The Instigator
Con (against)
3 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Nuclear Disarmament

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,071 times Debate No: 65849
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Nuclear disarmament I believe is, unfortunately, an impossible dream that would never work in reality. Nuclear weapons are close to a seventy year old technology. They are not even terribly difficult to make. However, it is the material which is hard to obtain. I agree, a war free world would be great but, in order for that to happen every single last nuclear weapon must be destroyed. Considering there are over nineteen thousand nuclear warheads in the world today, and many are in the hands of dictators and countries who mean harm to the UK, it would be unwise to consider disarming ours.
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.


Nuclear disarmament I believe is a possible dream that would work in reality. The world before nuclear weapons was a world much safer. The idea of a weapon that can take an island apart is terrifying to any individual. But, yes my opponent is right, if the state you are living in has nuclear weapons, than you are guaranteed a 70% chance of safety. But, as an idealist I am troubled by the fact that the con side still believes that if all of us have nuclear weapons, than we will all have a chance of safety. This idea is not so realistic, but more ideological. According to IBT, Pakistan has the fastest growing nuclear program. By 2020, Pakistan might have 200 nuclear devices. Now, I am not going to try to accuse Pakistan's government for threatening America and Israel. But terrorist groups such as the Taliban have a strong grip on Pakistan. According to the New York Times, a very rich family in Pakistan needed help, because the Taliban were coming to take their town. They didn't have any backup, so they decided to call the federal government(because they don't even have a way to contact cops). The federal government said that they could not do anything about the Taliban. This proves that even a rich family can't do anything against the Taliban. The Taliban have a very strong grip on Pakistan, and the federal government can't do anything about it. Now you can ask why I wanted to tell you about Pakistan. The main argument here is the idea that there is a certain probability that a bunch of crazy religious fundamentals might come, and take over the government, and start a nuclear war. If the Taliban had access to the fastest growing nuclear program, than I don't think that the world would be safe. That is why we should go for Nuclear Disarmament. If nobody had these weapons, than we wouldn't need to fear this probability argument. But since the idea of religious terror groups having nuclear weapons is possible, than the United Nations should work to have a proper Nuclear Disarmament.
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.
Debate Round No. 1


I too wish the world had not discovered nuclear weapons, but if we examine the facts it will become clear they they aren't going anywhere. As you say yourself Pakistan is rapidly developing nuclear technology and there is nothing the US can do about it. Iran is also highly suspected to be enriching uranium for a nuclear weapons program. And they are not exactly friendly with the US, UK or any other "western" country.

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.


Very valid points my opponent has left me, but the round is not over.

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.
Debate Round No. 2
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Jebediah-Kerman 2 years ago
One of the main problems, I think, is actually taking away their nuclear weapons, and making sure that they don't make new ones. Some countries are somewhat hostile, and have no reason to give up their nuclear arsenal.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Jzyehoshua 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides debated well but I think Con's position is stronger that nuclear disarmament would be impractical.