Nuclear weapons are here to stay.

Starting with dropped arguments:I've limited this to 5k characters to make reading this debate more palatable, so I chose to remove some clever responses to trolling.I didn't drop legitimate arguments:Another super weapon could make nukes obsoleteThe title can't always be the resolution because of space restraints. My title is a simplified version of the resolution meant to convey the idea in simplistic and attractive form. The resolution is relatively complex, takes up the entire first round, and takes into account the obsolescence of a-bombs by the means of a nastier weapon. I have heard much wishful musing over the years about the total elimination of the world's nuclear stockpiles. However, I contend that this will not occur, unless a more destructive or effective weapon is found. I thought I made it clear that this resolution is a response to unrealistic peacenicks.Nukes are obsolete since they kill too many civiliansThat's the goal of terrorists.Empire BuildingMany times my opponent seeks to discount many conflicts I cited as too old to matter. If a large number of world leaders during the time of the conflict are still today world leaders, I do not think it is too old to matter. Those current world leaders certainly don't think those conflicts are irrelevant. In fact, WWII still has two nations technically at war. [1]Korea, Vietnam, Cuban Missle Crisis, PRC vs. ROCThese were all in part empirical wars. They were all part of the Cold War, Communistic nations vs. non-. Communism has always had as it's goal the overthrow of all other powers.[2,3] This may not always have been stateless socialism, but whenever practical, the Soviet Union exercised what control it could over a new communist country.[4] Where USSR wasn't so involved, such as Vietnam, Imperialist motives still apply, as Communism is always a vehicle to take from one group to empower another for thier own gain."Russia and Georgia? = I dont think wars that last 9 days counts as empire building since empire building by definition is warfare that is waged just to expand the borders of one nation.."Duration doesn't matter. Russia added South Ossetia and Abkhazia to it's empire this way."Iran-Iraq War? = this is the one war that was indeed a empirical war, however that ended in a spectacular failure.."Success does not negate motive."..if heavy bombing is used by warring nations then how come the US did not bomb Baghdad to oblivion when they invaded in 2003, or Kabul in 2001?"I've provided examples of how recent conflicts involved heavy bombing. Just because 2 recent wars have not used it does not mean it is obsolete. What major countries that have the ability for heavy bombing have abandoned thier bomber fleets because thier role is obsolete? We still have plenty of B-52s.The American Civil War is in no way as modern as other wars being fought today. It doesn't have to include all the newest tech to be modern, as opposed to ancient. The Civil War is widely considered to be the first 2nd generation war.[5] Everything before that to 4000 BC is 1st gen: Ancient. "Yeah but there is still a difference between [religion and ideology]"Not always. Religion is always an ideology, and some ideologies attempt to replace religion. They're close enough to combine. "Cold War "No, not a normal war. But people died. It didn't turn into all out war many times because of nuclear deterrent. A reason for nuclear bombs to persist."Jihad? Used by one force in one place for one war who do not have nuclear weapons to begin with and are currently getting their a** whipped"My point in mentioning all these wars is to show the motives for war are persistant, not to show nuclear war exists. Nonetheless, Muslim extremists refer to the atomic bomb as the Islamic bomb.Pakistan + India2010 was one of the bloodiest years of the conflict[6]"Nuclear war wont happen over revenge because revenge is relative to time"The Pro responds to this argument by citing ONE war..."See [4] in last round. It didn't have to happen. Iraq attempted to develop nukes during a war of revenge.So the fact that the US and Russia...does NOT imply the world is disarming?Nope, just them. And if we get a conservative president next time, START probably won't stand.Lastly, if WW3 breaks out, all nukes will be eliminated because it is possible, but foolish, to commit all of ones forces in a single deployment? I do not see the logic in this.While I think there are a few good arguments that could be made against me, he hasn't used them yet.[1] http://en.rian.ru...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://soviet-awards.com...[4] http://www.gcsehistory.org.uk...[5] http://wiki.answers.com...[6] http://www.aljazeera.com...