Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons(Cross Examination in comments section only 7 que)

I negate. I agree with my opponent definitions/observations. Before I begin I will offer two pre-case observations. One, since the negative is negating that states ought not possess nuclear weapons, it is not the burden of negative to prove that states have an obligation to possess nukes, only that they dont have an obligation to not possess. Two, since there is no specific quantity given to the word "States", we must assume that it is referring to all states and it is the burden of the affirmative to prove why they ought not possess. To uphold the resolution I offer the following value of Security. To uphold Security I offer the following criterion of Maintaining International Constancy, defined as the quality of being unchanging or unwavering. We have a system in place that has been proven to work. No nuclear wars or uses have happened since their power was first witnessed. Therefore we have no obligation to change this system. Contention 1: Nuclear weapons will not be used and therefore pose no threats to society. Sub point A: A direct, voluntary launch will be deterred. Kenneth Waltz explains (Professor of Poly Sci at Berkley, 2003 "The spread of nuclear weapons: a debate renewed") "The higher the stakes and the closer a country moves towards winning them the more surely that country invites retaliation and risks its own destruction...winning in war (in a nuclear world) is too dangerous to fight for and...the presence of nuclear weapons makes states exceedingly cautious." This is not a difficult theory to comprehend. States know if they use their nukes against another nuclear power they will have them used against them. This type of assured destruction will prevent the use of nuclear weapons between nuclear states. Sub point B: Non-voluntary or misjudged use is virtually impossible. First of all I'd like to point out that there have been no unintentional uses of nuclear weapons, ever. Secondly, the reason. Any use of nuclear weapons by a state requires a well thought out, determined decision which leads back to my sub point A. Douglas Roche (Douglas Roche, Sleepwalking in a Nuclear Minefield: The United States Still Worships at the Altar of Nuclear Weapons-Yet Cries 'Heresy' When Others Want to Join the Sect,ï¿½€� Sojourners Magazine, Vol. 37, March 2008' "meaning they could be fired on 15 minutes' notice") wrote that the process of launching a nuclear weapon takes 15 minutes to occur. Kenneth Waltz also pointed out that the launch can be cancelled within the first 12 minutes of this process. This means that one, a potential nuclear user has 12 minutes to think about his decision or alert authorities that it was triggered by accident, and 2, once he realizes his mistake he can change it. The 15 minute wait prevents this type of accidental launch and also ensures that a nuclear attack would mandate a well thought out decision, and as previously stated this decision would be to not use the bomb. Sub point C: Nuclear weapons are secure. A report published by the Nuclear Weapons Archive details how US nukes are hidden from everyone except the top government officials, and how they are equipped with "links" that render the weapon inoperable if a launch is triggered by anything other than the way it was intended. Nukes in other nations such as France, Russia, and the UK have also been proven secure due to the fact that nobody knows where they are. You cant steal what you cant find, and the locations of nuclear facilities cannot be discovered by anyone other than workers and government leaders. Furthermore, its safe to assume that there are significant security forces in every facility of nations that possess nukes, and when combined with the hidden locations, it makes the chance of nuclear theft virtually nonexistant. Due to these reasons I urge you to realize that nuclear weapons cannot possibly be used. Since use is the only so called "risk" with nukes, and that this has been proven obsolete, there are no drawbacks to having nuclear weapons. In summary, the case says nuke use wont happen under any circumstance, thus we have no obligation to not possess. Now I'll attack my opponents case. My opponent's value is the concept of Morality. He says in cross-ex that his contentions are basically extentions of his value so my main arguments against his it will be in attacking the contentions. However, he make a big mistake in his contention 1 where he states that life is a prerequisite to morality. Here he admits that there is something more important than his value. Since life is a prerequisite, if I can prove no life is violated then I outweigh on all his morality concepts. His criterion is the protection of lives. This can be turned to the negative side right now. I have shown you how we are already safe from nuclear weapons, thus lives are already protected. Furthermore, under my criterion of maintaining constancy, the safety we have from nukes will not change. Lives are protected under the negative side. Contention 1: He states consequentialism, evaluating actions based on consequences, states that nukes are immoral, since launch causes destruction. However my opponent is evaluating the wrong action. In his resolution we are not evaluating the morality of use. We are evaluating the morality of possession. His entire contention is about the destructive power of nukes, however since we are talking about possession, my opponent must prove that possession leads to use to make this argument. He has not. He fails to provide any link between posession and use. Since he hasnt even tried to prove use will happen, all of his impacts of nuclear war should be thrown out the door, which basically is his contention. Contention 2: He talks about utilitarianism, and how its moral because it provides happiness and what not. However my opponent has never stated how he actually upholds this belief. He only talks about how its not upheld on the neg. My opponent does nothing to provide utilitarianism himself. He states that because nuke weapons have the capacity to take away life, they're immoral. However this theory cannot be applied to actual real life scenarios. Water has the capacity to kill people. Knives have the capacity to kill people. Does it make them immoral? He then talks about the people wanting nukes to be gone. However the majority of the people arent as knowledgable about MAD theories and nuclear weapon safety as we are, as we have researched this topic extensively. If they were aware of how safe having nukes are, they would not feel that way Contention 3: Deontology states nukes are immoral because they're predicated on threats and bad intent. Once again these moral theories have no real life application. By this logic it is immoral for me to threaten my opponent with imprisonment if he becomes a serial killer. It is immoral for me to threaten to sue a health insurance company if they refuse to pay for treatment. It is immoral for me to fight back against an attacker because by fighting I'm showing bad intent. This theory isnt applicable to any real life scenarios. Contention 4: He talks about irrational leaders and terrorists. Irrational leaders are irrational, not stupid. He is incorrect in stating they have nothing to lose. If a nuke destroys their country they have nothing to exert their absolute power over, thus they will avoid nuclear conflict. Terrorist threat has been disproven by my sub point C, where I show you how nukes are completely safe from theft. In short, my opponents moral theories sound good on on paper, but when you apply them to real life scenarios you see how ridiculous they are. Since nukes wont be used, states have no obligation to not possess. I urge a con vote.