States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I also advocate a Value that encompasses the world as a whole. I will be going straight down the flow, in the same order as my opponent. Aff Contention 1: Why wouldn't Kim Jong Il use nuclear weapons? He has already threatened to use nuclear weapons, and has shown signs of aggression. Also... TURN: The "nuclear doctrine" creates a "commitment trap." Once deterrence is issued as a threat, and the other party attacks, the deterree feels obligated to use their nuclear weapons, because otherwise they have a bad reputation and are left open for others to make attacks on their legitimacy. This can be seen in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis when Kennedy said if Cuba possessed WMD's, the U.S. would launch nukes. See "The Fog of War" featuring Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense under Kennedy, talking about how the U.S. came within a hair's breadth of nuclear proliferation. Also, it doesn't matter if my opponent "believes" North Korea won't attack us. I have shown why North Korea is likely and certainly has the potential to destroy the U.S. NEXT: My opponent tries to cross-apply his argument about MAD and deterrence. However, with that, you can cross-apply what I just said. Also, we have no proof that Israel has or does not have nuclear weapons to retaliate with. This is another example of threats we face without government transparency. NEXT: Just because something hasn't happened in the past doesn't mean it can't happen or is unlikely to happen. For example, you and I have never debated this topic, yet here we are doing it. Your logic is fallacious in this situation. Also, I just want to know... How is that "global war on terror" coming? Oh wait, isn't the U.S. pulling out soon? Also, those countries can "try" to secure all existing nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean they can't be stolen. Also, terrorists could buy them. Nearly all the guns that are in terrorist hands came from either the U.S. or Russia. Who's to say somebody won't do a side deal with terrorists for some extra dough? NEXT: My opponent claims that eradicating nuclear weapons would lower foreign deterrence provided by the U.S. And yet he concedes that our conventional military is enough to provide deterrence? Why can't our conventional means deter threats abroad? Truth is, they can. Thus, I still claim solvency on deterrence, except my solvency won't blow up the world. Also, I would like to tell you why nuclear deterrence is bad for other reasons: 1.Nuclear deterrence is speculative. Just because nothing has happened in the past doesn't mean deterrence works -- the threat isn't credible. 2.Nuclear weapons don't deter against terrorists b/c they have no permanent base that will be threatened. Also, deterrence depends on rationality of deterree to NOT risk being attacked and rogue nation leaders and terrorists are irrational so they won't be deterred. 3.Deterrence only has to fail once. Even the strongest advocates of nuclear deterrence realize it cannot work 100% of the time, due to irrational, "undeterrable", and sometimes suicidal aggressors. This means when it fails once, nuclear proliferation occurs. 4.Deterrence can't prevent accidents which can escalate into global conflict 5.Link Turn: Deterrence is based on perception, so you don't actually need nuclear weapons to achieve same effect. 6.For deterrence to work, it is necessary for the attacker to find the cost of retaliation extremely high. If they don't, nuclear deterrence isn't effective. 7.Nuclear deterrence only works if the deterree is credible. This depends mostly upon the state leader's reputation and the state government's legitimacy. 8.TURN: President Kennedy made a deterrence threat against the Soviets, and failed miserably. 9.Deterrence can often be set in place after a nuclear decision has already been made. For example, President Kennedy set deterrence in place after the Kremlin decision had sent missiles to Cuba. 10.An aggressor nation could believe its actions are below the threshold of what could trigger a nuclear response. Then, the defending nation retaliates. 11.There often is not a certain threshold for when retaliation is necessary. Thus, the "nuclear threat" is often not set into action after an aggressor attacks, OR the deterring nation could proliferate nukes at the drop of a hat. 12.There's always the threat of "catalytic nuclear war." This is where a third party launches nukes on "country X," and blames it on "country Y." Thus causing nuclear war between these two countries. This was especially feared to happen during the Cold War. 13. Nuclear deterrence makes other countries want to possess nukes, leading to even higher danger. Onto my opponent's case.. Contention 1: TURN: The globe is a much more dangerous place with nukes. My opponent claims that nuclear weapons are the reason that no other countries have nuked us. This is untrue. He provides no empirical evidence on this. Do you know why? Because there is no empirical evidence saying that. There's a phrase called "the fog war." This means in war, there's too many variables to predict what your opponent will do, just like I don't know how my opponent will respond to this. This means we cannot conclude that MAD was the only reason we weren't nuked. When my opponent jumps to this conclusion, he actually commits a "Post Hog Ergo Propter Hoc" logical fallacy. And nukes have moved us past genocide? So... What about Darfur? Also, my opponent claims there has been no death in the U.S. What about 9/11? This is from a terrorist attack, and nukes certainly didn't prevent it. And if you're speaking internationally, what about the U.S. troops in Pakistan who have been victims of bombings? And it's moved us past the age of conquest? What about Palestine and Israel arguing over land? Contention 2: TURN: Conventional warfare is better. This is because while conventional means might kill thousands or millions, nuclear warfare will cause 7 billion. Let's do a little math... And we can see that my impact calculus is much bigger, thus I outweigh. Also, the Holocaust isn't conventional warfare. That was a genocide, which is not synonymous with conventional warfare. Contention 3: Nukes have been used with good reason??? I don't think so. When we nuked Hiroshima, we did so unnecessarily. Experts agree that the U.S. could have invaded with conventional means, and killed less people. So is killing extra people a good justification? That certainly doesn't sound like upholding international humanitarian law or safety. On his 3 examples, I want to point out he steals these from a blogger, thus committing plagiarism, a crime. He stole them from Jim Anderson on his site (http://decorabilia.blogspot.com...). But I will still answer them in order: 1. We have other (and more efficient) means of sealing up oil leaks. TURN: What if one of the nukes had, some how, for some absurd reason, (God forbid) gone off underwater? Does that sound like environmental protection? "Hey kids, want some tuna with highly-enriched uranium?" 2. Aliens. Aliens. Really? Look, if we nuke them, we're nuking ourselves too because they're obviously on Earth. Anyways, they come in peace, right? "Live long and prosper." See, they're friendly. Worst-case scenario, we have to call Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sigourney Weaver. 3. "Guess what guys, it's time to embrace the horror! Look, we've got front row tickets to the end of the earth!" Yes, I understand the Armageddon reference. Let's be honest, if there's a giant asteroid, we might as well give up. But if we're feeling really lucky, we can call in Bruce Willis, Ben Affleck, Billy Bob Thornton, and Owen Wilson. They're "the bomb!" My opponent tries to claim advantages that nukes claim, but truth is, there are none. For the aforementioned reasons, you must affirm.