The Instigator
WWWestfall
Pro (for)
The Contender
ojiisan
Con (against)

Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
ojiisan has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/11/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 372 times Debate No: 101890
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

WWWestfall

Pro

If governments would give in and let ICBM's fly, we would be saving the planet from the worst plague it has suffered: human beings. If a nuclear conflict were to happen and just the 100 most populated cities on the Earth were destroyed, the probable shut down of our modern, energy hungry, gluttonously wasteful societies would be enough, along with the euthanasia of several billion people as direct and indirect results of the nuclear strikes, to save the planet.

The dust that would be put into the atmosphere would block out solar radiation, allowing the surface of the planet, that we have been heating for decades by the use of nuclear reactors that actively heat the waters of the Earth, to cool.

It would give humanity a chance to hopefully shape a better future for itself and the planet. It would also allow us to hopefully avoid repeating the many mistakes we are currently stuck with: waste, gluttony, overpopulation, and careless use of resources.
ojiisan

Con

If the ICBMs were to be let loose we would be destroying the planet, finishing it off, not saving it. Depending on who launches against who, it either would end in an eventual truce post-launch (which is far worse for both the environment and civilization than having never fired) or until the bodies controlling the warheads simply cannot launch anymore - which would confirm the destruction of civilization. The effects of multiple large-scale atomic fallouts are nowhere near as tranquil as euthanasia, the harrowingly unpredictable mutations and numerous cancers are only a fraction of the undocumented horrors brought about by the fallouts we've observed that occurred on a *much smaller* scale.

It would worsen humanity's chances of shaping a better future, not improve it. If your solution to mankind's problems is depopulation, then there are superior ways of achieving that, such as regulating family sizes as done in China. Impelling a nuclear armageddon would be unnecessary
Debate Round No. 1
WWWestfall

Pro

I will admit that based on what most of us learned in school, nuclear strikes with the old style ICBM's of the multitudes used for doomsday scenario propaganda would be devastating.

A nuclear war fought with "modern" weapons would be a war of tactical nuclear devices designed to cripple strategic targets: large cities, military targets, government centers, damns, power grid, docks, and airports.
If a war were to happen, Each country with modern nuclear devices, and some with old ones, would undoubtedly turn to a list of targets they would have to take out.
So, the idea that we would launch more than the over 2,120 nuclear warheads(that we know of) already detonated or that the total force of a large number of tactical nukes would equal more than the 540,749 kilotons of destructive force already released is a bit overkill.

Life would continues. Even more so without humans.
Humans inability to manage resources, because, for the most part, we are stupid and selfish, is the problem.
ojiisan

Con

It doesn't really matter what we learned in school-the people who write the books aren't the actual ones who have to pay the price, be them laughable or devastating, for their mishaps in thinking; we are.

That being said, once *any* kind of nuke is used, even tactical ones, what is it that will prevent the conflict from escalating to Mutually Assured Destruction? There's nothing that will.

If people were already crazy enough to even use nukes at all, what makes you think they wouldn't kill or threaten to kill innocent people if it meant the other side would stop? People start wars with the intention to win them, not for the sake of fighting as you suggest.

If you propose that we simply destroy population centers and all that enables its growth,, well the fact is nukes aren't necessary to get that done. Deliberately allowing the radiation and fallouts is deadly, and also unwise because there are better options available for peaceful depopulation
Debate Round No. 2
WWWestfall

Pro

We are not the ones who will pay for our ignorant misuse of the planet. Our children's children and all the species that we threaten and destroy are. Humans have had years to start managing resources and protect the planet for future generations, yet basically nothing has been done. There is so much misdirection when it comes to the environment that what most of the population believes is not really true.

It seems you believe humans are innocent and that you fear human suffering. I look at this from the stance that humans are grossly negligent and do not deserve to continue as they are. I argue that life on Earth is miraculous and would be better off if humans destroyed themselves or at least returned their population back to hundreds of millions instead of billions. I know what the after math of a nuclear conflict would be like. That is the purpose: destroy all infrastructure and allow humans to descend into chaos and starve to death.
ojiisan

Con

Ok so humans have mismanaged resources and made mistakes and without question harmed the planet, there's no denying that, but is a nuclear aftermath along with the ensuing descendance into chaos and starvation the only way to solve the problem? Is it even the most sensible way?

Perhaps too much has occurred and you no longer consider the human endeavour to be a noble one, to which i don't necessarily disagree. Your eagerness, augmented by an understandable fury and sorrow, leads to desperation that has you inclining towards the swiftest possible route. That doesn't make it the wisest one, though. Your dismay at humans destroying the planet is admirable, but your proposed nuclear solution, to destroy most if not all humans, which carries the adverse effect of destroying the planet, in order to save it, is paradoxical and more importantly, cannot work.
Debate Round No. 3
WWWestfall

Pro

I still adhere to my original statement that a global nuclear war would save the planet and that it would definately not cause sterilization of the planet...
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by WWWestfall 9 months ago
WWWestfall
... to make the same mistakes.
Posted by WWWestfall 9 months ago
WWWestfall
Global Nuclear War Would Save the Planet is the title of this debate.
Obviously, I was not talking about humans. I was talking about the planet.

You have not made an argument yet as to why nuclear war could not save the planet.

You are going off of reports from the 60's that assumed that the US and USSR would launch 1000's of 10-20 MEGAton nuclear warheads. You are going off the Nuclear Winter theory from the 1980's that assumed the use of the same. These theories used bad math. Those are the same books that almost all TV and Movies are based on. Propaganda.

As i have stated, there have been over 2100 bomb tests totaling about 540 MEGAtons. In comparison, the last great volcanin eruption, which caused there to be a year without a summer, was something like, if I remember correctly, 1000 MEGAtons. Of course, they are not the same, but for educated guess work, which is all scientific theories are, it gives something to relate to.

Modern nuclear war would be with ICBM's carrying 10 -20 small warheads, each aimed at different targets and of a very small payload as compared to the 20 MEGAton planet busters.

So, I again state that A nuclear war that destroyed human civilization would be the surest way to save the planet since much of the planets problems are cause by humans extreme over population when compared to available resources and harm being done. The cooling affect of the smoke and ash blocking out some sunlight would allow the Earth oceans to cool, which are currently being heated by Mans nuclear reactors. I would say that within a decade of a MAD event, animal and plant species would start to find harmony again and the planet would be busy erasing the catastrophe that is mankind.

If humans survive, which it is very likely that they will since starvation and disease will be the primary killers after a MAD event, they will hopefully retain enough technological know how and knowledge that they would not allow future generations to make the sam
Posted by ojiisan 9 months ago
ojiisan
i'm not interested in 'common sense' nor do i care if you accuse me of using that because i'm not. i could care less for propaganda, propaganda won't save us from the basic logic that if it's in the best interest of an entity, no matter how selfish or expedient, to completely obliterate the other, and they can, and there's nothing to stop them doing so, esprcially not surrender, then they most definitely will. and lifeforms which had no interest in any kind of conflict whatsoever are the ones who are most likely to suffer from that.
Posted by WWWestfall 9 months ago
WWWestfall
ojiisan have you ever even searched for the real or true effects of a nuclear war? Have you bothered to look past the propaganda? I mean, it is like you are trying to use "common sense" which is no more than programmed response. Reflexive reactions that are not actually based on reality. Fear sells and the biggest, most blown out of proportion myths about nuclear war is what most people believe. Stop basing your argument on movies and doomsday propaganda.
Posted by WWWestfall 9 months ago
WWWestfall
There have been 2.120 nuclear bomb test with a combined total of 540,749 kilotons.

The doomsday propaganda scenarios are based on the launching of thousands of old style, less advanced warheads. I am quiet sure that each country with nuclear weaponry has a go to list of targets to take out with tactical nuclear devices to bring an end to a war that would only last hours. Studies of volcanoes and asteroids affects on the global climate and caparison to nuclear war scenarios can be used to predict the outcome.

Since no one has lead me to this yet, my belief is that what makes Earth so precious is that it has life. Just because one species made war against all other species more successfully does not mean that one species is more important or entitled than any other. A nuclear war that destroyed human civilization would end the suffering of all other species on the planet. Life would continue, and the greatest threat to all life on the planet would be neutralized, for a time, if not indefinitely.
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
Just to emphasize, we can computer model this event. Temperatures on the surface of the Earth would drop lower than the last Ice age for a max of ten years. That would EXTERMINATE most life as we know it.
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
No Darling. Spewing tonnes of radioactive waste into the stratosphere would cool the planet so much that we would have nuclear winter. That would result in a collapse of the tropic cascade food network [Primary consumers, secondary consumers, so on]. Its not propaganda. Chernobyl is proof of that, and that was a small scale compared to the MIRV and other payload delivery systems that carry multiple warheads that have hundreds of times the yield that the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki had. Try again.
Posted by WWWestfall 9 months ago
WWWestfall
We have test hundreds and hundreds of nuclear weapons.The propaganda about extinction of all life on the planet is just that: propaganda. The effects would be no worse than those of volcanoes or a few medium sized asteroids. Most life on this planet is endangered already because of humans recklessness.
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
Events*
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
It would also be the greatest mass extinction event Earth had ever experienced. You would render it uninhabitable for centuries to come in some regions. The fallout would spread globally and exterminate large populations of organisms. It might even render Earth sterile for a very, very, very long time.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.