Any nuclear weapon is a potential terrorist bomb, yes potentially it is, in fact any weapon isa potential terrorist weapon however most of them are much easier to use. If a terrorist does manage to get their hands on a nuclear warhead, a high yield ballistic misslie warhead, for example where are these non-state actors going to then construct their ICBM launch site? If the security of the weapons is light then perhapsit is with ease that a terrorist may get a hold of the weapon, but building a placeto launch it is not so easy to do without the support of the state they're building it in. Remeber the Cuban Missile Crisis? Aerial photos of the construction just because the Cold War is over does not mean similar measues are still not being taken. But perhaps the terrorists are just using a tactical nuke or want to simply detonate their device in-situ. The bomb then has to travel, completely undetected, accompanied by rather anxious, possibly know terrorists, accross multiple borders, arrive at the destination and then finally be detonated. It seems quite a big ask either way and thats without mentioning the appropriate skills and funding required that would rule out the majority of would-be city destroyers.

Furthermore, eliminating weaponry does not eliminate the existence of nuclear material in reactors and waste dumps. This material itself is potentially very dangerous were it to fall into the wrong hands - a so-called "dirty bomb" would cause mass panic at the very least, and there have been indications that terrorists have been trying to construct one for some time. It is surely better to keep nuclear material under high security in secret military bases than large, insecure waste dumps.

The whole probelm with this is why would any other nuclear state disarm? It is stated that the only threat to the United States' military capabilities are nuclear weapons, removing them from the world would ensure American military dominance. If this is the case then why would any other nation wish to see the United States have an unrivaled military dominance over them? Surely it would be better for the others to keep hold of their arsenal and therefore their detterent. In addition, as shown in Vietnam, American military dominance is not all it seems against non-conventional forces. Also the wars mentioned were not defensive, therefore in terms of protecting itself they aren't really applicable. To say a weapon is not used does not mean it is not useful and indeed if the USA had not had a nuclear cabability during the Cold War the prospect of Soviet Russia being much more active militarily has a far greater likelihood.

The logical falacy in today's debate is that it is simply chasing shadows and grabbing sand. One thing we have to state clear is that we cannot be assured of a nuclear free world. And even if there's such a chance it is slim as slim can be. Politics, governance, personal interests and of course, skepticism, forbids countries from openly demonstrating their nuclear power and subsequently surrendering them to some interim organisation to "take care" of the problem. and that interim organisation, international or not, has no credibility nor guaruntee whatsoever that the weapons shall be "destroyed" without any speed-bumps. And speaking of destroy, perhaps anyone would like to hazard a guess at how to eliminate nuclear weapons? simply we cannot. Of course we can still do it and bring down half a world at least along with the weapons. But that's your funeral. Proposition may now cower behind one final shield where this is a theoretical debate and all we have to do is to justify morally the elimination of all nuclear weapons. But may I also remind you that today is a policy debate likewise. Aside from ambitious promises, we need strong framework and legal backing, to ensure that the elimination, if it will happen, to be convened with least obsturctions and with full cooperation in stamping out cumbersome technicalities and so forth. But for now, we don't have anything like that. Ratherm I would suggest a more lenient attitude towards nuclear weapons. To limit them rather than to destroy them is a good starting point to build up with.

As an argument against eliminating nuclear weapons: Some of the biggest tragedies of the past two decades – Rwanda and Darfur spring to mind – have been perpetrated not with nuclear weapons but with machetes. That aside, the UN as a military authority? does that entail a United Nations Army, under the command not of the leaders of the states from which the forces will be drawn from or something else? "Were any other country to launch a nuclear attack on Great Britain the UN would step up to the task" how so? nuclear retaliation? from the United Nations non-existent arsenal or from one of its member states who did not give up their nuclear detterent. Or perhaps not nuclear retaliation but some sanctions and a UN mandate for other states to go in to the warring nation whilst not endangering that particular states' sovereignty untill peace is made. Sounds good but would you want to rile a nation that has just shown how it willingly utilises nuclear weaponry offensively, why wouldn't it use them defensively against the UN nations invading? States exist in a system of anarchy, collective security is at best unreliable and given the nature of the international beast it would be foolish at best to give up nuclear capabilities and the abilty for self help. Finally Just because a nation can defend itself does not mean it would nnot defend others take for example Britain's involvement in Sierra Leone or NATO in Kosovo. To suggest that if they had not had nuclear weaponry the powers would have stopped genocides in Africa is misguided at best.