Nuclear Weapons Should be used in times of War
Debate Rounds (3)
First Round is Acceptance
It'd be an Honor to go against the DDO Revolution Leader
I accept my opponents challenge.
Welcome to the Debate All who just arrived!
I do not believe that nuclear weapons should be used in war, In Fact the Idea appauls me, I'm Merely Re-Instating a debate I happened to have passed by.
R1: Ultimate Ends of War (It Sends a Message)
Let's be honest here, how many people can say that Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a bad idea? If we had just kept sending more and more units then we'd just be losing more troops. We've tested these bombs many times and we know the destruction they're capable of, that's the main reason we use them.
" Winston Churchill estimated that the lives of a million Americans and two hundred and fifty thousand British soldiers and sailors had been saved by this sudden shortening of the war."Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki sent a message to Emperor Hirohito that can't be denied." Hopefully, as a result, the world will be a safer place.""What did not happen as a result of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was “Operation Downfall,” a massive Allied (largely American) invasion of the Japanese home islands that was being actively planned." Basically If "Operation Downfall" had taken effect then there would have been far more casualties on both sides. We can rest peacefully knowing that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not in vain.
R2: Nature's Recovery of Fallout
Let's be honest here, we've never been on the best side with mother nature. Unlike us mother-nature has the ability to recover from the most devastating part of a Nuclear Weapon, that is to say of course the fallout." simply fallout, also known as Black Rain, is the residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast or a nuclear reaction conducted in an unshielded facility, so called because it "falls out" of the sky after the explosion and shock wave have passed." To put simply fallout lasts longer than any other part of the Nuclear Weapons Effects, and can also be equally devastating. While Cheronobyl wasn't hit by any nuclear-weapon it has experienced a lot of radiation, what not with it's meltdown and all. Surprisingly there have been animals that have addapted to the land there, also plants continue to grow over the broken city."Chernobyl’s abundant and surprisingly normal-looking wildlife has shaken up how biologists think about the environmental effects of radioactivity. The idea that the world’s biggest radioactive wasteland could become Europe’s largest wildlife sanctuary is completely counterintuitive for anyone raised on nuclear dystopias." Life will thrive in places unknown to us.
Jifpop09 forfeited this round.
ScrinTech forfeited this round.
Argument 1: M.A.D
M.A.D, which stands for mutually assured destruction, is the theory that if we launch a nuke, then a chain of nuclear engagements will commence that will destroy the world. In today's age, its virtually imposible to nuke a country without triggering M.A.D.
Nations will feel threatened, mistrustful, and will likely be more open to nuclear warfare if someone starts a precedent. By well proven theory, nuclear attacks will result in the end of civilization. And even if the theory is not certain, the risk is to high for any serious consideration. 
Argument 2: Repercussions
The Sheer repercussions of nuclear warfare are uninmaginable. Nuclear warfare is internationally condemned, and heres a good example of a few things that most certainly will happen, using the US as an example.......
1. The US would be kicked out of every international agency, including NATO.
2. US allies will turn their weapons on us.
3. The US will be heavily embargoed, uranium included. They wouldn't even have the materials to build further bombs.
4. The US, if it had not started M.A.G., would set off a cold war.
5. We would face massive hacker attacks, directed at nuclear facilities, corporate secrets, and intelligence.
6. Diplomacy would be irrecoverable, and the US would forever be tarnished
Anyways, the only reason I started this debate was because I was challenged. Its certain nothing but consequence would follow, by using the "quick way out". Sorry for forfeiting, but I thought you wanted to end the debate. Anyways, good luck. 
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by bsh1 2 years 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides needed to expand their points with additional logical analysis and sources. However, MAD impacts do outweigh the impacts of winning wars--total destruction is the ultimate impact. Regardless of whether some plant life could survive, odds are that humanity will be obliterated. It would have helped if the debaters had actually rebutted each other's arguments. It's difficult for me to weigh when there is so little direct clash. You each presented your own talking points without addressing each other's points--that's not debating. Anyway, I vote Con.
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.