Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

First and most importantly I will defend and rebuild my own case then move on to attack my opponent's case. My opponent attacked my core value by saying the Civil War was in fact a "good war" since it fought for slaves' rights and succeeded in securing those rights. While factually I cannot deny this -- it indeed put a stop to the humanitarian crimes committed against slaves -- ethically I must negate my opponent's statement that this was a good war. The good intent, as he said, was there. But the way the Confederacy and the Union executed their disagreement was unethical. If you slaughter a person for not supporting human rights, that doesn't make you any better than him. Due to diplomacy, there are always violent and hypocritical options. I will elaborate further into this in my attack of his second contention. Attack on my Contention 1: My opponent argued that my source contained a year when we had a large amount of these weapons in stock. This does not matter. Looking at the history of spending in the chart I provided, it still costs quite a large sum of money to purchase, maintain, and test these weapons even at a total of 3000-4000, which I still argue is simply too many weapons to possess. Seeing as how there have only been 2 used in the entire history of the weapon, this spending constitutes a ridiculous portion of our nation's budget. As of now, the U. S. has a total of 2468 nuclear weapons and plans to add more to that collection in the coming years. We will spend more than $4 billion dollars just buying the additional 108 weapons we3 plan to collect by 2012. (. http://www.thebulletin.org...) It is not in the common good to buy Weapons of Mass Destruction that likely won't even be used. Attack on my Contention 2: My opponent agreed that damage is done, there's no question there. But he seems to justify the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by saying "we warned them. " Our intent by warning Japan of the coming attacks was to get them to surrender. However, when they didn't, we didn't think about the disaster it would become for the cities' inhabitants. They could not pack up and move their homes and families. They had no defense, yet we still came in and demolished their cities. So the question we've come to reach is, as my opponent said, whether or not the intent justifies the damage. I must say no, since peace was completely disregarded as was the common good of everyone involved. Attack on my Contention 3: In his attack of my third contention, my opponent said, "they are tools of defense and not scepters of dominance. " This assumption could not be further from the truth. If they aren't tools for gloating, then I don't know what is. Nations are well aware of the 2 uses, both by the U. S. Those 2 uses don't constitute a pressing need for a weapon of this caliber. They have no reason to assume they will need thousands of these weapons to protect themselves from some guaranteed nuclear fallout. The purchase of these weapons by the nine nations my opponent brought up is not to protect like he stated. It's sending a signal that the holding nation is more powerful than those without weapons like this. Moving on to attack my opponent's case. Core value: His core value was Just War. "If your intent is good, the result is justified. " I must argue that the actions, or means, that you take to reach a goal matter much more than the goal itself. A suicide bomber strives to do good for his god, and he's even presented the option of 72 virgins in heaven. His goal is to do the right thing for his god, himself, and his country. So the next day he heads for a crowded market place with a bomb hidden under his shirt. He succeeds in reaching his goal after the bomb goes off. He made his god proud and maybe even got those 72 virgins. But everyone will agree that those means to achieving his goal were downright wrong. Even though he had good intent, killing the people he killed is unjustifiable by his goal. Contention 1: Deterrence for large scale wars My opponent offered the conclusion that stalemates are reached when two nations threaten to use a nuclear weapons against each other. The stalemates reached are often formed due to fear, distrust, and panic. It's simply not moral to threaten to do something immoral, much like threatening to vaporize entire cities. If our nation believes it is so wrong to and unethical to to initiate a nuclear war, we shouldn't be almost doing so. Both sides in these cases operate with the same goal: to prevent nuclear annihilation. By saying we will take action that we have agreed not to take in the past, we aren't held serious when it comes to our intents. Contention 2: Just wars exist In his second contention, my opponent said that the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the second World War were all wars started to protect human rights. Futhermore, he said that surrendering was "morally repugnant. " However, by practicing diplomacy, no one would have been surrendering and no one would have died. If you slaughter a person that perceives human rights differently than you, that does not make you any better than him. My opponent brought up means versus ends, saying that if the intent is good, the end doesn't matter. I must say that I disagree, as I've expressed in the past. (see attack on my opponent's core value. ) Contention 3: Supervision of nuclear arms While there is supervision of these weapons, the fact that they even need to be supervised says a lot about their usage. Once something becomes too dangerous to operate by one's own will, it is probably immoral. I've been arguing that these weapons ought not be possessed because they cause damage, cost too much, and cannot be proven effective. It's due to this that these weapons should not be a factor of "protection," let alone be a factor of protection that has to be watched closely and carefully. It is obvious to most that financially, morally, and effectively, not a lot of good can be said about the use of these weapons, which is why I affirm the resolution.