Even if the world could abolish nuclear weapons, the world shouldn't.

Pro has argued several potential alternate use cases for existing nuclear weapon technology that I will group and rebut as; 1) Non-lethal (less lethal) offensive weapon (EMP)2) Defensive (missile shield)3) Offensive “smart” weaponry4) Meteor planetary protection 1) EMP.The electromagnetic pulse has the potential to be a devastating weapon as technology and warfare continue to grow a symbiotic relationship. The desire to debilitate an enemy with low causality counts seems like a laudable goal if warfare must exist.The question then is, if EMP weaponry is desirable, should we retain nuclear weapons as the delivery mechanism for EMP attacks. The answer is no.How to make Non-nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NNEMP)The effect we are attempting to achieve has no requisite connection with nuclear weaponry. Flux compression generator bombs[1] have been understood for more than fifty years, they are not science fiction. Highly scalable and targeted, these bombs show greater practical use. The US, and its allied nations are highly dependent on technology, more so than most of our potential foes. Widespread indiscriminate EMP attacks might be more devastating to our own efforts, and make nuclear unusable when an EMP attack is most desirable. While hardly much of a deciding factor when contemplating use of weaponry, cost is also of some concern. The annual per-unit cost of a nuclear ICBM is about $1.8 million dollars [2]. That is a staggering sum regardless of potential.The off-label potential use of a nuclear weapon is not practical vs. other technologies, is not cost effective and we haven’t even gotten to the primary general concerns! 2) Defensive missile shieldThe Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) better known in the vernacular as “star wars” simply has never worked. I am a believer in technology, and assume that the hurdles to achieve success are surmountable. The current technological problems have solutions, and they all have a cost. Anywhere from 500 billion to 2 trillion dollars [5]. This is not a trivial sum, but as I said above, cost is never the best metric to use when evaluating systems intended to mitigate large scale loss of life.Aside from cost, planning and implementation a defensive system invites attack. If a foe knows that a defensive system is in place, the doctrine of MAD losses its impact. As more, and less stable government’s gain nuclear weaponry, more potential to use with lower inhabitation means greater risk. This while relying on a system that may never be 100% reliable.With or without a shield, enemy nuclear weapons pose similar threats. That is, a shield is only effective for a single delivery mechanism – the ICBM. This delivery mechanism is not the most desirable for any current, or potential foe. The simpler, and more attainable goal delivering a nuclear attack by almost any other means is a risk unprotected by such a ABM system. ABMs are costly, unproven, and only mitigate a small percentage of potential attack. 3) Offensive “smart” weaponryPros primary reasoning for the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive scenario is for low-yield earth-penetrating weapons. Conventional “bunker buster” weapons are quite effective, however, proponents of adding the nuclear component point to additional “effectiveness”. What these bombs do is act like a conventional bunker busting bomb, penetrating the earth, then subsequently exploding their nuclear payload [6], potentially being more “complete” in their devastation of the target.There are two primary issues with this use. One is practical, the other political. In any war context sever enough to warrant the use of nuclear weapons in any fashion, all-out attack would be probable. That is, we would be at war. Multiple attacks at any target desirable enough to warrant use of the nuclear weapon would be probable. Conventional bunker busting weapons would prove more practical for multiple attacks. The second issue, political, is not insignificant. War is a political gambit. Provided the efforts is not an insane effort to destroy all enemy, but to force political change, we risk jeopardizing any moral superiority we may have going into the war. 4) Meteor planetary protectionWith pros indulgence, I would like to dedicate a round to this point. It is far more complex than the others, and deserves the space to discuss completely. [1] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [2] http://fpif.org... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://science.howstuffworks.com... [5] http://archive.unu.edu... [6] http://fas.org...