Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I will begin by rebuilding my case and then attacking my opponents. Core Value: Merriam Webster's dictionary defines good as "something conforming to the moral order of the universe." This is what Kant was getting at when he wrote "possessing good intent constitutes the only condition of moral activity" (http://www.merriam-webster.com...). Kant was a firm believer in natural law, in universal morals or ethical duties to live by, so I agree with my opponent that means are just as important as ends. This by no means equates to no just wars. The means of defending civil liberties during the Civil War were just. Yes they involved killing Confederate soldiers, but in the microsphere of soldier vs. soldier and excluding outcomes, Union soldiers were defending their homes, their lives, and their capitol from an invading force. The Confederates fired the first shots and then marched on Washington at Bull Run (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Most importantly, they were fighting to end the evil practice of slavery. They possessed good intent as defined by Merriam Webster and Emmanuel Kant which is why it was a just war. Contention 1: Deterrence for large scale wars My opponent does not deny that deterrence is effective; however I must address that she misunderstands how it works. It is not that nations feel it would be sinister to annihilate their enemies; it is that they realize their enemy's annihilation means their annihilation. It is mutually assured destruction, not mutually assured guilt. Contention 2: Nuclear Weapons may be used justifiably My opponent attacked my contention by saying nations should have pursued diplomacy instead. However in each of the examples, The Revolutionary War, The Civil War, and The Second World War, diplomacy was pursued and failed. During Antebellum America, Northerners and Southerners tirelessly debated the issue of Slavery from the Compromise of 1820 to the Compromise of 1850 before the Southern Slaveholders seceded and fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 (http://en.wikipedia.org...). The United States even levied an embargo on supplying Japanese Oil in an effort to force it to abandon its military ambitions in the Pacific months before the attack on Pearl Harbor (http://en.wikipedia.org...). I agree with my opponent that it is wrong to "slaughter a person who perceives human rights differently than you," but I disagree that using nuclear weapons to end a war against a nation that along with Germany practiced Lebanserrum (genocide of the local population to create living space for your people) makes WWII unjust (http://en.wikipedia.org...). It is the fundamental right of a nation to defend itself from invasion by an aggressor nation. If nations did not defend themselves and defend allies, the only nations that would exist are those that would exist by brute force. There would be no such thing as democracy, as liberty. Nations have a right to defend themselves, and in large scale wars nations have a right to defend themselves with the bigger guns: nuclear weapons. Contention 3: Supervision of Nuclear Arms My opponent argues that if something requires supervision it is "too dangerous to operate by one's own will… it is probably immoral." However I would like to remind my opponent that many things are supervised not because they are always immoral, but because they can be potentially harmful. Money, energy, and education are all monitored and supervised in the U.S. by the National Reserve, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Education to ensure that these powerful tools of our society are used to the benefit of our society. As I have mentioned before, during an unsolicited war, it is the right of the non-aggressor nation to defend itself, this is the correct use of a nuclear weapon, and it is the only example we see in history. Nations have not misused this privilege; I see no sense in revoking it without precedence. Wars in defense of principles, in defense of human rights, and in defense of lives are just. Occasionally diplomacy is tested and fails. Nuclear Weapons may be used in these wars justifiably. In addition they are effective tools of deterrence and the world community has demonstrated they are capable of using them responsibly. My Opponents Core Value: The Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stevens said the Confederacy "rest[ed] upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth" I must argue that a war for liberation is undeniably ethical, especially since slaveholders would rather die than give up the heinous crime of slavery (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Opponent's first contention: In the history of this weapon there were two bombings, the scorecard reads 225000 : 0 with two of Japan's industrial military cities destroyed. We will never know just how many American and Japanese lives were saved because we were able to end the war without a full scale invasion, but we can understand from these two demonstrations why nations are so willing to spend money on this technology. Again a modest nuclear budget would offer us deterrence which my opponent did not deny, and would cost merely a fraction of our current military budget. The resolution is ought not, it does not matter how big the arsenal is just whether or not they have one. I maintain a small arsenal would be worth the cost. Opponent's second contention: It was war, Japan was the aggressor, and we wanted the war to be over. In order to stop the Third Reich and put an end to the genocide committed by Germany without Nuclear Weapons the Allies were forced to invade Germany. As a result Germany suffered casualties upwards of 7 billion. When it came to putting a stop to Japan, the United States could not afford another such invasion and luckily they didn't have to. While at War, and with warning the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan's central gears of their imperial machine. It was not a shock, it was not a surprise, and it was war against aggressors who had attacked the U.S. on their own soil. It was in defense of the nation, and it was to end a war that had already cost millions of lives. As a result, the U.S. did not have to invade Japan and Japan suffered far less casualties than Germany, nearly 2.7 million. Perhaps the common good was better served without a high casualty large-scale invasion. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Opponent's third contention: My opponent argues that these weapons do incredible damage, but that they aren't tools of defense. These weapons are the most capable in our military arsenal and are responsible for ending WWII, they are tools of defense. "Nations are well aware of the 2 uses" and if Nations are sending a signal as my opponent asserts than it's a message that supports my contention of deterrence: "the holding nation is more powerful than those without weapons like this." Also if nuclear weapons are something nations can "gloat" about, they must not be so useless after all otherwise the experienced, educated leaders of the world wouldn't be so interested in them. I understand many of my opponent's qualms with nuclear weapons, including cost and devastation, but considering their usefulness as deterrents to large scale wars, their justifiable use, and their supervision by a responsible world community, I do must negate the resolution.