Even if we could abolish nuclear weapons, we shouldn't.

Thanks to Pro for his argument. The resolution basically states that if we are given the opportunity to eliminate every nuclear weapon in existence, we shouldn't take it. I will use this round to present a brief case against that proposition (i.e. show that we *should* take the opportunity), as well as rebut Pro's case. == Con Case == C1) Failure of MAD Proponents of allowing states to own nuclear weapons believe in the principle of MAD--the theory that since any one country using its weapons offensively would result in a nuclear war that would bring about the destruction of everyone involved, all countries will abstain from using them. However, the principle relies completely on the faulty premise that all governments are rational; it assumes that, by weighing the costs and benefits, all governments will come to the same conclusion to abstain from using their weapons. This is blatantly false. Throughout history we have seen various governments making incredibly stupid decisions, and we have plenty of rogue nations today, such as North Korea, Iran, and Syria, whose ambition and hostility could lead to similarly stupid decisions being made-- such as instigating a nuclear war. Furthermore, MAD assumes that governments are the only actors involved in the possession of nuclear weapons-- what about terrorist organizations? Not all states safeguard their weapons very well from theft, and some states even discretely support such organizations by providing them with resources; these groups have a good chance at getting a hold of state-owned nuclear weapons, and they are especially dangerous because, unlike state governments, they do not have any civilians that they're responsible for, meaning that they are completely free from the consequences of using nuclear weapons offensively. MAD completely fails to account for these non-governmental actors; there is no incentive for them not to obtain and use nuclear weapons. In summary, MAD does *not* nullify the threat posed to humanity by the existence of nuclear weapons. It has two gaping holes in it, so we cannot place our faith it, especially given how high the stakes are. If MAD fails, then humanity could very well destroy itself in a nuclear world war, and there is a very real possibility of irrational governments and terrorist organizations obtaining nuclear weapons. Thus, the indescribably massive potential harm of allowing nuclear weapons to exist easily outweighs any benefits that those weapons could possibly provide. If given the opportunity to eliminate all nuclear weapons, we should take it without hesitation, in the interest of humanity's survival. == Pro Case == R1) War Pro puts forth several war scenarios in which nuclear weapons could be used, both for offense and defense. However, none of these scenarios *require* the use of a nuclear weapon. For example, regarding the scenario about EMPs and satellites, there is a whole branch of weapons technology specifically devoted to combating satellites [1]. And regarding ballistic missiles, Pro openly admits that there are effective ways to stop them aside from nuclear weapons use. The biggest problem with Pro's points here is that just because using a nuclear weapon seems to be the most cost-effective way of accomplishing something doesn't mean that we should use them; when it is feasible to use regular weapons instead, we should always prefer that, because using a nuclear weapon, even for the purposes of defense, immediately makes the other side paranoid and increases the likelihood that the conflict will escalate into nuclear warfare. It is akin to pulling out a gun during a heated argument-- even if it's just as an empty threat, it makes it more likely that the other person will pull out his gun as well and that the confrontation will end in someone getting shot. This argument fails to demonstrate that the existence of nuclear weapons provides any sort of unique benefits that come even close to counter-balancing the threat of nuclear warfare. R2) Asteroids First of all, Pro has not even attempted to demonstrate that there is any significant probability of a large asteroid crashing into Earth; the last time that happened was over *65 million* years ago. Even if we grant that an asteroid would cause more damage than a nuclear war, I have demonstrated that a nuclear war is actually a realistic possibility, whereas Pro has done nothing of the sort for an asteroid collision. In other words, nuclear war is a far, far more relevant threat than an asteroid collision, and thus we should obviously prioritize taking counter-measures against nuclear war-- such as eliminating nuclear weapons. Anyways, nuclear weapons are not necessary the best way to handle an asteroid anyways. Scientific American notes that "it is important not only to deflect a asteroid from a collision course with Earth (primary deflection) but also to avoid knocking the object into a potential return orbit that would cause it to come back a few years later (secondary deflection). Nuclear explosions are not controllable in this way. But a nonnuclear kinetic impact"that is, simply smashing a spacecraft into an NEO"can provide the primary deflection for the vast majority of objects, and a precise secondary deflection, if necessary, could be performed by an accompanying gravity-tractor spacecraft." - In conclusion, I have shown that the existence of nuclear weapons has the potential to cause enormous harm to humanity, and that the possibility of that happening is actually rather significant. Meanwhile, all of the benefits Pro points out can be more effectively accomplished without using nuclear weapons, and some of them are contingent on incredibly unlikely circumstances. The resolution is resoundingly negated. - [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.scientificamerican.com...