The Instigator
MenimeSaransh
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
tomschase
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points

Nuclear Disarmament- A viable objective?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
tomschase
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/6/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 41805
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (2)

 

MenimeSaransh

Con

Keeping track of latest events in North Korea, it struck me that number of nations with a nuclear arsenal has almost doubled since the opening of the NPT in 1967. While nuclear power was to be restricted to the five nations that were to slowly dismantle their power, the trend has been quite the opposite with countries like India, Israel, Pakistan and now North Korea developing their share of nuclear weaponry. More over i would like to challenge the very idea behind NPT which i see as a deliberate attempt by the bigger countries to keep the world under the control. It is not at all justified for bigger nations to restrict other nations from doing the same tests that they have been doing for so many years now. I challenge anyone to fight it with me till death.
tomschase

Pro

I accept your challenge, I must tell you though that this is my first debate and so I'm not quite sure what to expect. Anyways, I believe that nuclear disarmament it absolutely a viable objective. However, the international community is not willing to take the necessary actions. Take, for example, the situation in Iran. The P5 + 1 talks in Geneva have resulted in nothing but more time and temporary sanction relief on Iran. Instead of rewarding Iran's stubbornness, it should have been met with more sanctions and demands for Tehran to begin dismantling its Nuclear program. The reason that nuclear weapons should be kept exclusive is because one a nation has them, they almost become immortal. Nuclear armed states are at a stalemate due to the employment of MAD (mutually assured destruction), so essentially, these countries cannot be attacked and defeated without a significant threat of nuclear retaliation. The countries that are have already developed nuclear weapons are not blatantly hostile to other countries, perhaps intimidating, but not hostile. Iran, on the other hand, is, and if it is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it could launch an arms race in the middle east. It seems that leaders were so quick to reach an agreement that they have traded sanction relief for vague promises from Tehran. The pressure must be kept up, and if Iran is unwilling to negotiate on their nuclear program, perhaps military sanctions would be justified. We must not make the same mistake that Clinton made in 1996. I look forward to debating with you :)
Debate Round No. 1
MenimeSaransh

Con

As far as the sanction relief on Iran is concerned, i would like to state the IAEA report that states that Iran's uranium enrichment programmes are reportedly coming to a halt after all these years. This comes forward as welcome step by Iran, a country that has been uprooted not any less by the financial instability as it has been by the sanctions. So a shift of stance must be encouraged i believe as we have seen what has happened with the military sanctions in Iraq. Not only the Iraqi citizens but the Americans have outrightly opposed the Iraq war. As far as military sanctions are concerned, i think they are more of a bane than a boon as the past has proved.
Also, these wars are realistically seen as the US attempt to further its own purpose in the form of easing import of oil from these rich nations.
Also, they very fact that both the countries would have an equal share of lethal weapons would peg both of them to resolve the difference by talks, extending your point of MAD. Also, if the nations possesing nuclear power were to turn against some nuclear non-empowered nation, the weak nation would have to practically submit to all diktats by these powerful countries. Even this is my first debate, looking forward to a enriching experience :)
tomschase

Pro

Nuclear armed powers hope to resolve the issues with talks, but they should not be placed in a position where they would have to deal with a country with equivalent weapons of mass destruction, because that removes the option of force off of the table. Not only that, but once Iran has developed the bomb, what incentive would they have to resolve their differences by talking, assuming the sanctions are lifted. I mean, the sanctions were meant to prevent nuclear proliferation, so it defeats the whole purpose. If military sanctions were to be used, they would most likely be very limited, and not a full out invasion of Iran. By limited I mean that key nuclear facilities, including the Arak reactor under construction, would be targeted. Iran may not enrich any more uranium, but what is to keep it from reaching the break out point? Once this happens, there is no going back, once the bomb has been built there is nothing you can do, Iran would officially be a nuclear armed state. So you see the reason why nuclear weapons need to be controlled and kept exclusive. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and other countries that have developed nuclear weapons do not plan to use them anytime soon, so its not like there is a significant threat of nuclear attack looming over the heads of the Iranian people. Nobody is interested in war, everybody would like to solve this peacefully, but Iran insists on keeping its nuclear program. The effectiveness of the sanctions is another argument, but surely Iran must want them lifted because it came to the negotiating table. The talks should have had some much more assuring results, including the removal of Iran's enriched uranium stockpiles and complete compliance with UN nuclear weapons inspectors. We only reassure Iran, and the rest of the world, that we do not have the power to enforce the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. If Iran has no plans to develop nuclear weapons, then it would have no problem letting UN nuclear weapons inspectors into all of its nuclear facilities, to determine whether or not they are being used solely for peaceful purposes.
Debate Round No. 2
MenimeSaransh

Con

MenimeSaransh forfeited this round.
tomschase

Pro

I would like bring the debate to the example that my opponent used in his original post. North Korea is a clear example of why nuclear weaponry should be kept out of the hands of nations. As I am sure you all know, North Korea is known for its extremely hostile rhetoric towards the United States and South Korea, and even threatens to strike both with nuclear missiles. The validity of this threat is another debate, but we know that North Korea has developed nuclear weapons, and at this point, there is nothing we can do to stop their nuclear program except for economic sanctions only. As I said earlier, now that North Korea has nuclear weapons, the use of force is impractical due to the risk involved (also because of the batteries that North Korea has aimed at Seoul). You argue that we should leave nations to develop nuclear weapons if they wish, but certainly that would increase the chance of their use. Perhaps if every nation developed such weapons, they would become obsolete, due to MAD. War would still be possible, so long as either country was not threatened with complete annihilation (because if they're going down, you are going down with them). But this is simply impractical, and also does not account for irrational thinking. Iran must reassure the world that it is only using its nuclear facilities for energy uses and not to develop a nuclear weapon, because the world is much safer if nobody has these weapons capable of ending life on earth as we know it.
Debate Round No. 3
MenimeSaransh

Con

Reading your argument , it is evident that you feel whatever the big countries say should be imposed and should be treated as universally acceptable. Why do you need use of force when you think your stance is logic enough and moral enough?? Exactly what i am saying. You dont want to coerce nations into agreeing with yourself over force. That is not called dealing but bullying. Countries like Iran are major exporters of oil. Now you see why all of a sudden these mighty countries have an interest in civilizing these nations while they are supporting(offcourse under the books) similar kind of insurgency in Pakistan. I honestly feel it gives the weaker nations a parity to talk head on with exploitative countries. Moreover, Disarmament seems nonviable cause there is always the under market for everything, and so for nuclear technology. If a neighboring country acquires nuclear weapons, you are bound to rock your own boat to do the same out of security concerns, as with the Iran, Pakistan.
As far you talk about a limited peacekeeping mission in Iran, i would like to remind you that in Iraq as well, the objectives were ousting of the Saddam reign and restoring power to the people, How peacefully did we achieve that we all know. How can you say the rich countries dont plan on using them anytime soon? Whil you dont seem to pay heed to the same assurance by IRAN?
USA does not even allow insides of White House to put on google, do we assume its making hydrogen bombs there? Have you ever sent UN inspectors to US? no You can not, cause US funds most of the UN, thats the ground reality.
And if these biggies dont have to use these bombs at all, why is the number of ready warheads they have is increasing?
And what rights do these countries have over possession of nuclear weapons that others dont? One must not confuse wisdom and morality with huge nations. They may not be related at all.
tomschase

Pro

I have no problem with the advancement of smaller nations. However, we must ask ourselves, why do they need these great and powerful weapons? What good could possibly come from them? As I stated earlier, the United States was the only country to use nuclear weapons, with clearly devastating effects. Now they are much more destructive, so you see why it is a matter of utmost urgency to prevent Iran from developing such weapons? Is Iran really going to begin curbing its nuclear program, because if it is unwilling to engage in peaceful diplomacy with the rest of the world then the use of force is absolutely justified. You are correct, there are no UN inspectors, and the US does contribute a lot of the UN's budget. But the world already knows that the United States possesses these weapons, and is extremely hesitant to use them (hence why they have never been used ever after WWII). When the US did use them, it was the only country that possessed these weapons and it saved millions of American lives that otherwise would have been lost invading mainland Japan. A limited strike is much different than an invasion of Iraq. Do you think that the Americans really want another Iraq? Its not that the most influential nations want to keep other nations under them, its that they know how dangerous these weapons are, and they hope to keep them out of the hands of other nations. As far as disarming them goes, they have domestic politics that would prevent that. Also, these countries are not blatantly bellicose, and would most likely never use nuclear weapons unless significantly threatened. It's not as if the US, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel are threatening to annihilate smaller countries if they do not give in to their demands.
Debate Round No. 4
MenimeSaransh

Con

What do they want with these weapons? When you know that your neighbor and a historic enemy has these weapons, you don't really count the sheep.( Refer Iran-Iraq and Pakistan-India example). And your argument that US doesn't plan on using them anytime soon, the history as stated by you makes US the only nation to have used it. That speaks volumes about its tendency to not care for the massive destruction it causes, not only by killing thousands of men, but also crippling their entire future. I feel sorry when you talk about how Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved a lot of American lives, Have you any idea what damage it has caused to the people there? Children born their still have unnatural impairments, thanks to US saving thousands of American lives. By an means, you can not think US lives are more precious than others.
IF they know these weapons are extremely dangerous, why is that they are multiplying their warheads constantly? Are you saying US is more responsible only by the virtue of being US?
Also by the topic i meant, if its a possible objective or not. I wanted to establish this by stressing on the fact that not only its impossible to curtail the proliferation without destroying nations completely like Iraq, but is extremely immoral too. Every nations has a liberty to its property, and without liberty, an existence is nothing but worthless.
Let me get you to the depth of the Iraq story, the report set by the govt. in front of the US parliament had evidence from a defected minister of Saddam Hussein. After all the pandemonium and loss of lives in IRAQ, the US officer who forwarded the report has confessed that the contents of his meeting with the defected minister had been altered i.e. the minister had denied any nuclear weapons in IRAQ then, but the report showed the contrary (According to BBC) . Now you see how moral are these nations?
Is it now easier to understand whats happening in IRAN?
tomschase

Pro

To answer your question, no, I do not think that American lives are more important than others. However, looking at it in a strategic way, the Allies were tired from war and I think that everybody was ready for the war to end. But in order to end the war, the Japanese had to surrender. Now if you were an American, would you rather drop two devastating bombs on Japan, or lose millions of lives invading mainland Japan (both American and Japanese). Also, Japan was told to surrender, and it knew the consequences if it did not meet this demand. It is not as if the Americans just dropped the bombs, the Japanese refused to surrender peacefully, and it seems that the bombs were the only thing to get them to realize that the war was over. Let's keep in mind that these two bombs ended WWII, their destructive power is indisputably unrivaled. The Atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki had material with half lives of hours or weeks, do the radiation was not long lasting. I can assure you, America's use of Agent Orange in Vietnam caused far more deformities. Japan's recent nuclear accident probably released radiation far worse than that of the bombs dropped during WWII. Also, what makes you think that nuclear armed nations are multiplying their warheads? The United States and Russia (notably the two largest nuclear powers), having been signed New Start in 2010, actually have plans to reduce the amount of nuclear warheads they currently possess [1]. When you talk about the Iraq-Iran and India-Pakistan rivalries, it almost supports my argument. If we allow these countries to develop nuclear weaponry, we have just launched an arms race. Now Iraq will need to develop their own nuclear tech to counter Iran's, and so forth. Every country that has joined the nuclear club since 1968, when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was signed -- India, Israel, North Korea and Pakistan -- acquired its weapons under the cover of a civilian nuclear program. Yes, I do believe all nations should have a right to nuclear energy, but when the rest of the world has to worry about whether or not Iran is developing nuclear weapons, it becomes a privilege. Why can't Iran import its enriched uranium like the UAE? This could be easily monitored so that Iran would not be able to siphon off material for a nuclear weapons program. Iran simply does not need a nuclear bomb, and any ambition to build one should be put out immediately.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by tomschase 3 years ago
tomschase
Regardless whether or not they signed the treaty, they should not have developed these weapons without the approval of the international community. Why should any country be allowed the right to build weapons of mass destruction? While there may be black markets for nuclear materials, there are new and more accurate ways of detecting the development of nuclear weapons. Proliferation will most certainly be hard to control unless we stop Iran from reaching the break out point right now. Otherwise, when the international community discovers Iran's true intentions, it'll be too late and they can rush for the bomb.
Posted by MenimeSaransh 3 years ago
MenimeSaransh
Hey wirchcirw
I had mentioned that Americans outrightly opposed war in lieu of all the protests that have happened in America after theyve come to terms with the effects of war, in a post Iraq sense.
As far as proliferation being extremely hard to control, i had mentioned the same with respect to pakistan and Iran.
"Moreover, Disarmament seems nonviable cause there is always the under market for everything, and so for nuclear technology. If a neighboring country acquires nuclear weapons, you are bound to rock your own boat to do the same out of security concerns, as with the Iran, Pakistan."
Though id agree to the fact that i dint give ample space to it.
Also id be delighted in seeing what all points you could have made had you been in my position?
i feel sorry for not pointing out the Japan disaster.

Tomschase- Nobody needs approval for developing Arms . They very fact that India, Israel and Pakistan did not sign the NPT gives them every right to do it.
Posted by tomschase 3 years ago
tomschase
I know that Israel, Pakistan, and India are not signatories of the NPT, but each of these countries have developed nuclear weapons without the approval of the international community, and we must prevent that in Iran. Israel has made it quite clear that they are only interested in self-defense. Iran has threatened to destroy Israel, if that is not scary than I do not know what is, and that is why we must not allow it. You are right wrichcirw, perhaps an arms race has already been launched, but it is our responsibility to stop it. Also, thanks for the criticism, I will try to improve upon that in my future debates.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
1) PRO: "Iran, on the other hand, is, and if it is allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, it could launch an arms race in the middle east."

Dear lord, and what about Israel's nukes? Why do you think Iran wants nukes anyway? Maybe it's because there's ALREADY an arms race in the region.

2) CON: "Not only the Iraqi citizens but the Americans have outrightly opposed the Iraq war."

That's simply not true. Most Americans supported the invasion.

3) PRO: " Also, Japan was told to surrender, and it knew the consequences if it did not meet this demand."

Sigh, no Japan did NOT know - the reason why Nagasaki was bombed is because Japan had absolutely no idea what happened in Hiroshima. There's something about a-bombs that disrupt communication channels, you know.

CONCLUSION

I found neither side to be convincing. Both employed a stream-of-consciousness debating style that did not lend to argumentation. Almost every point on both sides were undeveloped.

I was looking for a key argument, that it's extremely difficult to prevent proliferation. While CON made that argument, there was no reasoning or substantiation behind it...it was jumbled along with the rest of his position.

Arguments tie, conduct PRO for the FF.
Posted by MenimeSaransh 3 years ago
MenimeSaransh
Dude India, Israel and Pakistan are not signatories of NPT.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
I'll accept this debate under 2 conditions:

1) That this debate be deemed a "no scoring" debate, and

2) That the rounds are extended to 3 days instead of one.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Tophatdoc 3 years ago
Tophatdoc
MenimeSaranshtomschaseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to be more convincing. Pro offered one source. Con forfeited a round, so I gave the conduct point to Pro. Good luck to you both in future debates.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
MenimeSaranshtomschaseTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments