The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Are we headed toward another World War?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/4/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 11,950 times Debate No: 105469
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (93)
Votes (1)




There are many areas in the world that war could break out. Such as in Asian, in the South China Sea, the northern part of Europe, or even in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or other parts of the middle east, plus we have the North Korea crisis, if the US and China don't handle this correctly it could trigger a war with each other. I know what happened in world war 1 was a build up before there was an actual war like in 1908 there were signs the world was headed toward a world war. Then after a few years of the military buildup, then a smoking gun happen in 1914, which the assassination of Austria president happens after those things got out of hand. World war 2 had another way of starting, it was around 1934 or 1935 before there were other signs of a world war happening again. Then Germany invaded Poland in 1939, then world war 2 happen. Another note that is important is both world war the general public didn't think world war would ever happen. Same kind of things is happening right now. I would say the military buildup started around 2014, so it will take some years before an actual war breaks out. Now we are near the end of 2017. Some examples of what is happening in today world are Russia and Nato's playing major military war games. Russia and the US are clearly not going to be on the same page in the worldviews, and that is leading to mistrust and a lot of tenses between the two countries. Then we have China playing a major factor in today world. First China is clearly not helping the US with trading, nor controlling the North Korea crisis. China say one thing about the North, and then do the other. We have India and China not getting along and almost started a war with each other in the summer. If things get heated again, what side do you think the US will be on? Tell you this it's not on China side. The US also has big issues on the islands China made in the south china sea. We have another thing not favoring the US, and that is Russia and China have military alliances and being partners on each other economics. Both countries now have a good working relationship. Not good for the US, nor the Nato alliances.

Round one will be starting your arguments why we are not headed toward war.

If interested comment in the comment section...


No. As you said, there was a buildup before the two world wars. Where is this buildup now? We live in the most peaceful time in history, as I'm sure you've heard hundreds of times. The wars going on right now are nowhere near as large as the wars before. I am aware of proxy wars, but they're proxy wars because the main powers don't wanna go at it head to head.

1. The North Korea situation
This is all talk. Obviously Kim is a brutal dictator who does horrible things to his people, but the way I see it he's developing nukes so he doesn't get overthrown. Because the second he gets rid of them, he's going, just like Gaddafi did. Obviously it seems scary with Trump threatening nuclear annihilation every now and then, but it's really all talk. Kim doesn't have some plan to destroy the west as we know it, but he just wants to keep his family in power. As long as Trump is being guided by someone at least somewhat reasonable like Rex Tillerson, the world's fine. And even if Trump did push the big red button for whatever reason on North Korea, it's not like China and Russia would step in to defend Kim directly. That's not to say they wouldn't provide arms or funds to North Korea, but they both know that they'd gain nothing from starting war there.

2. Russia vs. The West
I agree that Russia will never be on the same page as the west. Ever since the revolution they've been sworn rivals (aside from WW2 for obvious reasons, and even still there was some rivalry). The situation in Ukraine doesn't help, and the west has responded with sanctions and denouncements, but again, this is nothing. Obviously it's troubling to hear about these needless wars, but no powers are gonna step in to save puny Ukraine, they've done all they can to make it difficult for Russia to continue the war there. Russia's really just doing the same thing the U.S. did in Iraq in 2003, except they can't get away with it because it's Russia.

3. MAD
The most important point, simply put: almost all of the world leaders know that a nuclear war would simply be too costly. Of the 9 that have nukes, all of the leaders either know or have someone around them that knows that a nuclear war has no winners. We obviously came pretty close to ending the world in the 60's, but nothing like that has happened since, and people have learned from that. Relations between NATO and China and Russia are obviously not the best, but it's nothing world ending. It's just disagreements that won't lead to anything other than some bitterness. If you think a WW3 scenario would occur, let's say between NATO and Russia, do you really think both sides would go to using nukes? And if not how would you see such a scenario playing out?

4. The Middle East
Although current wars in the middle east have a lot of world powers involved, it's mostly world powers banding together to fight smaller groups that pose a threat to all of them. The middle east will continue to be unstable probably until the world ends, however that may be, but it's mostly civil wars/proxy wars between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think that within the next 30 or 40 years we will see the two go at it directly, and we will see Russia and the U.S. supporting opposite sides, however, again, because of MAD, they'll know better than to fight directly.

That's all I have to say for now, and I look forward to your response. I hope most of the points above tell you why the situations you mentioned will not lead to a third world war. Thank you for debating me and I'm sorry I made you wait so long.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, first let me thank you for replying...

I will go straight to the point here with your arguments. You said their is peace here on earth umm no not true. Where your evidence on this? They are building tension all across the world. You said where the build-up? Did you Not read my first round? I mention some of the military build-up. Like what is happening in today world, Russia and Nato's playing major military war games. War could break out anywhere Such as Asian, in the South China Sea, the northern part and the western part of Europe, or even in Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia or other parts of the middle east, plus we have the North Korea crisis, if the US and China don't handle this correctly it could trigger a war with each other.

History is very important to know and to understand it. Unfortunately more and more people are ignoring history.
Over the last 500 years been very challenging for humans. Some experts think major wars runs in cycles, like in American history. The American Revolution, the Civil war, ww1, and ww2. A theory is a major war happens every 70 to 80 years. Base on this, we are right about there. According to Graham Tillett Allison, is an American political scientist and professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, we are entering Thucydides trap. There is another reason why I'm thinking we are getting closer to war each day.

Okay i will now talk about your first point with the North korea issues. A good subject here to support my case. You are right the North doesn't have sone grant plan of destroying the US. But here the issue with trump, he doesn't want the North to have any kind of nuclear weapons, but it way to late for the North to disarm now. And trump is willing to go to war with the North to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb to hit the mainland. This is comparable you the Cuban missile crisis. You said China and Russia would not get involved. Do you have any proof on that? I will tell you why this is so bad. One China could very well play the part of defending the North again. Again History is important to know why they are backing them.
"The Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty is a treaty signed on July 11, 1961 between North Korea and the People's Republic of China." (1.) this is a treaty with the North Korea and China. Do you know why it's important? It because China would protect them if there were attack first. That's why China help them in the first Korean war. With the US helping the south. So history has a lot of importance, we need to understand it, so in the future, we don't do the same mistakes. The Chinese government has issued hundreds of warning to the US, not to attack the North. Why would they be so concern, if they weren't going to do anything?
"China won't come to North Koreans aid if it launches missiles threatening U.S. soil and there is retaliation, a state-owned newspaper warned Friday it would intervene if Washington strikes first". (2.)

Now to your second point. You have Russia Vs the West. Yeah this is kind of true. But really it Russia Vs Nato, then the US.
"The rise of a more politically and militarily assertive Russia and an economically and institutionally ascendant China may be characterized as the two principal forces challenging the United States in global policymaking." (3.) China and Russia will join together if the US attack 1st. One reason is that its next door to the north. And they do not want the US being anywhere there.You need to understand the history of geopolitics. Russia and Nato's playing major military war games. Russia and the US are clearly not going to be on the same page in the worldviews, and that is leading to mistrust and a lot of tenses between the two countries. What will most likely happen is a conflict between Russia and Nato, so when this happen it will force the US in the fight. Putin himself said he will use a nuclear weapon in Europe. Not as a last resort, but as a first strike. He said this last year. He also thinks by using a nuke first, Europe and the US wouldn't go that far. So it would deter other countries. Just by using his thinking alone is very dangerous. Let's don't forget he also wants Nato to be split in half. Why so it could be the old Soviet Union again. He was a former KBG. He and China see a threat, and that is the US. There won't say it in public, at least not as former. Both countries being partners in military and helping each other out in their economy. This partnership isn't good for the US nir the world.

The 3rd part you say their is no way world lead us toward a global war. How can you be so sure? With what i all ready said?
A rising power will challenge the dominance power, over trade, territorial areas, military, and economy. This is what happening with China. You don't think we are coming closer toward something happening like a world war. Yes, one of the biggest argument is the technology we have with nukes, no one would use them. With more countries having them 10 nuclear-armed countries with North Korea included, no leader will use them. The cold war, no one used them, but the people that were living in that era, they still remember what happened when the first time the atomic bomb was used. Now most of those people that lived in that era not alive anymore. That's why some expert's are seeing a human trend, a major war happen in every generation lifespan, like every 80 years. Another argument is war is just too expensive, and many lives would be lost. That is true but it was true back then too, with other major wars. Yes, the weapons of today would almost kill us all, so you can't use the past as an example, but all it takes is one miscalculation, one mistake, and a couple of buttons pushed, and we have nukes flying. We should be careful about the future, and try to look back at history so we don't do the same mistake. Now with So many other countries having these kinds of weapons, it makes things so much more difficult. New rules now in play, and many nations don't know where the red lines are. They are major military build-up across the world, they not building just for nothing. I said before most people didn't see the other two wars happening until it's too late.

The 4th part you mention the middle east. While have you heard what trump did this week? Going to be moving the Embassy to jerusalem. This will not promote peace, just about most of the world leaders warn trump on moving the Embassy there. It will further the peace process. We have a flashpoint with the North Korea crisis, that could bring in China if things are not handled right. We also have a flashpoint in Europe between Nato and Russia, We also have a flashpoint in the middle east with tensions rising all across this region. We also have a chance with a direct conflict between the US and China, and tension rising every day between US and Russia. We are already in a new cold war, and this is much more dangerous than in the past. We are headed toward a war. We haven't learned from the past.

I will look forward toward your upcoming argument.


1. Peace and the Theory
Thanks for the detailed response. I'm sorry about the buildup part, initially I meant to say that what you were calling buildup didn't come anywhere near what the buildup was before WW1 and 2. As for saying there is complete peace, no, I never said that, and I don't believe the world will ever be completely at peace. I said that we are living in the most peaceful time in history. By that I mean less people are dying from war than ever before. I hope you'll agree with this.
To address the cycle theory, I see what you mean, but you said yourself that it's just a theory, so that doesn't exactly prove anything.

2. North Korea
Here I still somewhat disagree with you. I admit that I didn't know about the defensive pact, but that doesn't mean they absolutely have to stand by it, especially considering China owns about 1.2 trillion dollars of the U.S. debt [1]. They'd be eating into their own money if they intervened. I would see it more as a way to bring the two closer together, than as an actual defensive pact.r It's all talk, and we'll never even get to the point of war between the U.S. and North Korea. Obviously Trump doesn't want them to have nukes, but I don't think he's enough of a monster to nuke it and potentially kill millions of innocents and start WW3. He said they'd be met with fire and fury if they threatened the U.S. again. What happened when they threatened the U.S. again? Nothing, absolutely nothing, because it's all talk. Again, Kim is mainly trying to keep his bloodline in power. Obviously Trump being an idiot that doesn't understand that is concerning, but as I said before, with at least somewhat reasonable people like Tillerson telling him what to do we'll be fine.

3. Before I get on with this, could you please cite a source that claims Putin said he would do an offensive nuclear war in Europe? I've looked for 5 minutes and I can't find anything, thanks. Also, your third source is broken. And I'll say this: I agree with you. If you think a war between Russia and the west is coming up, what do you think would even cause that? You haven't actually given a single example of what could spark such a war yet. And again, with the U.S. debt China owns. This alone I could see being enough to stop them from ever fighting the U.S. directly. Even if Russia decided to oppose the west directly, they'd be doing it without the help of another world power.

4. MAD
I've said all I need to say about this for the most part. I don't know what else I really could say that could change your mind, but I'll say it again. Leaders of countries with nukes recognize that they exist only as a deterrent and not as an actual option. This is the reason there hasn't been a major war for the past 2 or 3 generation. In your paragraph addressing this you mostly move from random, unlikely point to random, unlikely point, such as a mistake happening. Obviously that's always possible but that doesn't mean that a war is coming, does it? I'm sorry but I really don't see how you could find that MAD wouldn't stop a third world war from happening. If you don't see it now, you never will.

5. Conclusion
MAD, even if that was the only point I had in this debate, would be enough for me to say with confidence that we aren't headed toward another war. You keep on saying there's a flash point in Europe but what is that? You just vaguely say that as an argument and you don't give an example of what could actually start a war there. Just to finish up here with the Jerusalem point, the only real people getting mad about it are other countries in the middle east that couldn't even start a world war. Thanks for the response.

Debate Round No. 2


Well i mean the military build-up i mean just that. Look at Europe northern part and eastern part making sure Russia doesn't step over the Baltic states. And Russia also continues to build up their new nuclear weapons to there air force to there navy. Both are having huge military exercises, both barely have communications with each other. So, there is room for misunderstanding, room for miscalculations by both parties. "And if treaties and agreements are not sacrosanct to the Kremlin, why should NATO borders be sacrosanct? It is only reasonable that NATO"s Baltic allies ask this question and that others, beginning with Turkey, do so as well".(4.)
"UK would be 'unable to withstand' nuclear strike, Russian senator warns"(5.)
"West and Russia on course for war, says ex-Nato deputy commander".(6.)
Since we are taking about Russia right now i will bring my other evidence on what putin said, since you call me out on it. It a YouTube video only one minute and 33 seconds. (7.) At the economic reform commission in 2016.
"A crisis could be precipitated from at least three different types of events: unattributable attacks, unilateral actions by anxious allies, and military accidents. Such dangerous situations could quickly produce unintended consequences that slip Russia and the West into armed confrontation".(8.)
Oh, sorry for the 3rd source here it is again (3.)
Russia would not go to war with the west alone, they have China, even Iran and North korea to name a few. At this point if or when something pop off in to a military conflict this could spread very quickly toward a world war. Rather it start in the korea peninsula, in the northern part or the eastern part of Europe, or in the middle east.

Okay again the North Korea part. Yes you are right the US own debt to China. And you could see that's a problem there too. But you know what china still make a lot off the US. "U.S. goods and services trade with China totaled an estimated $648.2 billion in 2016". (9.)
"President Trump signed an executive memorandum Monday afternoon". (11.) That will likely trigger an investigation into China"s alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, a measure that could eventually result in a wide range of penalties as the administration seeks a new way to deal with what it calls Chinese violations of the rules of international trade. The theft of intellectual property by foreign countries costs our nation millions of jobs and billions and billions of dollars each and every year, Once the US find evidence of alleged theft of U.S. intellectual property, Trump then will slap tariff on Chinese goods. China will then also slap tariff on the US goods. Yet that coercion might unleash a trade war between the two biggest economies they would effect everything from soy-beans to smartphones. China is the US largest partner with $510.6 billions in the two way trade from last year. According to the office of trade representative. This will for sure have negatives affect on relations.
"Beijing intends to turn these artificial outposts into military footholds that will provide it with power projection capability right across the South China Sea. Each island has hangers for 24 fighter jets, as well as bombers and surveillance aircraft. Each island has bombers and surveillance aircraft. Anti-aircraft and antimissile systems can be seen on one of the artificial islands. In a crisis, these facilities would significantly complicate US war plans and access to the South China Sea at acceptable levels of cost and risk. There"s also a more important day-to-day implication: these new military outposts allow China to dramatically extend its strategic reach from its southern shores down to Indonesian waters, creating a new strategic status quo and a Chinese sphere of influence. Beijing, in other words, is seeking to become the dominant military power in this part of the world with a capacity to prevent, deny or veto other countries from accessing these waters."(12.) world/asia/south-china-sea-controversy-heats-up-as-manmade-islands-are-almost-complete/news-stor4aa8664ef1f147d704b8f1e78e62516
China is already trying to challenge the US in the pacific. "Top US general: China will be 'greatest threat' to US by 2025". (13.)
China will back North korea, if the US strike first. (China said this) "state-owned newspaper warned Friday it would intervene if Washington strikes first". (14.); And understand this.

If you look through out human history we always have major wars and time of peace. This will always be the case. It doesn't really matter if we have nukes or not. If you think the world not even getting remotely close toward a war. Then when do you think we will? Or you think another world war would never happen?Keep in mind every generation, has peace but it never last. Having a leader like trump does make the world unsafe, because world leaders can't trust him and he is sending out mix messages on going to war or not with North Korea. And not having any communication with them can or will lean to miscalculations. And like i said if the US start this. It will not be NK alone. Trump not making his foreign policy clear, and this is dangerous. We have multiply leaders already saying they would use nuclear weapons. This does not create peace and stability All one have to do is lunch one, to cause chaos. I haven't even mention the middle east. I probably will in the next round. But a quick overview Iran is back by Russia and China. Pakistan is back by China. India and Israel is back by the US. And did i say it complicated, if not we'll it is.
A flashpoint is "place, event, or time at which trouble, such as violence or anger, flares up" (15.)
We are seeing boiling points and misunderstanding everywhere. Things will only get worst. And you really think the middle east can't bring the world to brink of war, is pretty naivete. But i will go more in to that issue next round. So, yes major wars in cycles. There are major wars in every generation, we haven't seen one yet, but it coming. Trump is 70 years old and he haven't seen any major war yet. But if things continue on this current path, we will once again not learn from the past. Rising power will challenge the dominance power, over trade, territorial areas, military, and economy. This how war start, and this is what China and Russia is doing.


I'm probably gonna keep this one short and sweet. All of these different tiny situations with NK, China, and Russia link back to MAD. I watched the entire speech by Putin and I understand your concern, but he never said that he'd use nukes as an offensive measure? All he said was that America was trying to tip the strategic balance of power which has prevented a major war in the last 70 years in their favor. He simply said he'd respond by matching what they're doing, which is building a nuclear defense system, which seems reasonable. He even said the media and other people would twist his speech into something it isn't at all, which is exactly what you did. Again, all of these minor conflicts will go back to MAD. The strategic balance of power Putin was talking about will continue to exist, therefore we aren't heading toward another world war. We've gone back and forth on NK and China twice, so I don't see the need to address that again. It's clear neither of us will change our opinions on that. To address potential invasions of the Baltic states and Ukraine, I have two things to say. One, the invasion of Ukraine is a response to the west tampering with that strategic balance of power by expanding NATO east, which they said they wouldn't do [1]. Ukraine was trying to join NATO when they were invaded by Russia. I wish all of the deaths in that war could've been avoided, but NATO did go back on a deal. Either way, that brings a close to this round. Let's move on to our closing statements now.

Debate Round No. 3


Thank you for responding back. I could see you try to keep your respond short and sweet. You did kept it short. But you didn't make this sweet. Just because you" trying to have your MAD as your only true argument, doesn't make you right, nor did you provide proof on any of your reasoning. You try to skip the facts of China helping out the North. You also didn't mention China as" the US biggest foe. Major wars runs in cycles, like in American history, The American Revolution, the Civil War, WW1 and WW2. This can be research in" Thucydides trap. They been 16 cases of this happening in the last 500 years. 12 of them when to war. You can get this information online or this book "Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides's Trap?" By Graham T. Allison (16.) Wars happen because countries challenge the dominance power, over trade, territorial areas, military, and economy.

Now with Putin. He did say the "world is in grave danger" he also said why inst the world leaders telling there citizens of this threat. You pointed out that he didn't say he would use nuclear weapons in the video. This is true he didn't in the video i send you." But "Putin said he had given an order to his military to be prepared to increase the readiness of his nuclear forces if the U.S. and NATO tried to block his takeover of Crimea". "Phillip Breedlove: They see nuclear weapons as a normal extension of a conventional conflict.
David Martin: So to them nuclear war is not unthinkable?
Phillip Breedlove: I think to them the use of nuclear weapons is not unthinkable".
"It says so in their military doctrine, signed by Putin in 2014, Russia ""shall reserve the right to use nuclear weapons . . . In the event of aggression . . . When the very existence of the state is in jeopardy." (17.) so, this is your verdict. Putin is willing to use nuclear weapons, it also when on to say, Putin is exercises with nukes more and more, this is concerning.
"Russia seeks not the military and political domination of Europe through the advance of the Red Army and spread of communist ideology, but rather a resetting of the Continent"s security order. The Kremlin hopes to achieve this through meddling in European and American politics so as to install governments acquiescent to it"s primary objective".(18.)
Oh, you want more proof okay. "Russian military leaders have discussed Moscow"s willingness to use nuclear weapons in a conflict with military leaders in NATO, as part of broader and increasingly contentious conversations about the alliance"s expansion". (19.)
Ukraine is a very important flashpoint as well. They and NATO talk about them joining NATO in 2020. If this happens, consider this red line cross. And Russia will respond, and the world not going to like what they do.

You keep on saying MAD is working and going to keep the world safe. You were right it did kept the world safe. But not true anymore. Not when so many other countries have them. And not when you have other countries prepared to use it. You still haven't answered my question either. Do you think the world is safe for how long 10 years 20 years 50 years or a hundred years?" Do you think the next world war would not use them? I hate to break it to you, but the world is not safe of these weapons. All you need is misunderstanding, raising tensions, and a leader not understanding how the world works. If you have leaders controlling the buttons, and have willingness on using these weapons the world isn't safe. It not just Putin, it trump, China, and countries in the middle east. You think Israel not going to use their nukes when and if they feel threaten by Iran? You also haven't mention why you think the middle east can't bring a world war.

I will now discuss the middle east. Did you know how many countries would get involved if Israel and Iran when to war? I can tell you. First the US would get involved to help Israel, then who would help out Iran? You didn't think Iran would have help? Will they do, both Russia and China. Actually both countries are better friends with Iran than North Korea. Oh yeah, it won't be just Israel and Iran but the whole middle east would be involve. Saudi Arabia and Iran is raising their tensions as well just over a month ago Yeman terrorists group lunch a missile on Saudi airport. Luckily the Saudi shoot it down. But they continue to accuses Iran for this, because they are in a middle of a proxy war between them. And if and when these two countries actually attack one another again this will bring the whole region down this path. And then we have India and Palestine having wars of words. They just need a spark, to inflamed this region. Again if you look at the big players in this region they have the backing of the more powerful nations. When and if things go south it will drag the rest of the world in to a world war. What trump did earlier this week, will not create peace to this region. Just about every leader in the middle east and from around the world told trump not to move the Embassy to Jerusalem. Why Because it will undermine the peace process. It will create more misunderstanding and lead more risk of miscalculations on all sides. Another sign that the world is not at peace, and something is boiling for a fight.

We have so much potential for conflict around the world. And so many conflict that could potentially cause a world war. You are right we will not agree on this issue. Because you think MAD will keep on saving the world. Even when the facts are against you. MAD once kept us safe. But when we have some many countries And leaders that are willing to use these horrible weapons, the world is no longer safe. Just wondering with all the peace we had for the last 70 years, you don't think we are coming closer toward something happening like a war. Yes one of the biggest argument is the technology we have with nukes, no one would use them. With more countiers having them 10 nuclear armed country with north korea included, no leader will use them. The cold war, no one used them, but the people that were living in that era, they still remember what happen the first time the atomic bomb was used. Now most of those people that lived in that era not alive anymore. That's why some expert's are seeing a human trend, a major war happen in every generation life span, like every 80 years. Another argument is war is just to expensive, and to many lives would be lost. That is true but it was true back then to, with other major wars. Yes the weapons of today would almost kill us all, so you can't use the past as an exemple, but all it take is one miscalculation, one mistake, and a couple of buttons pushs, and we have nukes flying. Have you ever heard of this the doomsday clock? It real, and it does have real value. Just this year in January, a group of scientists move the clock to 2 and a half minutes. The closest toward nuclear war since 1953. (20.); That is very telling. They see the world as is. Not with blindfolds. Just because you can't see the potential danger we are living under doesn't mean they not there. Did you realize majority of the population of the first two world wars also though it was impossible.

To clarified I'm not for this upcoming war, for obvious reasons. The reason i have this debate up in the first place is, to wake people up, to have you and the follow reader know about the potential danger we are living in. Unfortunately i can see a major war happening with in two years or in the next 10 years. Keep in mind a world war just don't happen over night, it take years before it unfold.


1. Cycle
Here you are going on again with the cycle of wars. That isn't a legitimate argument. I've gone over this maybe once or twice. The reason the cycle hasn't continued yet is because if there was a major war again the world would end instantly. It's an intriguing theory, but again, it's just that, a theory. I understand why wars have happened in the past, but those reasons simply do not justify ending the world now.

2. Russia
As for Russia, again, they said they would use nuclear weapons if NATO or the U.S. tried to intervene, which is exactly why they won't intervene directly. This is why Putin's been getting away with invading Ukraine. He's smart enough to keep on threatening to use them in the case of intervention to scare them into not intervening at all. Do you know why Russia's trying to achieve at least an equal level of dominance in Europe as the U.S.? Because the U.S. Has dominated almost all of Europe for 27 years now. They've tipped the strategic balance that has kept the world at peace in the past in their favor, and Russia's simply trying to get on an equal footing with them. As for Ukraine joining NATO in 2020, that's just laughable because Ukraine doesn't and will not meet many of the requirements to join by 2020 [1][2]. For one, Ukraine isn't democratic [3], there are also currently many human rights violations [4], not to mention the most obvious one that the rule prevent countries currently involved in conflicts or border disputes from joining, which is mentioned in the first article. Not to mention that NATO wouldn't want to let someone in that would risk ending the world.

3. MAD
Now you're saying I didn't answer a question you didn't ask? I'm actually laughing at this right now. When did you ask me how long the world would be safe for? And you know what, I'll answer your question. As long as the strategic balance of power of the world is not tipped too far in one side's favor, the world will be safe from destruction from war. This obviously doesn't include climate change which I think is more of a pressing issue that we need to deal with than talking about who's pointing missiles at who. Your claim for MAD not being able to work now is that more countries have nukes now and that more are prepared to use it. That simply isn't true. For one, the overall amount nukes has been going down over the last 30 or 40 years [5]. Not to mention that many countries like Canada, Libya, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Ukraine, and many more have given up their nuclear weapons. I'm pretty sure NK getting nukes and then threatening the U.S. doesn't mean that MAD won't work anymore. And know, countries don't use nukes because they feel threatened? I don't exactly know why Israel would nuke Iran for feeling threatened. That argument just doesn't work. I've said almost every time so far and I'll say it again. MAD will always work because the idea of not destroying the world outweighs destroying the world. If you don't think that I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. I hate to sound so smug but it's true. We've been closer to war before, and in the end it was all just talk.

4. Middle East
You say there's even potential for Iran and Israel to go to war, but you don't exactly specify how or why this would happen? Again though, MAD would play a part in preventing a conflict like this from ever happening. No one wants their people to get completely obliterated. Now, as for Saudi Arabia and Iran, I actually said in my first argument that at some point in the future Saudi Arabia and Iran will go to war. Thing is, they aren't nuclear powers. It would of course turn into a proxy war with nuclear powers, however because of MAD for the trillionth time, they wouldn't directly get involved. You're now going on about India and Pakistan exchanging words. You literally said yourself why this wouldn't lead to anything. It's just an exchange of words. This has happened probably thousands of times since WW2. It's all talk.

5. China/NK
I know you didn't mention this in the most recent argument, but I just want to make my stance on it clear for any future readers/voters. It doesn't matter whether or not China will step in if things escalate in NK (even though I think they won't for reasons I mentioned previously) because we'll never get to that point. Although Kim's a brutal dictator who's done terrible things to his people, his threats are mostly to remind the U.S. to stay away, while Trump's threats are emptier than my opponent's arguments. He's trying to get their nukes out to make them ripe for regime change. As long as NK keeps their nukes there will be no war.

6. Conclusion
You're going back to MAD not meaning anything anymore, saying the facts are against me because people think Russia's gonna nuke Europe and the U.S. even though Russia's been doing that for 72 years, but apparently it's more dangerous now because of your "facts". You revert to the cycle argument that doesn't take nukes into account, and ends up being nothing more than what it claims to be, a theory. As for the clock, that isn't evidence for anything, more of a producer of paranoia than anything. I find it hard to believe that the clock wasn't closer to midnight than it is now during The Cuban Missile Crisis, which makes it very difficult for me to take it seriously. Accidents again don't mean we're heading to a war. As for me not seeing the potential danger, I simply don't see it because it doesn't exist. I will conclude by going over the MAD argument again. Even if things get heated, or words are thrown between sides, tensions will never get so high that the world will end from nuclear war because world leaders (even a madman like Trump, who is controlled by somewhat reasonable people) will know that no matter what, a war that ends the world will not be worth it. Thank you for the debate.

Debate Round No. 4
93 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by antrise 1 month ago
Hey brother, you guessed, I'm a dude
Posted by antrise 1 month ago
This is the tale of a tiny snail. And a great big, gray-blue humpback whale.
This is the rock as black as soot, And this is a snail with an itchy foot.
The sea snail slithered all over the rock. And gazed at the sea and the ships in the dock.
And as she gazed, she sniffed and sighed.
"The sea is deep and the world is wide!
How I long to sail!" Said the tiny snail.
These are the other snails in the flock, Who all stuck tight to the smooth black rock
And said to the snail with the itchy foot, "Be quiet! Don"t wiggle! Sit still! Stay put!"
But the tiny sea snail sniffed and sighed,
Then cried, "I"ve got it! I"ll hitch a ride!"
This is the trail Of the tiny snail, A silvery trail that looped and curled, And said,
"Ride Wanted around the world."
This is the whale who came one night When the tide was high and the stars were bright.
A humpback whale, immensely long, Who sang to the snail a wonderful song,
Of shimmering ice and coral caves, And shooting stars and enormous waves.
And this is the tail
Of the humpback whale. He held it out of the starlit sea. And said to the snail, "Come sail with me."
This is the sea, so wild and free, That carried the whale, And the snail on his tail
To towering icebergs and far-off lands,
With fiery mountains and golden sands.
These are the waves that arched and crashed, That foamed and frolicked and sprayed
The tiny snail, On the tail of the whale.
These are the caves Beneath the waves, Where colorful fish with feathery fins, And sharks with hideous toothy grins, Swam past the whale And the snail on his tail.
This is the sky,So vast and high,
Sometimes sunny and blue and warm. Sometimes filled with a thunderstorm, With zigzag lightning
Flashing and frightening,
The tiny snail
On the tail of the whale.
And she gazed at the sky, the sea, the land, The waves and the caves and the golden sand. She gazed and gazed, amazed by it all.
And she said to the whale, "I feel so small."
Posted by Nd2400 1 month ago
@ antrise

What is your problem? This debate is over and it been over with for a long time.

Plus you have absolutely nothing to add to this conversation... So, why bother? If you have nothing to add stop posting spam... You a troll.... You have no real value input so stop posting....
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kevin24018 7 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: at the time of this debate I would have sided with Con for a variety of reasons. However as of today NK is trying to put anthrax on missiles which would make me side with Pro more than Con I think, other than that, debates trying to predict the future are just too difficult. But the first question I would have to choose con, but because of the very nature of predicting the future everything else is a tie, since my grammar and spelling ain't very good I can't judge that.