What are the positions on nuclear weapons?

Encyclopedia of Opinion

Question: What are the positions on nuclear weapons?
Position1 of 3›: Nuclear weapons should be banned
Argument1 of 2›: Nuclear weapons are inhumane

Nuclear Weapons destroy infrastructure, the environment, and lives indiscriminately. These weapons are inhumane to use at any point and would have catastrophic consequences if used in the modern world.

The argument

Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately. Although in 1949, the Geneva Convention made it clear that intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, many countries in NATO and in the UN continue to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons. If a nuclear weapon is deployed, there are sure to be civilian casualties. It is estimated that around 150,000 people were killed in the Hiroshima bombing, and 75,000 people were killed in the Nagasaki bombing. With the advancement of nuclear weapons since the 1940s, there’s truly no telling how many more civilians would die if another nuclear bomb was dropped. Apart from the obvious immediate destructive nature of nuclear weapons, there are also long-term catastrophic effects. A report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) found that even a small nuclear exchange would result in a climate change so extreme that it would impact the environment of countries far from the explosion and cause a famine that could potentially affect over a billion people. These inhumane and immoral consequences of nuclear weapons should be more than enough of a reason to stop all development and stockpiling of these weapons worldwide.

Premises

[P1]Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately, guaranteeing the civilian casualties that the Geneva Convention deems a war crime, as the ~150,000 deaths at Hiroshima showed. [P2] Modern weapons are far more powerful, so a future detonation would kill many more. [P3] Even a small nuclear exchange would trigger extreme climate change and a famine potentially affecting over a billion people. [C] Therefore, because nuclear weapons are inhumane and immoral, nuclear weapons should be banned.

Counter-arguments

Many believe that the use of nuclear weapons is humane. There are people that believe that deploying these nuclear weapons in World War II actually saved more lives than it ended. According to an article on "The Diplomat" it is estimated that if the US and allied forces had invaded Japan, the death toll would be many times greater than those who were killed in the bombs. Many believe that this displays that using nuclear weapons was, in fact, the most humane way possible to end the war, and that therefore these weapons are humane.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The casualty figure is disputed among historians and is given without a range, and the legal point does not do the work the premise needs: the Geneva Conventions govern conduct in war rather than the possession or development of a class of weapon. [Rejecting P2] Greater yield establishes greater potential destruction, not that the weapons would be used — which is the ground the rival deterrence position stands on, and which the argument does not address. [Rejecting P3] The climate and famine projection is a modelled estimate presented as a finding, and it too concerns the consequences of use. Even granting all three premises, the conclusion needs a step the argument never takes: from "using these weapons would be catastrophic" to "a ban is the arrangement that best prevents their use".