The atomic bomb has helped our society

Thanks, Pro.I'll start with my case. Rebuttals are saved for R2.Nuclear Weapons are Detrimental to National Security. The existence of nuclear weapons creates unprecedented security problems when conjoined with global terrorism and WMD proliferation. Rouge states –such as Iran and North Korea- have successfully obtained nuclear arms technology through black-market channels and have repeatedly threaten their neighbors with war and annihilation in violation of military treaties and international law. Global terrorist groups –such as ISIL and Al Qaeda- have also sought WMD materials in the past, and others (like the AQ Khan network) have been successful. Deterrence policies of Mutually Assured Destruction are simply too unreliable at preventing a nuclear attack in the face of jihadists and tyrannical dictators who have no regard for human life and cannot be counted on to act rationally. Nuclear Winter Presents an Existential Threat to Humanity, Even by Accident. According to the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, there are as many as 10,000 nuclear weapons in the world today (http://thebulletin.org...). Many of which are hundreds to thousands of times more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the event of an all out nuclear exchange between Russia and the United States, it’s been demonstrated time and again by the DoD that close to 400 million people could die as a result of a first strike (https://www.nrdc.org...). This scenario is likely followed by a mass extinction event will be unlike anything ever encountered in Earth’s history. Billions of people will starve due to famine and damages to natural resources caused by radioactive smoke that won’t go away and could last for centuries (http://www.nucleardarkness.org...). In a well-publicized incident on January 25, 1995, Russian radar systems mistook the launch of a weather rocket from Norway for a possible nuclear attack. President Yeltsin was handed a nuclear briefcase and given five to ten minutes to decide if he should order a retaliatory strike against the US; his patience narrowly avoiding a global catastrophe (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Nuclear Arsenals are Unethical and Undemocratic. As disturbingly demonstrated above, in the event of a nuclear showdown, Presidents and heads of state have just minutes to unilaterally decide whether or not to order a nuclear strike. The speed and velocity of a nuclear crisis permits little to no consolations with chief policy advisers, legislative bodies, other branches of government, military officials, United Nations, and certainly no consent from the nation’s people at large. Likewise there is almost no legal check on the President’s decision making powers or mental-state to order a nuclear war, what follows after a launch order is a simultaneous, systematic, and computerized execution of the most powerful weapons on earth. The use of nuclear weapons hereby isn’t just undemocratic by nature, is also unethical. Nuclear Weapons are a waste of time, money, and national resources, and are super costly to maintain.The Brookings Institute estimates that the US spends close to $30-35 billion a year on operating costs for the current nuclear arsenal(http://www.brookings.edu...). This is followed by a $1 trillion modernization program that will take place between now and 2030 that is needed to keep the half-life on the missiles from expiring. This kind of funding could obviously be better spent in more effective areas of defense and deterrence (such as airforces, army battalions, and navy carriers) and weapons that won't just "sit on the shelf." An argument could also be made that money could be better used for economic and humanitarian causes.Nuclear Weapons prevent progress on international issues and spur fear.Arms-races & Cold Wars. Nuclear testing. To be continued.