Global Nuclear War is good

Im going to do a quick overview then I will break my argument of how Global Nuclear war is good down into four parts Biosphere collapse debate Nuclear war solvency debate Survivability debate Mindset shift debate Then I will do a quick underview Overview. Biosphere collapse is inevitable " our species continues to pillage the planet and one way or the other we are going to destroy it- my Barry in 15 evidence is very specific to this. The only way that we can attempt to get rid of our current mindset in relation to the environment and war is to have a minimal regret strategy- to have a nuclear war. The only way we have a chance of surviving is to start an all our nuclear war! This is my Caldwell 10 evidence that calls for an all our nuclear war because it is the only way we can ever shift our consciousness. This shift in consciousness will "Create a world beyond the dichotomy of war" meaning that this will indeed be the war to end all wars. This will create not only a world we respect ourselves and other like us but the environment and other species that we live with as well. I only need to win four things. 1. In the world of the Con we are all dead from the impending biosphere collapse. 2. The nuclear war stops the biosphere from collapsing. 3. Some form of life will continue to exist on Earth. 4. That life will have a peaceful mindset which stops error replication. Look this debate is a very simple one. The biosphere is going to collapse because of overpopulation, Resource depletion and inequality. A nuclear war would solve these things and that in fact a nuclear would not be the end of the world because life would survive the nuclear war and that their then would be a mindset shift that takes place in the minds of the survivors. Lets break the debate down Biosphere Collapse Debate: Look the argument here is that because of overpopulation, Resource depletion and inequality that the biosphere is going to collapse. The Con just says the words no that this won't happen but this isn"t good enough to answer the warrants of the Barry evidence. This means that your going to preferring the Barry evidence since the Con does not provide any evidence as to why those three thing will not cause biosphere collapse. They haven"t done any work here and until they do I am winning the Collapse debate if they bring up new evidence it justifies new evidence by me as well as arguments such as time frame of the collapse but until that happen I have done enough work to Win the Collapse debate Solvency Debate: The argument here is that a nuclear war would solve overpopulation, Inequality and, Resource depletion. They would do this by taking out the industrialized parts of the world I don"t need any evidence to back up my claims here because they Con read this evidence for me in their first round when they said that the nukes would take the cities out and the fact that it would also take out electronics. When the industrialized parts of the world are taken out there are not any factories left to make things that consume resources this means that it solved the collapse. Don"t let them make the argument that there are already enough cars and tech that is already made to trigger the collapse their own evidence has already answered this back because they claimed in the first round that a nuclear war would take out our current tech base. The Con here again just says the word no. This is not going to be good enough on this question when they literally said that nukes would take out cities and our tech base last round. This means that I am winning the collapse debate They also say that war should not happen. But if we don"t nuke we will all be dead from the collapse and not just humans will be killed in the collapse it will kill all living things on Earth, We must nuke now to save the planet. I will get to more on the mindset shift question but this war will be the war to end all wars meaning that when the Con says that war is bad and we should not have it the only way to end all current wars and prevent future ones is to vote Pro Survivability: They argument here is the fact that a nuclear war will not cause the extinction of life and that there will be life after the nuclear war. The evidence here is extremely good and cites a study that was done that points out that nuclear winter will not affect New Zealand nor radiation even if Australia were to take a direct hit. They Con just says the word No again but does not give any specifics as to how nuclear war will cause extinction which means that you"re going to be preferring the Pro on this question because I cite studies that prove that we would indeed survive the nuclear war They also say that New Zealand should make a new testimony to no war zones this is literally unresponsive to the question of whether or not nuclear war is good or bad and does nothing to resolve the question of biosphere collapse. In fact if anything it makes it harder for a nuclear war to occur ensuring the death of all life on earth because of the collapse. Mindset shift: Look the argument here is that after the war people will see the error of their ways which means the nuclear war stops error replication and to address their question of war being bad" Dr. Caldwell writes in 2003 that nuclear war will be the war to end all wars as well as ending poverty. On the foundation website In the synarchic minimal-regret population, There is no global poverty and no global war. There is no global disease: the risk of a planetary epidemic is minimized, There is no global famine. The scourges of civilization " plague, Famine, And war " are eliminated. (the Minimal regret population is the survivors of the nuclear war) They Con just says no but this is not good enough they didn"t provide a reason as to why the nuclear war wouldn"t cause a mindset shift Underview: Biodiversity collapse is the largest impact in the debate. In a world of extinction no other impact matters. Life is a pre-requisite to other impacts and the focus of stopping bio d collapse is the only impact that matters. Caldwell writes in 2014 Nukes first, Ethics and morals later. Nukes must preclude. From the book Can America Survive Published 2014 The adopted approach does not preclude those higher goals, But it does address the fact that if the planet is destroyed, Then the achievement of those higher goals may be impossible. The adopted approach are necessary for) the achievement of higher goals. The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations Caldwell writes in his book Can America Survive the following Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, That must be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only result in the deaths of six billion people, But also the extinction of mankind and the extinction of all other species on the planet If the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, Millions of people will have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, That represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of human life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today In the End you should vote for the Side the extends life for future generations and not steal it away for short term gratification Caldwell writes in his book Can America survive In the long run, As Keynes noted, We are all dead. In the long run, Our sun runs out of fuel and the biological life of our solar system dies. In the short run, However, Things do matter. Life is not without meaning and purpose, But you must define the meaning and purpose. Your life will be defined by the stands that you take. This planet can support human society and nature for a few more years, Or it can support human society and nature for several billion years more. The choice is ours.