The Instigator
goldman
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points
The Contender
Atheism
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points

Is the world without nuclear weapons possible ?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
Atheism
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/20/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,490 times Debate No: 13181
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (8)

 

goldman

Con

It is fresh in our memory that U.S. president Barack Obama made a speech in Prague in April 2009 to try to make a world without nuclear weapons. In this speech he made clear ``the U.S. must seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.``(1) He also said that ``as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act``(2)toward building a world without nuclear weapons.
After the end of World War Second the world has promoted to eliminate the production and possessing of nuclear weapons among the member states of the United Nations. In particular, Nuclear Non proliferation Treaty has played an important role in creating a world without nuclear weapons. Moreover, after the end of Cold War many people in the world have participated in the movement to build a world without nuclear weapons on a global scale. However, unfortunately their objectives and appeals are not realized today. I believe building a world without nuclear weapons is very difficult task to realize in the near future. I point out a number of reasons. Firstly, in reality Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty does not contribute to attaining the original purposes. For example, the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea possess a large amount of nuclear weapons and highly sophisticated military weapons. The important thing is that in spite of the speech delivered by the U.S. president the U.S. and Russia have the largest stock of nuclear weapons and both countries are interested in possessing and strengthening their military power further. In particular, the U.S. has a strong interest and zeal in maintaining her role as a world policeman in a multipolar world by producing and keeping nuclear weapons. Brahma Chellancy points out that ``some 95 percent of all nuclear weapons are in the arsenals of the United States and Russia. The U.S. has announced recently that it has 5,113 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, plus several thousand more waitng to be dismantled. Russia is believed to have a fairly similar number of nuclear weapons in deployment.``(3) He also emphasizes that ``both Russia and the U.S. still maintain overkill capabilities- that is, either can destroy the entire world sevral times over.(4) Secondly, the strong interest of the U.S. in producing and maintaining nuclear weapons is closely linked to the political and economic structure of the U.S. We must pay much attention to the function and role of Military-Industrial complex of the United States. How can we define Military- Industrial complex ? ``Military- Industrial Complex is a phase used to signify a comfortable relationship between parties that are charged to manage wars( the military, the presidential administration and congress) and companies that produce weapons and equipment for war(industry).(5) There are many companies which produce military weapons including nuclear weapons and the related technologies. For example, major defense contractors in the U.S. are Northrop Grumman Corporation, General Dynamics and United Technologies. These companies have close connection with lobbyists. They promote to sell military related goods to the U.S. government and The Defense Ministry. The important thing is that military industries offer a great number of job opportunity for american workers. Moreover, they are contributing to creating not only for an innovative technologies which can be applied for civilian products but for producing a highly sophisticated military weapons which is used for the U.S. military. Thirdly, we must recognize the newly emerging country like China is increasing investment in an array of areas, including nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, submarines, aircraft carriers and cyberwarfare.(6) China is interested in expanding their military influence to be able to hit targets as far away as Guam, including much of mainland Japan and the Philippines. China is aiming at creating a imperialistic influence over Asia by possessing nuclear weapons. Moreover, these days nuclear weapons are proliferated in the Middle East countries. (7) The political tension between Israel and Palestine may trigger regional war using nuclear weapons. Today nuclear weapons are used for exerting an oppressing influence in international relations. From above mentioned arguments I strongly believe world without nuclear weapons will not be possible in the near future. I hope someone will participate in this debate and develop our arguments.
References: (1)Accelarate nuclear disarmament(Editorial) , The Japan Times, August 7,2010
(2) Accelerate nuclear disarmament(Editorial)
(3) B.Chellaney, The NPT`s uncertain future, The Japan Times, August 8,2010
(4) The NPT`s uncertain future
(5) http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com...
(6) The Japan Times , August 18,2010
(7) Gareth Evans, Time to take nuclear disarmament seriously, The Japan Times, August 8, 2010
Atheism

Pro

I will affirm the resolution, "Is a world without nuclear weapons possible?" I take the position, that, yes, it is.
Let's move on to some of my arguments:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Definition of world:
1. The earth.
2. The universe.

Contention 1: Multiverse theory.
This theory states that there are an infinitude of universes, where every universe is different.
As such, it is entirely possible that a world without nuclear weapons as possible.
Resolution Affirmed.

Contention 2: Everyone dies.
This is course of action in which N. Korea and Germany, both angry at the US for past and present differences, fire their nuclear weapons. The US's tactic is to respond with more nuclear weapons. The ensuing blast will destroy all humans, and indeed, nuclear weapons off the face of the Earth.

Contention 3:Doomsday.
On December 24th, or whatever date it is, 2012, the world may end. Armageddon, Yellowstone Volcano, magnetic poles shift, huge comet impacts Earth, or other things may occur, destroying the Earth, and subsequently, all nuclear weapons in the process.

Contention 4:Armageddon.
As we can not 100% prove religion wrong, it stands to reason it is possible that the Christian God is real, and, as prophesied, Armageddon is set into motion. As stated in revelations, the entire Earth would be ravaged, which would subsequently set off the nuclear weapons, and eventually destroying the Earth utterly. We would then be bereft of nuclear weapons entirely (as well as our lives).

I need not respond to my opponent's arguments as they are entirely irrelevant in the face of the actual resolution.

Resolution Affirmed.
Debate Round No. 1
goldman

Con

Pro, thank you for accepting the debate. I argued the topic from the viewpoint of world politics and international relations. Great powers like the U.S., China, Russia possess a large number of nuclear weapons. This situation plays an important role as a deterrent to refrain from going to nuclear war. I believe leaders of the great powers are not interested in going to war by using nuclear weapons. However, they are always aiming at exerting an enourmous influence in world politics and at maintaining a super-power status by possessing nuclear weapons as long as possible.
For example, the U.S. has a strong interest in supplying nuclear weapons not only to Israel but to Saudi Arabia to bolster her influence in the Middle East. In particular, Libia and Iran are threatening Saudi Arabia by showing off nuclear weapons because she is an allied country of the United States. Against these waves in world politics there is a movement to reduce nuclear weapons the U.S. and Russia recently to keep the Earth and our civilization from being destroyed by nuclear war. However, in reality this seems difficult task to realize. Fred Kaplan argues that at some point, when the major powers are down to,say, 100 or 50 or a dozzen warheads, others might feel compelled to jump on the nuclear bandwagon, since even a small arsenal would put them in a position of parity with the big boys.(1)
I agree with his argument. World without nuclear weapons will not be realized in the future. However, world with nuclear power will continue forever. I think the leaders of the great powers do not believe Doomsday and Armageddon. They realize if nuclear war would take place, everyone would die including them and our civilization would be destroyed. I quate an stimulating argument here.``Albert Einstein famously said that the 4th world war would be fought with sticks and stones. What he meant at the time was that the 3rd would likely end in nuclear conflict and everybody would be reduced to the stone age.`` (2)
References: (1) Fred Kaplan, No more nukes? , TIME September27,2010
(2) http://answers.yahoo.com...
Atheism

Pro

Unfortunately, my opponent's argument is entirely irrelevant, again.
Possible is defined as such:
1. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
In no way shape or form need it be probable. My opponent has not responded to any of my arguments, which are entirely possible. I need not respond to his because they are irrelevant in the face of my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by rengstrom6147 7 years ago
rengstrom6147
I agree, I thought it was kind of a dbag move of atheism, obviously we know that Con was not looking for a debate on the metaphysical possibility of a world without nuclear weapons. However, Atheism is right, Con did not specify any definitions and as such is completely legimate in the debate. Therefore, I did award Athiesm with more points by far, but I did give con a point for conduct :)
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
Of course, I have to give your opponent conduct because it was a real d-bag move.
Posted by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
"Contention 1: Multiverse theory.
This theory states that there are an infinitude of universes, where every universe is different.
As such, it is entirely possible that a world without nuclear weapons as possible.
Resolution Affirmed."

J.Kenyon approves of your sneaky semantics.
Posted by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
And, in his argument, he even quotes Albert Einstein, who stated that the fourth world war would be fought with sticks and stones, thus implying that nuclear weapons would be eradicated from the third world war blowing everything to bits.
Goldman even agrees with Albert Einstein.
Posted by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
He did not specify the resolution nor definition.
How can you award any points toward him, least of all spelling?
Posted by minervx 7 years ago
minervx
I cast my vote for Goldman. Atheism's arguments are irrelevant and based on the fallacy of equivocation.
Posted by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
....I could be such a d!ck...
Posted by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
too long to read i gave up lol
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by Blank 7 years ago
Blank
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Atheism 7 years ago
Atheism
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:11 
Vote Placed by rengstrom6147 7 years ago
rengstrom6147
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by Loserboi 7 years ago
Loserboi
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:10 
Vote Placed by TPF 7 years ago
TPF
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 7 years ago
J.Kenyon
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Vote Placed by tmhustler 7 years ago
tmhustler
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by minervx 7 years ago
minervx
goldmanAtheismTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70