No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons

I would not like to take this time to refute my opponents counter-arguments. Firstly, he points out my error when I spoke of the Cold War. I meant in my statement that little violence was seen between the Soviet Union and the United States, not that there was no conflict at all. Pro argued that a nuclear stand-off was not worth it and it would be less risky to have engaged in conventional warfare with the Soviet Union and Japan. Con would like to argue that the risks of a nuclear stand-off would be less substantial than both options a) and b). First of all, Japan would not have surrendered to the Americans for many years, extending WWII. We can see this through the Japanese determination not to surrender. For example, during the United States conquering of Iwo Jima, of the 21,000 defending Japanese 216 surrendered, the rest fought to the death. Even after nuclear weapons were dropped on Japan, senior army officers wanted to continue the fight and were determined to never surrender. Continuing conventional warfare would have led to a massive amount of Japanese, American, and Russian casualties, even more than that caused by the A-Bombs. Secondly, engaging in conventional warfare with the Soviet Union might spark another World War because of the political connections with both countries. Peace talks were held, yet they failed to produce results. Pro also argued that nuclear weapons would increase genocides and that nuclear weapons don't act as a deterrent because these genocides still occurred. First of all, I used genocide as an example. I apologize for forgetting my source for the true event, not anecdote, that occurred during the Gulf War. This proves that the deterrent effect that nuclear weapons still exists and happens. I have included the book that the information came from and the author. Secondly, nuclear wars would be very effective at stopping genocide. Though it is true that many genocides occurred even though nuclear weapons existed, the reason that they occurred was because of a lack of will in nuclear intervention from other countries. I will now move on to refuted my opponents constructive point. My opponent has stated that nuclear weapons gives more countries more power, and that these countries become "paranoid" and may dictate whether other countries may possess nuclear weapons. However, that is incorrect. The United States and Russia have had nuclear weapons for a long time, yet did they dictate whether or not North Korea got to develop nuclear weapons? Though countries had nuclear weapons, they didn't dictate whether other countries could have them or not. Now, India, China, France, the United Kingdom, Russia, the United States, Pakistan, and North Korea possess nuclear weapons with no real intervention from earlier nuclear nations. Furthermore, countries that possess nuclear weapons share them with other countries! The United States shared nuclear weapons with Germany, Belgium, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey. Clearly, "hyper-aggressive" behaviour is non-existent. My opponent has not refuted any of my arguments and I have refuted all his attempts to do so. All of my arguments still stand. On the other hand, I have effectively refuted my opponents first argument.