Even if we could abolish nuclear weapons, we shouldn't.

I do not disagree with my opponent that rogue nations would not have MAD apply to them. This is why I do not support Iran getting a nuclear energy program. Unfortunately rogue nations and parties are not a good enough reasons to abolish nuclear weapons. This is because of two reason. One, we have missile defense programs adequate for rogue nations any nuclear weapons they launch are going to be shot down. Two, even if a rogue nation shot a nuclear weapon, this would not start a nuclear war since rogue nations wouldn't have ballistic missile silos. Effectively, if we were hit by a nuclear weapon from North Korea, we wouldn't hit them with a nuclear weapon, we would merely conventional bomb the daylights out of them. The only situations when we would actually use a nuclear weapon against another country, would be against China and Russia since these nations have several ballistic missile silos and a strong military force. Now my opponent seems confused, I do not believe that I have used the word satellites in any of my arguments. When I was talking about EMPs, I was referring to ground electronics which are a vital part of any military. On the point of ballistic missiles, it seems I am going to need to clarify my reasoning. Now con believes that my reasoning for using nuclear weapons to take out ballistic missiles is to be cost effective. Nuclear weapons are not cost effective for intercepting ballistic missiles, they are actually quite expensive due to the nuclear material, but the reason why I recommend use of them as a defense measure is because they are the most likely to succeed at taking out several ballistic missiles or a ballistic missile with counter measures. If some nation shoots a large volley of ballistic missiles or one with counter measures, it is preferable that you take out all of the ballistic missiles. Unfortunately, conventional interceptors of ballistic missiles can be overwhelmed by multiple ballistic missiles or by counter measures. Would you rather keep nuclear weapons or get hit by a ballistic missile? Con has made the claim throughout his rebuttal that any of the uses I proposed for nuclear weapons would cause the other side to be paranoid. I feel that my opponent fails to understand that nuclear weapons are not used lightly. If there was a situation where the US needed to hit the enemy with a nuclear EMP or intercept a volley of ballistic missiles, we are already past the point of pulling out the nuclear gun. I feel my opponent has another misconception. This one is caused by the common myth that a nuclear war would kill of humanity. Fortunately, even if all of the nuclear weapons in the world were launch with the purpose of killing all humans, it would fail. In addition, a nuclear war isn't going to focus on killing humans. In a nuclear war, the nations would focus on military targets, most of the nuclear weapons would target hard targets such as missile silos. In addition, when nuclear weapons are used for war, a larger blast radius is preferred, thus in a nuclear war most nuclear weapons used would be air burst. My opponent seems to not be aware the benefits nuclear weapons provide in NEO deflections. My opponent seems to think that nuclear explosions are not needed at all. While I would agree that if you knew a mount everest sized asteroid was going to hit earth 15 years in advance, gravitational tractors would be the best choice, but that doesn't mean we will always get a 15 year head start. For sanity's sake we had a meteor in 2013 that we didn't even see until it was on car dashboard cams, and that russian meteor had a force 20-30 times stronger than the nuclear weapon dropped on hiroshima. If we can fail to see a meteor until it hits, then surely there are going to be situations where we fail to see it decades in advance. Nasa simulations conducted by Bong Wie, showed that proper use of a nuclear device would destroy a "...1,000-foot-wide asteroid with about 30 days warning would result in less than 0.1 percent of the fragments actually striking Earth.". (1,2) In conclusion my opponent has failed to show that existence of nuclear weapons provide more harm than good. Meanwhile his attempts to discredit the benefits of nuclear weapons has also been shown to be a fluke. He claims that the benefits can be more effectively accomplished without using nuclear weapons, but I have shown otherwise. - 1. http://www.cbsnews.com... 2.http://www.space.com...