. C4: Criteria 1: The bad things only outweigh the good things when it comes to using nuclear weapons. If I had a nuclear warhead sitting right next to me, which I owned, I would consider that to be quite morally neutral. The potential uses of an object do not determine the morally of owning it. Criteria 1-A: In the movie Armageddon, nuclear weapons are used to destroy and asteroid and save the Earth. This would seem to negative the previous contention that nuclear weapons have more potential to do harm then good. Movies aside, my opponent is still discussing the use of nuclear weapons in war. The Computer is not contemplating whether it is okay to keep some nukes in its back pocket, which is what we're talking about. Conclusion: Running out of room here, but the bottom line is that the possession of an object is not morally equivalent to the sum of all of its possible uses. Possession of anything is morally neutral as objects are morally neutral. Practicality may dictate something else entirely. Sources: (1) http://users.erols.com...