Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

Empire buildingPro claims that empire building is obsolete and then cites a number of wars that are either 30 to 60 years old or are not even empirical wars at all. Vietnam War? = Ideological War between the communist north and democratic southKorean War? = Same as aboveCuban Missile Crisis? = Communist country located at the doorstep of the most powerful democratic nation in the world, which is ideologicalChina and Taiwan? = If empirical wars were still around then China would have overrun them a long time ago, but it hasnt happened. Russia and Georgia? = I dont think wars that last 9 days counts as empire building since empire building by definition is warfare that is waged just to expand the borders of one nation to include more people and resources.Iran-Iraq War? = this is the one war that was indeed a empirical war, however that ended in a spectacular failure and it was also 25 years ago. "The perception of lack of heavy bombing in modern warfare can be cured by reading up on the conflicts I just mentioned."You mean those ones that were 25 to 60 years ago? Tell me then, if heavy bombing is used by warring nations then how come the US did not bomb Baghdad to oblivion when they invaded in 2003, or Kabul in 2001?"The American Civil War was the last ancient war,and the first modern war."List of things the American Civil War didnt haveAircraft carriersMachine gunsBulletproof armorTanksMissilesThe American Civil War is in no way as modern as other wars being fought today. "Religious and Ideology I lump into one.Religion is ideology"Yeah but there is still a difference between the two because ideology encompasses political systems, economical systems, perceptions based on human rights and freedoms, and then it includes religious differences. Now as for the wars you listed about ideological and religious wars,Cold War? not an actual war since Russia and the US never openly fought each other and that ALSO ended 20+ years ago. Jihad? Used by one force in one place for one war who do not have nuclear weapons to begin with and are currently getting their a** whippedPakistan + India? All three of their wars ALSO ended a long time ago and those wars were fought over the Kashmir region, not over ideological or religious differences...Nations against TerroristsI argued that the US cannot use nukes against terrorists sicne it would be ineffective, the Pro completely ignores this argument and then focuses on if these people somehow got their hands on a nuke that they might use it...."My resolution states that a more powerful weapon would supersede the atomic.... which is a reason for them to stay,not disappear."When something becomes obsolete you dont just leave them around, especially when the obsolete weapon is radioactive and costs billions of dollars to maintain and guard. If a new weapon were to come around more powerful than a nuke then nukes would be disbanded since they are now obsolete. "Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time"The Pro responds to this argument by citing ONE war, 25 years ago, where it didnt happen, was not used for revenge, and was considered while the war was still going on. For nukes to be used as revenge it would have to be after the conflict already ENDED ...".In case someone hasn't read between the lines,this is philosophically about the ultimate weapon,not just atomic weapons."Then the resolution would be "Ultimate Weapons are here to stay" not "Nuclear Weapons are here to stay" because the next weapon might not be nuclear at all. "Civilian death is unfortunately seen as necessary by many combatants"Yeah, 60 years ago it was, but these days with precision weapons able to minimize civilian casualties countries can now spend a couple thousand dollars to put a cruise missile in a base in the middle of a city with minimal civilian casualties, the need for million dollar weapons designed to just blow everything to hell and kill as many people as possible is OBSOLETE "It is considered strategically foolish to commit all of one's forces at the same time in most situations."It would be foolish but still possible..."The US and Russia are disarming, Doesn't matter.Russian scientists are helping Iran build new ones.Syria and North Korea are also getting into the business.Just because the biggest players might be reducing,doesn't mean everyone is."So the fact that the US and Russia alone have disarmed several hundred nuclear bombs while Syria and North Korea have over the past 10 years combined to build not even 10 does NOT imply the world is disarming?List of dropped arguments;Nuclear Weapons dont existSun will one day explode and destroy all nukesAnother super weapon could make nukes obsoleteWomen soldiers having their periods who are armed are more effective weapons then nukesSudden extinction of people would cause nukes to degrade into nothingNukes are obsolete since they kill too many civilians