States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

I agree with my opponents definition of "state". And I too will argue the value of safety, but not just the safety of Americans, but world saftey. My critirion will be upholding international humanitarian law as well. First I will negate my opponents contentions and then build my own case. PROP CONTENTION 1: North Korea might attack the United States with nuclear weapons. I was hoping we could avoid this issue that I am sure will come up time and time again in this debate. It is of course the issue of Mutually Assured Destruction. I believe that the government of North Korea would not dare launch a nuclear strike against the United states because it would almost immediatly be met with a counter strike that could annihilate all of North Korea. Even a extremest leader like Kim Jong Il would not be willing to sentance his entire country to destruction. PROP CONTENTION 2: Iran may be building nuclear weapons. This is a similar case of Mutually Assured Destruction. If Iran DOES get nuclear arms they would not dare use them for fear of being anihilated by (most likely) Israel. PROP CONTENTION 3: Terrorists could optain nuclear wapons. If terrorists have not yet optained a nuclear weapon in the last 65 years, it is unlikely that they will optain one now. With the global war on terror and the USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, et al. working to secure all existing nuclear weapons. A nuke in the hands of terrorist is almost impossible. PROP CONTENTION 4: Reducing Deterrence. My opponent claims that the United States conventional military is enough to deter enemies. This may be true in the United States itself. But I am working off the value of International Safety. Right now the United States' allies abroad are protected by the threat of a US nuclear strike, it kept western europe safe in the cold war. Getting rid of these weapons would not lower detterence in the US itself, but it would dramatically in the rest of the worlds. Now I will go over my own contentions. CONTENTION 1: The Globe is Safer with Nuclear Weapons. As history has shown, there is no deterrent like nuclear weapons. In World War one and World War two alone over 65 million people were killed in wars amoung now nuclear states. In the past 65 years after nuclear weapons were invented, there have been exactly 0 deaths amoung these same nations. Coincidence? I think NOT! !! ! Although they are often demonized, nucelar weapons have actually made the world a much safer place and has moved us past the age of conquest and genocide. CONTENTION 2: Conventional warfare is worse. With nucelar weapons there is no need for armies to walk across lands pilaging and buring as they go. For example; the rape of nankings, over 300,000 people died. The third punic war, over 78,000 people died. The Holocaust. .. 7,000,000 people. With conventional warfare comes horrific travasties that would be avoided just by the threat of mutual assured destruction. CONTENTION 3: Threats of not having nukes. Over the past 65 years nuclear weapons have been used for extremely good reasons as well. For instance Russia has scealed up 3 different oceanic oil leaks with nuclear weapons that have saved the environment from millions of barrels of oil. And without nukes, how will we fight off a future alien invasion if super-advanced aliens attack? If a astraroid is hurtling towards earth, how will we knock it off course? Nukes are often demonized, but they can do extreme good too. I want to thank you and remind you that sure, a vote for the NEG is covered in blood. But a vote for the PROP is covered with a whole lot more.