We should ban all Nuclear Weapons

Answer to my opponent's four questions. "What about the danger of the human race?" The human race cannot be wiped out by nuclear weapons thus I would find the danger they pose to existence of the race zero. "Do you realize these weapons can end up in terrorist"s hands?" I realize that it is theoretically possible for these weapons to end up in the hands of terrorist. This is a risk I consider acceptable since the pros of nuclear weapons outweigh the cons. In addition, abolishing nuclear weapons still wouldn't prevent terrorist from being able to get their hands on them. In fact the reaction of abolishment could cause an increase production of nuclear weapons among rogue nations, which would in turn increase the likelihood a terrorist group would be able to acquire them. "Do you realize that radiation will cause long term effects on people"s health?" I realize that the long term effects of the radiation of a nuclear bomb are very minor. I suspect that my opponent may believe a few myths about nuclear weapons. I recommend that my opponent visit http://www.oism.org... so they can learn the truth instead of the myths they believe. "Do you really wanna kill more innocent people then enemy"s?" I do not want to kill more innocent people than the enemy. In fact my respect of innocent people's lives is the reason why I support nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have many non/semi lethal uses. While the next strongest bomb lacks non/semi lethal uses. The end result of banning is guaranteed mass civilian death in the situation of a massive war. Now to rebuttal my opponents argument. "These are enough to incinerate the entire population of the planet five times over." Common myth that comes from faulty calculations. I recommend people who believe this myth visit http://www.oism.org... so they can learn the truth. "The existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a continuous and totally unnecessary threat to the population of our planet making both true peace and peace of mind impossible." Quite the opposite, without nuclear weapons, people would have to fear a constant threat of thermobaric weapons or war in general. In fact deterrence has provide a sense of peace between the superpowers, it prevents them from going to war with each other. In the event of a war, nuclear weapons provide alternate uses that are non-lethal. Also there comes the peace of mind that if we were to get a last minute warning of an asteroid, we can either destroy it(if it is small) or deflect it (if it is large) which is only possible with nuclear weapons. "Of the 192 states of the United Nations only 8 have built and deploy nuclear weapons" This isn't surprising since nuclear weapons are difficult to make. Also it is a good thing since there is only 8 nations that nuclear weapons can be gotten from. It makes it far more difficult for rogue nations or groups from getting their hands on them. "The remaining 184 states are put at risk by the 8 who have them." They would be at much greater risk if no body had them. "Of the eight states that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations of those states been asked if they want them." The only way the populace of these 8 nations would be against nuclear weapons, would be if they believed the massive amounts of myths in circulations, such myths that my opponent believes. "Nuclear weapons are to dangerous it will spread radiation which will kill more people as time goes by. Animals would die because there food and water are covered with radiation it will ruin the environment." Another misconception of the effects of radiation. Radiation levels often become safe for people to leave shelters about 2 weeks after the explosion. "As of 2005 the Nuclear Weapon in NYC costs $10 trillion dollars we don't have money for that we are in debt almost $20 million dollars" I don't know exactly what my opponent was saying in this sentence. they should clarify it. But if my opponent was talking about the cost of nuclear weapons in NYC, then their statistics are terrible wrong. The total cost of all of the effects of nuclear weapons in the entire united states from years 1940 to 1998 was only 5.8 trillion. I don't know how my opponent would have gotten 10 trillion for just one city. "he World Council of Churches, through a Muslim-Christian Initiative," This group likely doesn't understand the effects of nuclear weapons. "particularly nuclear weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non combatants and inevitably destroy innocent human life, even as they destroy other forms of life such as animals and vegetation, cause irrevocable damage to the environment for many generations to come and cause human suffering and disease." This greatly ignores that nuclear weapons have non-lethal uses, it also overestimates the long term effects of a nuclear weapon which are very minor. If you look at the two bombs dropped on japan, the places where they are without effects of the nuclear bomb. This is unlike chemical weapons which can stay in the ground for long periods of time, and biological weapons which aren't aimed at all and spread based on contact. I now have a five questions for my opponent. Are you aware that you have stated several myths and misconceptions about nuclear weapons? Are you aware that nuclear weapons have non-lethal and semilethal uses with very few negatives? Are you aware that any attempt at banning nuclear weapons would result in rogue nations being the only ones to have them? Are you aware that if we were to somehow successfully ban nuclear weapons, it would result in an arms race of thermobaric weapons? Are you aware that nuclear weapons are our only option if we got a late warning of an asteroid?