Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

Again, I will be arguing that states ought not to possess nuclear weapons. It is implied that all aspects of the resolution are common knowledge and thus do not require explicit definition. Trolling is an automatic loss, and whether or not a side is guilty of trolling will be heuristically decided by the judges. Overarching point: The resolution asks us, ought states, meaning the totality of all sovereign nations, not have possession of nuclear weapons? The resolution is not limited to the United States and includes states such as Iran, North Korea, the United Kingdom, Russia, etc. PRO, meaning me, is arguing that all states ought not to possess nuclear weapons. Contention 1: Nuclear Weapons are expensive to maintainA U. S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Studies project, completed in August of 1998, showed that the U. S. nuclear weapnons program had incurred a total of $5821 billion dollars from 1940 - 1996[1]. The Nuclear Tech Initiative (N. T. I. ) reported that the United States will be spending at least $179 billion dollars from 2010-2018 on maintaining its nuclear arsenals with this cost rising from $16 billion to $25 billion over this time period[2]. Nuclear weapons maintenance costs the U. S. government a significant portion of tax income. The question we should ask is: are the costs of maintaining nuclear arsenals justified? Contention 1 Subpoint 1: The costs of maintaining nuclear arsenals are not justified. Contention 2: Nuclear Weaponry has outlived its purpose. Aside from its one time use in Japan, nuclear weapon has never been pracctically deployed with attrition, diplomacy, etc. being the preferred alternative 100% of the time since World War ll. Nuclear weapons exist only to provide diplomatic pressure. The logic is that the threat of deployment serves as a deterrent to war. Yet despite the deterrent, the U. S. alone has been in 21 sustained military conflicts and war since WWll[3]. In 1969, President Richard Nixon of the United States sent a squad of eighteen B52s bombers armed with nukes hundreds of times more powerful than the ones detonated in Japan. Nixon's plan, by sending the nukes, was to scare the Soviets and to deter them from further supporting Vietnam. The Soviets ignored the gesture and continued its financial and military support without a single hitch. [4] There was no reaction. Even during the Cold War, these supposed war deterrents known did absolutely nothing to deter war. 21 wars. If the purpose of nuclear weaponry is to prevent war, then it has either lost its effectiveness in 1969 or it has never been effective in the first place. 21 wars. Whatever the reason states still have nuclear arsenal, it clearly does not justify the hundreds of billions invested into maintaining them. We are no longer in the Cold War. The deterrent that nuclear arsenals are supposed to be are no longer effective, and have been ineffective as early as 1969. Contention 3: Threat of Nuclear WarIt is generally agreed that nuclear war would be devastating. Even just the tiny arsenal held between Pakistan and India would have very significant planetary effects[5]. Global nuclear war means the extinction of the human race and much of life itself. Let's ignore all other arsenals and focus the U. S. and Russia. U. S. and Russian arsenal alone would be capable of artificially producing a mass extinction similar to that which killed off the dinosaurs[6]. The potential cost of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, the threat of total extinction, is massive, and whatever benefits that the world's nuclear weaponry supply do not, in any way, justify the potential of such terrible consequences. Contention 4: Stop dangerous nuclear weapon salesHaving all nuclear weapons decommissioned, as proposed by the PRO side of the resolution, would also mean that we no longer need fear nuclear weapons being sold or stolen. If the state of North Korea, for example, decommissions its nuclear arsenal, the world no longer has to fear its arsenals' sales to other organizations. This applies to all states. Summary:It's been established that nuclear weaponry clearly serves no authentic purpose. If all the states in the world were to decommission its nuclear arsenals, there would be no need to build up nuclear. Both the threat of nuclear war and the pointless costs of maintenance are relieved. Sources:[1] . http://www.brookings.edu...;[2] . http://www.nti.org...;[3] . http://en.wikipedia.org...;[4] . http://archive.wired.com...;[5] . http://www.popsci.com...;[6] . http://www.nucleardarkness.org...;http://www.youtube.com...;