I stand in firm affirmation of the following resolution

Countries ought to prohibit the production of nuclear power.

For Clarification of this debate, I offer the following definitions from Merriam Webster Dictionary:

Countries:  a political state or nation or its territory

Ought: moral obligation

Prohibit: to say that (something) is not allowed

Nuclear Power:  energy that is created by splitting apart the nuclei of atoms

Framework

The highest value in today's debate is the value of utilitarianism which is the greatest good for the greatest number of people. It is because right now the world fetishizes nuclear weapons has led to preemptive war and precludes warming.

First, Nuclear fear justifies extinction with the death of the other

Masco '13 (Joseph P., Prof. of Anthropology and Social Sciences @ The University of Chicago, "Terror as normality" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 69(6), pp. 26–32) ZB
The SIOP target list would continue to grow through the 1980s, eventually including tens
AND
what would it take today to consider an actual end to such ends? 

The mystification of nuclear weapons forecloses critical interrogation leading to a perpetuation of the hegemonic power structures - only demystification creates political opportunities to shift away from nuclear weapons

Bondgraham 09 (Darwin, sociologist affiliated with UC Santa Barbara and a board member of the Los Alamos Study Group. "The 'Nuclear Threat,' and Other Mystical Approaches of Arms Control." pgs 4-5, PN)   
Although created in the forge of science and technology, few subjects have been more
AND
scholars, or a new generation of antinuclear, anti-imperial scholars.

Foreign policy elites use this mystification to justify increasing nuclear capacities, making the military the "defender" of democracy.  That results in anti-democratic practices because elites can go against public opinion- Latin America interventions prove

Bondgraham 09 (Darwin, sociologist affiliated with UC Santa Barbara and a board member of the Los Alamos Study Group. "The 'Nuclear Threat,' and Other Mystical Approaches of Arms Control." pgs 7-9, PN)
In bluntly characterizing the US system of government as a democracy, and especially by
AND
arsenal, when really this is no better than a raison d'etat.xxvi 

There's two impacts

1^st is War

The discourse of nuclear fear leads to preemptive wars, imperialism, and other atrocities

Masco 13 (Joseph Masco, PhD, UC San Diego 1999, Professor of Anthropology and of the Social Sciences at University of Chicago, writes and teaches courses on science and technology, U.S. national security culture, political ecology, mass media, and critical theory. He is the author of The Nuclear Borderlands: The Manhattan Project in Post-Cold War New Mexico (Princeton University Press, 2006), which won the 2008 Rachel Carson Prize from the Society for the Social Studies of Science and the 2006 Robert K. Merton Prize from the Section on Science, Knowledge and Technology of the American Sociology Association. His work as been supported by the American Council of Learned Societies, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, The Wenner-Gren Foundation and the National Endowment for the Humanities. His current work examines the evolution of the national security state in the United States, with a particular focus on the interplay between affect, technology, and threat perception within a national public sphere. Imperial Debris: On Ruins and Ruination, Edited by Ann Laura Stoler, pp. 278-281) ZB
Reclaiming the emotional history of the atomic bomb is crucial today, as nuclear fear
AND
psychosocial space defined by the once and future promise of nuclear ruins. fi

2^nd, Warming

The fear of a nuclear war trades off with efforts to deal with climate change

Masco 8
(Joseph P. Masco, he has a PhD from Department of Anthroplogy and Social Sciences from Universi ty of San Diego, "Bad Weather: On Planetary Crisis," 14 November 2008, PDF, ~[RA~])
In other words, the Katrina as Hiroshima discourse is an act of translation,
AND
biosphere requires nothing less than a post-national vision of American power.

Thus, the 1AC is an act of defetishization of nuclear power –  we affirm the prohibition of nuclear power to defetishize it as a mechanism for opening up new policy alternatives

Santana 9
(Anne Harrington de Santana, She has a PhD from Department of Political Science from University of Chicago, "U.S. Nuclear Policy and Fetishism of Force," 13 March 2009, PDF, ~[RA~])
The success of a defetishizing critique is independent of the success of the positive prescriptions
AND
evaluate some of the current policy proposal in light of these methodological commitments.