What are the positions on nuclear weapons?

It would be impossible to enact a world-wide ban of nuclear weapons

Question: What are the positions on nuclear weapons?
Position‹3 of 3: Nuclear weapons are a reality we must accept
Argument: It would be impossible to enact a world-wide ban of nuclear weapons

Although banning nuclear weapons would be ideal, it is simply not possible in the modern world. It would be impossible to force every country to agree to disarm their nuclear arsenal, or to keep them from building back up even if they have agreed.

The argument

Although nuclear weapons are destructive and inhumane, It would be almost impossible to enact a worldwide ban. In 2017, a Treaty to Ban Nuclear Weapons was signed by 84 states. Although many have hope that this will lead to the eventual ban of all nuclear weapons, this is unlikely. Treaties such as this have been signed and made effective before to no avail. In 1993, The Chemical Weapons Convention was signed into international law and forbade the development,stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Although this convention had good intentions, it truly wasn’t as effective as people had hoped as even though Syria agreed to this treaty, reports continue to emerge of their use of chemical weapons. Beyond that, feuding countries such as India and Pakistan would not easily agree to disarm their nuclear arsenal until they feel secure. Effectively banning nuclear weapons would mean effectively solving feuds between all countries and ensuring these countries never have conflict again, which would be extremely difficult if not impossible. It is impossible to un-invent a weapon. Regardless of the number of countries that agree to disarm their nuclear weapons, the reality is that these weapons still exist and that if every country in the world doesn’t agree to disarm, then no country will fully disarm. It is a matter of power and security

Premises

[P1]Past disarmament treaties have repeatedly failed in practice — the 2017 nuclear ban treaty is unlikely to succeed, just as the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention did not stop Syria's chemical attacks. [P2] Feuding states such as India and Pakistan will not disarm until they feel secure, a weapon cannot be un-invented, and if not every country disarms then none will fully disarm. [C] Therefore, a worldwide ban is effectively impossible, so nuclear weapons are a reality we must accept.

Counter-arguments

Many believe that the Nuclear Ban Treaty would be able to effectively ban Nuclear Weapons as it would create pressure on countries to disarm. This pressure to disarm would lower the nuclear threat and cause countries to globally abandon the nuclear arms race.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The Chemical Weapons Convention is a poor example for the claim. It has near-universal membership and an inspectorate, and has verified the destruction of the large declared stockpiles; Syria's violations are notorious precisely because a regime exists to detect and attribute them. A treaty broken by one party is not thereby ineffective, and no other case is given. [Rejecting P2] "If not every country disarms, none will" is asserted rather than argued, and the record contains counterexamples the premise does not address: South Africa dismantled its weapons unilaterally, and Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan gave up the arsenals they inherited. "A weapon cannot be un-invented" is equally true of chemical and biological weapons and of landmines, all subject to prohibition regimes — so it shows that a ban would be hard to verify, not that it is impossible. The conclusion also outruns the position: that a ban is unachievable now does not make nuclear weapons a permanent reality to be accepted.