The United States of America should unilaterally disarm its nuclear arsenal

Hello, and thank you for posting your arguments. I'll take this time to reconstruct my own points when necessary and deconstruct your arguments in preparation for the rebuttal rounds.To all who vote on this debate, let me remind you that I set forth very specific and unchallenged criteria that my opponent must meet to win this debate. To reiterate, he must demonstrate that nuclear weapons grant the United States immense and unique benefits, and that these nuclear weapons will be unique, necessary, and sufficient in their ultimate goal. During this round I'll be primarily focusing on how my opponent did not satisfactorily meet these criteria and I'll cover some of the dropped points and what their current status as concessions mean for the round. Con actually offers us three independent points about the same topic, that is the power of the United States, and then offers a distorted moral calculus by which we should judge these weapons. I will cover all of these individually.1. Deterrence Con states that it is better for us to have the best weapons on the face of the planet because we are a superpower. He makes his first mistake when he judges our status as superpower based solely on the potency of our weapons, and then draws the conclusion based on his own unsubstantiated premise that we need these weapons because we are a superpower. But he forgets what actually makes us a superpower. We have the most powerful economy in the world. We spend five times more than our closest competitor on defense annually. Countries whose currencies fail take up the dollar because it is so stable. Nuclear weapons themselves do not make or break our status as a superpower, so voters should judge this round based on the unique benefits that nuclear weapons provide weighed against the costs and opportunity costs of maintenance. Con makes this point about deterrence but never really clarifies why the weapon does a better job of deterring than the other aspects I've mentioned. Why doesn't China attack us? Is it because of our nukes? Of course not! China doesn't attack us because there is no earthly reason good enough to invade the United States of America and engage in protracted warfare with the most powerful military in the world. There is no good reason to wage war on the nation that your country's economy is ridiculously dependent on. Con fails to warrant the uniqueness of nuclear weapons as a deterrent and never actually explains why these other elements are insufficient alone. 2. Power ProjectionCon goes on to assert that this gives us unique power because we can instantly blow people up and kill millions of civilians. He then impacts this point by suggesting that this gives us power in diplomatic situations. This is interesting, because Con presents this distorted view of diplomacy as though threatening other countries is the best way to get what we want. A few contentions come to mind right away. Con acts as though we frequently use threat of nuclear holocaust as leverage in diplomatic talks, but I challenge him to name a recent situation in which we have threatened to use nukes or even insinuated the possibility of deployment. To gain leverage in Syria, we threatened to send troops in or utilize our dominant air force. In Iran, we sanctioned them economically because we have great economic leverage. Con ignores my point about how power politics are likely to fuel the image of an arrognat hegemon bent on pervasive regional influence, and instead chooses to assert that nuclear weapons bring a unique element to the table that cannot be done without. However, as I've shown, we really never use them as leverage. All Con has left from this point is the notion that, in the back of the minds of foreign diplomats, they know we have nukes, but they also know we never really intend to use them in essentially all modern foreign affairs. Con must first justify the effectiveness of power politics and then he must somehow prove that nukes can and have achieved, in recent history, what our military and economy cannot. 3. SecurityCon again asserts that other nations will not want to engage in warfare with us as a direct result of our nuclear arsenal. Not because of our economy on which much of the world is dependent. Not because of our military, which is so bloated that it takes the next 14 countries to match its funding. Not because of our strong alliance with the majority of Europe, Canada, and Australia. But because of our nukes. I stated that Con must show evidence of unique benefits that nuclear weapons provide, and he has failed to do so. I'm sorry, but if it's the offensive weapons that can potentially kill millions of innocent civilians in another nation that helps you sleep at night, and not our powerful economy or elephantine military, then you need to reasses your sense of morality. Which brings me to my next point.4. EthicsCon seems to have no grasp of what is ethical and what is not. He doesn't even attempt to challenge my Kantian framework, nor does he seem to understand the difference between a consequentialist and deontological moral lens. Because nuclear weapons destroy the will to fight, and because, as Con specifically states, a good leader would use nuclear weapons in times of war, acts that go against our ethics can be ostensibly prevented. That's interesting. I'd like to know what ethics Con is referring to here. Because if the ethics are "don't kill people". then Con is endorsing killing people to stop people from killing people. But is he endorsing killing soldiers who are fighting against our men? No! He is endorsing killing innocent civilians to prevent others from killing troops! This is a grossly distorted view of morality! As was stated, Kant asserts that we have a categorical imperative not to act against what we view to be moral truths. This weapon isn't just designed to use one man as a means to an end, but millions of innocent civilians! This is in direct violation of Kantian ethics, which my opponent did not really challenge. He only justifies the usage of nuclear weapons through the prevention of immoral acts, when, in reality, he is endorsing immorality to prevent immorality. Therefore, Con is endorsing a contradictory moral calculus which cannot and should not be accepted by voters. Con cannot on one hand say that it is wrong to allow troops to die and proceed to state that we have an obligation to prevent their deaths by wantonly slaughtering innumerable innocent men, women, and children in other nations, directly violating their autonomy and thereby their dignity, spitting in the face of the moral compass of any sane man. Con also interestingly defends the use of nuclear weapons during war time while ignoring the fact that he is attempting to argue that nuclear weapons deter war. If we were ever in war with a nation that had no nukes, it would mean that deterrants had failed, even the threat of slaughtering citizens in the event of an invasion. If we were ever in a war with a nation that DID have nukes, then the same conclusions can be drawn, but we can also cross-apply my point regarding escalation in nuclear war. The point, as Con seems to believe, is deterrence, but what is the deterrence? "If you nuke me I'll nuke you", essentially. So if we nuke another country, and that country decides to retaliate, we find ourselves engaged in an escalating nuclear war that would result in the deaths of FAR more people than it would ever save. Allow me to frame the round:Con warrants none of his assertions. His entire argument is predicated on the notion that nuclear weapons deter war. He doesn't even explain how mutually assured destruction works, nor does he impact this to warrant his point, but he also fails to meet the criteria I've set for him. I specifically stated that the uniqueness and the necessity of the nukes must be warranted, and Con has unequivocally failed on this account. Sure, nukes are threatening, but so is the idea of a protracted war with the most powerful nation on the planet whose economy fuels the economies of many nations (including China). Sure, I guess nukes could be used as leverage, but Con cannot name a single case in recent history in which diplomatic relations have been improved by utilization of this leverage, as his point is non-unique. The United States uses its preponderant military and economic influence to gain power over the decisions of other nations, not its nuclear arsenal. And as I stated, if he does not win the morality point, he cannot possibly win the debate. Con provides us with this distorted, misapplied, and contradictory consequentialist framework that asserts that death is bad, so we should prevent these harms by doing what he just stated is bad and slaughtering countless innocents. If his ends require preservation and respect of the autonomy of human lives, then how does he justify the taking of lives, rendering his moral calculus inconsistent? More importantly, how does he warrant his moral calculus? Mine is backed by actual philosophical literature, which I'll post below [1], while his is some unsubstantiated, contradictory nonsense. Con, most importantly, never addresses the unique benefits that I provide. He hopes to outweigh these benefits, but as I've shown, my benefits are uniquely realized through the resolution, while con's are non-unique and dubious at best. We will save money, we will improve our image, not as a hegemonic, power-hungry nation, but as a nation willing to take the initiative to pursue peace and a nuclear-free world. We will have a better chance at convincing other nations to disarm as well, as I've stated. We save money and reduce the chances of a nuclear disaster/accidental launch, more points which Con ignores. Con must coherently address my moral framework as well as warrant uniqueness and necessity of nukes to grant us a dubious benefit, weighed against the tangible benefits I've provided. [1] http://plato.stanford.edu...