Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

SOR: I affirm the resolution, States ought not possess nuclear weapons. VP: Morality VC: Humanitarianism. Nuclear weapons have the potential to commit irreversable damage. The unnecessary loss of life and damage to natural resources caused by detonation of nuclear weapons is catastrophic. DEFINITIONS: LD Type 4, ought implies that one outweighs the other. States will be defined as the legitimate governments of recognized nations. Nuclear weapons shall be defined as unconventional weapons of mass destruction capable of emitting a blast wave, heat wave, EMP, alpha, beta, and gamma radiation. C-1: Conventional weapons are sufficient A. There really is no need of nuclear weapons when adequate conventional weapons are readily available. When diplomacy fails, and conflict is inevitable, objectives can generally be achieved with out the use of devestating nuclear weapons. B. The accuracy and effects of conventional weapons are much more predictable. There is unspeakable potential for collateral damage when nuclear weapons are used. I concede that there is and has been great collateral damage caused by conventional weapons due to a number of factors. Given that, imagine magnifying that damage exponentially due to circumstances that cannot be controlled such as wind blowing and scattering beta particles! C-2: Humanity Human beings exposed to gamma radiation are forced to endure a cruel and painful demise. Human beings close to ground zero will not suffer as much, if that is any consolation, because the intense heat will consume them. The heat and blast waves flatten or consume manmade objects. Individuals with pacemakers and other medical hardware will be affected by the EMP. Animals, which share biologically similarities to human beings, will also suffer. Plant life, and natural resources will be contaminated for years to come, making the area unihabitable. All of this can be avoided by simply not using nuclear weapons. C-3: Security and accidents A. Growing up, I recall 3 incidents of varying degrees, not from nuclear weapons, but from nuclear energy. Three Mile Island, Kiev, and Chernobyl all had nuclear incidents that were unintentional. Imagine the suffering multiplied by nuclear weapons that are used intentionally! It is inhumane and immoral, especially since it can be avoided! Further, radiation can leak from accidental damage to the weapon itself. B. Can a nation that possesses nuclear weapons maintain them in such a way that they cannot be stolen or tampered with? Generally I would say yes, but there is always the possibility, especially if an inside theft job occurred. C. Can a nation be trusted to not sell such a weapon to a terrorist organization? Legally, they have every right to do just that. If a radical had possession of even a low yield nuclear weapon, it would put people's lives in danger. CONCLUSION: Judges, given the above, it does not pass the common sense test for nations to possess nuclear weapons. I concur that nations have a responsibility to protect their people. I submit to you that they can accomplish this requirement with diplomacy and conventional weapons. If no one has them, no one can use them. I have demonstrated that nuclear weapons are inhumane, and immoral to that end. Nuclear weapons: 1. are not necessary because a suitable alternative exists 2. cause unnecessary suffering 3. are inherently dangerous, and create accountability challenges For these reasons I request a PRO ballot. Thank you.