Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

To begin my case, I accept my opponent's definitions. However the contravening core value I'll hold up in this debate is Just War. The eighteenth German philosopher Kant believed "possessing good intent constitutes the only condition of moral activity, regardless of the consequences envisioned or caused, and regardless, or even in spite, of any self interest in the action the agent may have" (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). After the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation shifted the focus of the Civil War from preserving the Union to freeing the nearly four million African Americans in bondage, it satisfied the conditions of moral activity and became a just war. In this case I disagree with Franklin and my opponent that there has never been a "good war. " The judging criteria intrinsic to Just War Theory, is human rights and whether or not they are being violated or upheld. Individuals' unalienable rights defined by Merriam Webster "(as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons"(. http://www.merriam-webster.com...) I'll begin by attacking my opponent's case and then presenting my own. Aff's Contention 1: Nuclear Weapons unnecessarily cost too much money. My opponent's source analyzes the period when spending on nuclear weapons was outpacing spending in any other sector. When stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the 1960's reached roughly 32,000, the bill was outrageous, just as it would be if the U. S. decided to build 32,000 F22 jets running at 150 million each (it would come out to nearly 5000 billion and that's without annual maintenance)(. http://en.wikipedia.org...). My opponents source comes from 1997 when the U. S. arsenal contained "nearly 10, 400," and cost the nation roughly "$26 billion" a year. However reducing the arsenal to "3000-3500" would bring the costs down by 65% to "9 billion a year" (. http://www.cbsnews.com......). A moderate arsenal would not be too extravagant for a military budget and at nine billion would represent a little more than 1.3% of military spending in 2010 (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Aff's Contention 2: Considerable Damage has been done The real question surrounding this contention is not whether or not unthinkable damage has been done. That is not an argument, that is fact. Considerable damage has been done, but it was war. A voluntary war no less perpetrated by the Japanese people. The question we must evaluate is whether or not the damage justifies the weapons possession by Nations. In the cases of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, roughly 225,000 people died. My opponent failed to address that the citizens of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were warned weeks in advance of the bombing as was the nation of Japan. (. http://www.historynet.com...) The truth is these nations were at war with each other and the Bomb was used as a weapon of war. Just as Japanese weapons of war killed 300,000 Chinese in the Nanjing Massacre. This weapon of war is destructive like every other weapon of war. However in reality we cannot hold the bomb responsible, nor can we hold the U. S. responsible for doing what a nation does when it's at war. In the end if you warn a nation at war, if you continue there will be consequences, that nation must accept responsibility for its actions. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Aff's Contention 3: No proof My opponent argues that these weapons do not give the nations that possess them greater clout on the world stage. I must agree that they may not make you an overnight superpower, but I must argue that this is not their point. They are weapons in a military arsenal, like the muskets that were stored in Lexington and Concord, meaning, they are tools of defense and not scepters of dominance. Neg Case Contention 1: Nuclear Weapons provide effective deterrence for large scale wars. In game theory Nash Equilibrium is what happens when each player makes his very best move considering the foreknowledge of his opponent's very best move (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). Essentially in nuclear war this translates to Russia destroying all our cities with the knowledge that we'll reciprocate before we die. In the end when both Nations realize they cannot have victory without losing everything it creates this stalemate and we have the metaphorical bunker that saves us from Nuclear Armageddon: Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) (. http://en.wikipedia.org...).It is because of MAD that nuclear strikes are a reality but never Nuclear War. In essence we can keep North Korea from blowing up Seoul and at the same time rest assured Russia will never obliterate us. We can have our cake and eat it too! Contention 2: Nuclear Weapons may be used justifiably. Just wars exist. The American Revolution, The Civil War, and World War II were all fought by the U. S. in the interests of defending human rights. In these wars, firing your musket was not a crime, in these wars the real crime was putting it down. Surrendering to tyranny, slavery, or fascism was the morally repugnant thing to do. In these wars firing a nuclear warhead at a military target is entirely justifiable. It is the difference between half a million men pulling a trigger to end a war and one man pushing a button. These weapons should be kept and preserved like the second amendment as a shield to defend human rights and as a sword to strike down tyranny. Contention 3: Nuclear Weapons are closely supervised by the world community to efface misuse. Nuclear weapons possession has been effectively deterred by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty since 1970. There are only nine nations that possess nuclear weapons and they are monitored by the U. N. Security Council. Five of those nations make up the Security Council for the U. N. and the rest have non-violent records of possession. Since their discovery in the 1940's only two have been used, both by the U. S. and both during World War II against the Japanese Empire. Nations have shown considerable restraint and responsibility when it comes to these highly volatile and dangerous weapons; they have proven they are capable of possessing them without misusing them. In summation Nuclear Weapons like guns ought not be used indiscriminately. Nuclear Nations have proven they can handle this. As well as nuclear weapons incontrovertible power as a means of deterrence and their inestimable value as tools of just war, therefore I must negate the resolution Resolved: Nations Ought Not Possess Nuclear Weapons.