Debate Rounds (2)
The UK currently has approximately two hundred and twenty five nuclear warheads - this is only one point eighteen percent of the world's nuclear weapons. It is believed that Russia alone has around ten thousand warheads, which dwarfs the UK's stockpile. Some countries depend on nuclear weapons purely to preserve their very existence and will not be disarming theirs anytime soon. Frankly, if the UK was to disarm nuclear weapons would leave us vulnerable and weak in the eyes of other countries. As for the money it costs; the UK spends far more on education and hospitals than it does on its military. By supporting this supposed philanthropic argument of nuclear disarmament, I believe it would make the world a less stable place.
Let me give you one immediate example; disarming our nuclear weapons, would cost the UK its seat on the UN Security Council, as the only reason we are on the Council is because we were one of the first five countries to have nuclear weapons. We should be proud of this. Also, disarming one's own nuclear weapons would not solve the problem of international violence. One would merely put oneself at a disadvantage that other nuclear powers could capitalize on. Sadly, some people naively believe that the disarming of nuclear weapons could discourage violent ideologies. But this isn't the case as violent ideologies have existed even before the creation of nuclear weapons.
Unlike what Nuclear Disarmament activists lead you to believe; aside from the initial investment, the UK's nuclear weapons are not at all expensive. The running cost has been four to five percent of the defense budget, which is itself only thirty six billion pounds. The defense budget makes up a trifling five point nineteen percent of our National budget. The UK spends two hundred and twenty billion pounds on social protection such as benefits and tax credits and over twenty billion a year on EU membership alone. This shows us that the cost of defending out country is actually comparatively small.
The Nuclear disarmament viewpoint can, unfortunately, sometimes come across as not comprehending the larger geopolitical situation and the implications of their own argument. This view involves closing ourselves off and pretending the world is a sound and stable place where everyone wants peace. As much as I would also like to believe this, this is a naive view that will sadly benefit no-one.
The world needs us, and the rest of the civilized, developed nations, as strong nuclear powers and disposing of our nuclear weapons will create a power vacuum which other, malicious states would - in these times - quickly exploit.
In conclusion, let us not forget that during World War Two sixty million died due to the use of conventional warfare and it all ended because of ....nuclear weapons. Although many lives were lost, a far greater number of lives were saved as a result. Nowadays, we never use nuclear weapons as 'weapons' but as a deterrent to prevent wars from occurring in the first place. Surely, this is a good thing.
The idea is that stable and powerful countries can posses them to "balance the power" and ensure less stable countries don't develop nuclear technology. Nuclear weapons have prevented wars between great powers. Let's take the Cold War for an example: if it had been a conventional war, there would have been millions of casualties. However the nuclear threat "stabilized" the power as there was a mutual fear of going to war, consequently virtually nobody died during the Cold War.
Nuclear war is a war nobody can win, so it's a war that will never be fought.
Isis is also on the rise. Isis has voiced many threats to Israel and America. Now, even though I don't support Israel, if one country is destroyed, than another country will be next. As we all know, Isis is a local Islamic Group that has been getting a lot of territory due to its brilliant attacks. But what is also brilliant about these groups is that they are not scared of death. They firmly believe that they will be going to heaven after they die. This idea makes their group one of the most powerful groups that have ever lived. They also show clear intelligence on how they handle oil. US had to come in with drones to degrade their oil factories, because they were making 2 million dollars per day. The probability argument comes even stronger in this case. If Isis is capable of conquering Iraq, and making 2 million dollars a day, than it is more probable that Isis can conquer Iran or Pakistan. If this is probable, than it is even more probable that Isis can acquire nuclear weapons, and be capable of launching weapons at Israel and the USA. This will launch a Nuclear War, and nobody wants a nuclear war.
I believe that with all this acceleration in nuclear weapons in the world it would be a wise idea to keep our own, if we have nuclear weapons then countries that could be wanting to attack will have to re-think as a retaliation is inevitable. You also state the world does not want a nuclear war, I agree with this to some extent as civilised western countries can see the implications and will only be possessing nuclear weapons as a deodorant. However unfortunately idealists like yourself seem to underestimate the intentions of some world leaders. Here is a link to the wiki showing how many countries possess or are believed to possess nuclear weapons.
You also cannot un-invent the technology as it has been around for 70 or so years, and as you say Isis is growing in power and wealth. So while the west are disarming all of our nuclear weapons this is opening the opportunities of the power vacuum to hostile countries and organisations such as Isis. Why would you weaken yourself to other countries? this to me seems very illogical. This is why I disagree with the idealistic and potentially naive Nuclear disarmament viewpoint.
~Some of the figures from my first argument relate to the UK as that is where I am from. Also please do not judge my argument simply because I am 14 years old. I aim to debate with people of any age.
My opponent's stance is a seemingly open stance. "I too wish the world had not discovered nuclear weapons". "there is nothing the US can do about it. Iran is also highly suspected to be enriching uranium for a nuclear weapons program" My opponent says that since US can't do anything, than if nuclear war happens. US just can't do anything. The UN can't do anything. No, it is not that the US can't, it is because we won't. We just won't do it, because of the stress and spending and time going into it. Also, lists of countries that have nuclear weapons is irrelevant to my case, because I am trying to prove why nuclear disarmament is viable. If nuclear war was going to happen in 10 years, I bet the UN would do everything possible to try and prevent it.
I realize that I cannot un-invent technology that has been around, but that doesn't been we can't disable it. So, what if hostile countries get conquered by Isis. Isis already has enough power to conquer countries. Which scenario would you as the voter like best? Isis has acquired the Pakistan army or Isis has acquired the fastest growing nuclear program. Also, Isis is not scared of death. If they blow up Israel, and they get destroyed too, that still won't get them to stop thinking of heaven. The reason why you should vote for pro is because Pro had scenarios which were probable. My opponent never pointed out the probability argument, therefore he agrees that it is probable. If there is a probability of nuclear war, than we should do the steps to insure that the probability is very low. The risk of humanity extinct is a world that we do not want. We want our children, grandchildren to live an prosper on this Earth. Vote for pro if you want that future.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides debated well but I think Con's position is stronger that nuclear disarmament would be impractical.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.