The Instigator
iadebater
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
visionsofdylan
Con (against)
Losing
12 Points

It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/20/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,532 times Debate No: 2006
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (12)

 

iadebater

Pro

In this debate, Justice will be defined as giving each their due.

Military force is the only action available and capable of deterring nations from acquiring nuclear weapons Zbigniew Brzezinski explains: "Short of a unilateral military action - the world's only superpower could not dissuade a country firmly determined to acquire nuclear weapons." So, in order to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons military force has to be used.

We must, in this debate take into account the obligations of the United States. These are determined through the agreements the government has made to its people and through what international laws they have agreed to follow. If the United States doesn't follow through with its obligations, the world will end.

The proliferation and acquisition of nuclear weapons would lead to extinction. Utgoff explains: "Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand." The United states has the obligation to protect the rights of it's citizens and the right to life is the most important of all rights. If we become extinct, there is obviously a violation of the right to life.

If the terrorist nations in the world get a hold of nuclear weapons, they will undoubtedly use them on the United States. Vikram Dodd who was the Journalist of the year at the 2000 EMMA awards explains:
"UK officials have detected "an awful lot of chatter" on jihadi websites expressing the desire to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. Asked whether there was any doubt that al-Qaida was trying to gain the technology to attack the west, including the UK, with a nuclear weapon, a senior Foreign Office counter-terrorism official said: "No doubt at all. "The official explained: "We know the aspiration is there, we know the attempt to get material is there, we know the attempt to get technology is there." With the number of mujahid's growing every day, the threat also increases. There are millions of radical mujahid's and if they got a hold of nuclear weapons, it would be detrimental to the world. The United States has an obligation to protect its people and when a terrorist nation that will undoubtedly use nuclear arms if they get a hold of them will be a military threat to the United States.

The United States is the only country that is capable of stopping this proliferation, and looking back at my observation, military force must be used. Zalmay Khalilzad, who was the 26th Unites States ambassador to the UN writes: A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have a better chance of dealing with nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low-level conflicts. U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the world to avoid another global war and global nuclear exchange. So, the United States is the country to stop this proliferation and acquisition and it would increase our hegemony to do so. Increasing our hegemony would create a forced peace, not extinction, and as no country is strong enough to oppose us, it would fulfill the obligations of the United States because its main obligation is to protect the rights of its citizens.

Because the United States has the obligation to protect the right to life, which is the first and foremost right, it then has the obligation to get rid of the thing that will take it away–and the United States is the only country capable of ending the acquisition and proliferation and nothing but military force will work, you must vote pro.
visionsofdylan

Con

Yes but this need to "police" the world is extremely hypocritical of the USA. I agree with you that a country or an alliance of countries must step up to ride the world of nuclear weapons so none get in the hands of terrorists, but the USA and many other countries must first get rid of theirs. If every nuclear power just ends their nuclear programs today, many problems would be solved. Instead of almost going to wars with North Korea and Iran over nuclear weapons, why not get rid of the ones we have? That is why these countries are reaching out to get weapons, because they need to keep up with technology in order to be power in the world today. They feel threatened without them while 15 or so other countries have them.
Debate Round No. 1
iadebater

Pro

Hegemony is defined as: economic and military dominance. As the world hegemon, it is not only reccomended but neccesary for US to police the world. If you disagree with this point, you disagree with the fact that the US is the world hegemon. At that point I would like to ask who is then. Hegemony is good for two reasons:

1) It prevents war. Power and influence are needed for war - Hegemony allows for one country to have all of the poewr and it can't obviously nuke itself so hegemony prevents war.

2) Hegemony prevents Hobbsian Nature. Thomas Hobbes looked at the world through a realistic viewpoint - if there is no power within the world then society and governments work as every man for himself. Hegemony takes the world out of this and brings the world together because one country keeps the others stable. It is our duty to police the world then.

It is our obligation since the obligation of the US is to protect the rights of it's people through the Social Contract Theory. The rights are life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

You also agreed to the terrorism argument so you agree that if we allow the terrorists to get a hold of them, extinction will occur, but never solved the problem.

My question is, if military force won't work, what will?

To respond to the declining our nukes argument, we are currently declining our nukes. Russia and the US both agreed to half their nukes by 2012. We are declining, so that argument is void.
visionsofdylan

Con

Yes, however hegemony has its limits. The USA is now, thanks to their aggressive foreign policy, not only in countries they have a rocky relationship with ( the Middle East) but also allies, like many European nations. I almost received a beating in an Irish Pub in 2004 just for being American. They feel that we are too proud and that we act like we rule the world. Instead, we make sure when going into countries to get rid of terrorism, we make sure the rest of the world, especially our allies, are content with it. Now my policy has always been we have to stay out of foreign affairs, much like our founding fathers. However, past leaders have screwed that up in the Middle East and now we must deal with the consequences.
Debate Round No. 2
iadebater

Pro

First off, your arguments about the middle east are invalid since they are the ones that would be acquiring the nuclear weapons. If we were to invade the Middle East to prevent the acquisition, it wouldn't matter because they would be our enemies, not our allies.

You also didn't respond to the fact that the proliferation and acquisition of nuclear weapons would lead to extinction. You also haven't responded to the fact that the United States is the only country that is capable of stopping this proliferation, and looking back at my observation, you didn't respond to the fact that military force must be used. You also didn't really respond to the fact that if the terrorist nations in the world get a hold of nuclear weapons, they will undoubtedly use them on the United States except on agreeing that we must step in to not let the nukes get into the hands of terrorists. That is what this debate is about so I win right there.

Lets summarize:

-You agree that we must stop terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons.

-You agree that the US is the only one capable.

-You agree that military force is the only option.

-You completely agree with my stance, the only argument you had was that the US shouldn't be the ones doing it because of the hegemony issue, but you also agreed that we are the only ones capable. I have also solved the issue of hegemony.

- I also have a plan to solve, unlike you so i win from that perspective.

PLEASE REVIEW ALL OF MY POINTS BEFORE VOTING. THANK YOU AND VOTE AFFERMATIVE!!!
visionsofdylan

Con

Alright friendo this is what I'm saying.
The reason why terrorist groups in the Middle East and countries like Iran dislike us and are threatening to destroy us is because of our foreign policy of the last 35 years. If we minded our own business much like the founding fathers warned us to, we would not have to deal with these anti-American threats. However, we had to butt into their affairs and now we have to deal with those consequences. An anti-American fever is spreading in the Middle East and our list of enemies is increasing day by day. Do I believe nuclear weapons will lead to our extinction? Yes, I very strongly believe that, but do I believe that the US alone can stop this? No, not at all. And if we believe this we are doomed. I feel that as a world with many countries in agreement, we can end this nuclear threat. However, the USA alone trying to take on this will eventually lead to our downfall. And by the way, we are not the lone superpower anymore. China, India and the European Union I think have joined us and we should be in cooperation with them before we tackle a mission this big. And also, we do not want to be that hegemon because all hegemons in the past have failed, such as the Netherlands in the 1700's and Great Britain in the !800's

And when you said I did not have a plan, I do indeed.
My plan is in a world agreement to get rid of nuclear weapons for good, the powers around the world will take on terrorist groups so they will not perpetrate terrorist acts. Not the USA by itself, but as part of an alliance. And after the world is somewhat safe, we get the hell out of there and remained isolated for as long as we can.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by keiramcphee 8 years ago
keiramcphee
it was such a great help, and thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
some vocabularies to check up
Posted by Daddy_Warbux 9 years ago
Daddy_Warbux
Pro Round 2-It is said that hegemony prevents war and that the U.S. is the world hegemon. But is this not proven wrong by the fact that there is war coexisting with hegemony? Unless you mean that the U.S. should be the world hegemon.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
wow, that actually sent shivers up my spine. you're a kook.
Posted by visionsofdylan 9 years ago
visionsofdylan
I am gonna hunt you down shwayze. You wait. Don't test me
Posted by karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
ahaha i was wondering how long it would take until this topic was posted. yayy LD =)
Posted by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
Thanks shwayze. Like he said, don't vote based on personal opinion, like I said.. LOOK AT MY POINTS BEFORE VOTING!
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
I'm almost completely convinced that people vote entirely biased on their personal preference and opinion. Pro won the debate and was much more comprehensive and analytical in his defense.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Bnesiba 9 years ago
Bnesiba
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by azntwinz2 9 years ago
azntwinz2
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Hassina 9 years ago
Hassina
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by MarxistKid 9 years ago
MarxistKid
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by iadebater 9 years ago
iadebater
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by karlynjane 9 years ago
karlynjane
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kato0291 9 years ago
kato0291
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Richard89 9 years ago
Richard89
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by cjet79 9 years ago
cjet79
iadebatervisionsofdylanTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03