The Instigator
Nickc92
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
m93samman
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points

Nuclear Weapons

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 6 votes the winner is...
m93samman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/1/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 8,383 times Debate No: 15053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (6)

 

Nickc92

Con

I am arguing against nuclear weapons. The world needs to get rid of all of them. We would be better off. Prove why we would be better off with them.
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for instigating this debate. So that we have an equal number of rounds to debate, I'll let my opponent go first.

Good luck to the both of us.
Debate Round No. 1
Nickc92

Con

Lets go back in time for a bit, August 6, 1945. Most people are aware of the fact that this was the date where the very first nuclear weapon was used against a nation in world history. The United States dropped the very first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan at approximately 8:15 in the morning (according to the U.S. national government's library of records). It is quite well known that there was unimaginable damage done to the city. Again, according to the U.S. national government's records, an estimated 150,000 innocent people were either killed or injured in this event.

With that said;

Why does the damage have to be that extensive? Is there no other way to take care of a situation like this?
Wars are certainly not unfamiliar to mankind, by any stretch of the imagination. Ever since the dawn of civilization there have been wars and fighting. Up until August 6, 1945, a nuclear bomb has never been used. Of course, we did not have the technology to develop one a thousand years ago, but the point is, it has never been needed. Wars have always been resolved without it. A war has not been going on for all those years and was still unresolved and needed such a drastic measure.

Of course the evolution of weaponry is something that has greatly benefitted some countries and greatly hurt others. There should be no disagreement that a nuclear bomb/missile is not a typical weapon. Instead of using air pressure or an explosive agent to detonate, it uses a complex cycle of chain reactions on a molecular level. This is a great stride for mankind in terms of technology, but as for warfare, not so much.

To put simply, one can automatically assume nuclear has to do with radiation. And radiation is not something that a human wants to come into contact with, especially in a dose as large as a nuclear explosion. Not only does the weapon cause the instant effect of killing and demolishing anything within it's radius, there is a long term effect of radiation to be dealt with as well. Hundreds of thousands of innocent people will be dealing with radiation poisoning, making for a slow and painful death. If not, then they will suffer a not as intense dose of radiation forming mutations and genetic disorders along their genetic track for years to come. Thats if the people are even lucky enough to survive.

It is not a secret that nuclear weapons are used to threaten countries by targeting major cities (aka innocent people). Throughout the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviet Union constantly had their fingers on the trigger, ready to fire a devastating attack on the major cities of each country.

This is simply inhumane. There are other ways to win wars. Ways that involve NOT targeting innocent civilians.
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response. However, he has done nothing but arguing by appealing to emotion; he has provided no substantive analytical or logical reason by which we can determine how or why the eradication of nuclear weapons could benefit humanity on balance.

That being said, I really have nothing to respond to at this point.

To affirm the resolution, I'll be providing only one argument, and that is-

> M.utual A.ssured D.estruction T.heory (MAD.Theory)
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://history.howstuffworks.com...
http://www.nuclearfiles.org...

MADT is a theory that is largely agreed upon in the military-scholarly world. I will do my best to explain it.

It is no surprise that the nuclear bomb is a weapon of mass destruction. As my opponent says (without a source), the US attack on Japan murdered 150,000 humans, and wiped two cities off of the map (Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Such a devastating force not only has massive immediate impacts, but long term impacts as well [http://nuclearweaponarchive.org...]. That make take some time to read.

So far, it's an apparent no brainer. Of course we should eliminate nuclear weapons- why would we want to have such a potentially devastating weapon in the hands of unstable governments? We look to MADT for the answer- that is, nuclear weapons deter their own usage.

We paint a picture of the Cold War in our heads; we see the intermediate range ballistic missiles that the USSR placed in Cuba; the weapons the US had stacked in Turkey. Tension mounting. A famous political cartoon [http://1.bp.blogspot.com...] can paint the picture for us; we are "on the brink" of world destruction. However; notice the inherent harmony in the situation.

The USSR and the US both have their fingers centimeters from the button. The USSR knows that if they launch, they will devastate the US; however, before their missile lands, the US will know. The US will also get to launch, and the USSR would be equally non-existent. America and the Soviets are experiencing a mutual assurance of destruction because they both possess the potential to cause it. In the political cartoon, the world is the building that is resting on the bomb; different countries are represented by rooms within the house. If one country invades the privacy or sanctity of another, there will be retaliation. Being on a bomb that is balancing at a 45 degree angle on a cliff, such a disturbance will send the world into the abyss that is, metaphorically, world destruction.

But they realize this situation. History has taught its lesson- if everyone possesses nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons will not be launched.

History also urges you to vote Pro. http://i54.tinypic.com...

Please vote Pro. Thank you.

Debate Round No. 2
Nickc92

Con

I also thank my opponent for such a clear and concise response.
First, I would like to defend my previous arguments by saying, this issue is largely an emotional issue. A person deciding which side to be on in this HAS to appeal to emotion. In a situation where it can mean the death and destruction of everything one knows, there has to be some emotion present in order to deicide whether it would be better to have nuclear weapons or not. If there is no emotion present, then there is no fear. If there is no fear than there is no reason to even argue this because people would not be afraid of nuclear devastation (which is obviously false). It is the kind of issue where it is almost impossible to prove with PURE logic.

My opponent uses many specific examples to try and depict how they mean that no country will ever actually launch a nuclear weapon. He says that each country knows if they do, someone else will in retaliation, therefore no one will ever launch one.
This is a bold statement. No one can possibly predict a country's way of thinking. I do not believe there will be any disagreement that there is a huge "X" factor in this reasoning. There is always that "what if." And in a situation like nuclear war, this "what if" factor can not be overlooked. It means the difference between having a planet Earth and having a barren wasteland of a planet Earth.

According to what you're saying, it is better to have nuclear weapons than not have them at all because we can feel assured that no country will ever use them.
Then I ask, if no country is going to use them, why are they even necessary? If no country is going to use them for fear of retaliation, why do they even exist?

I will conclude my argument with;
So according to your argument, no country is going to use their nuclear weapons because they know they will spark a chain reaction of attacks if they do. So again, why even have this power? Why even want to put the world at risk?
If one country, just one, decides to launch a nuclear weapon, it will essentially be the end of the world as we know it. This is no secret.

I again thank my opponent for his arguments.

Please vote against nuclear weapons.
Thank you.
m93samman

Pro

I thank my opponent for his quick response.

Seeing as this is the last round, I'll only directly address the issues my opponent brought up.

//In a situation where it can mean the death and destruction of everything one knows, there has to be some emotion present in order to deicide whether it would be better to have nuclear weapons or not.//

My opponent justifies his appeal to emotion with another appeal to emotion. His constructive is an ad infinitum chain of non-sequiturs; you can drop his arguments. Now on to my case.

//No one can possibly predict a country's way of thinking.//

But you can. We see that history has proven MADT to be accurate 100% of the time. I'm going to skip ahead and quote my opponent on,

//Then I ask, if no country is going to use them, why are they even necessary? If no country is going to use them for fear of retaliation, why do they even exist?//

Here's why we NEED nuclear weapons to prevent devastation as a result of them. In the current state of global affairs, countries exist. They have their own governments, borders, and are entitled to privacy of action without international monitoring. Within the sanctity of their own nation, who is going to prevent a country from stockpiling nukes under the radar? No one. The solution is to be sure that they have a force that exists to work against them; just as Newton's law says, for every action exists and equal and opposite reaction. This is the case I'm making here as well. For every nuke ever built, there should be another one built elsewhere so as to balance out the total power that countries have in its arsenal.

So if you analyze the topic on the whole, there's no way out of it- we need nuclear weapons to prevent their use. If we eradicated them, they could be built in secret, and that alone is sufficient reason to affirm the resolution.

Thanks again, and please vote Pro.

Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Perfect reason why not every state has nukes.
Some of them are just not to be trusted. (especially around asia)
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@OreEle: "the flaws in MAD"

There are actually a lot. I could easily beat it; just run terrorism/rogue governments. If a group of 100 people launch a nuke from Afghanistan and then run to the mountains, launching back would hit nothing but civilians.
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Just a backup from an old buddy samman :P
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
I would've if I needed to
Posted by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Pro should have run asteroids.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
Maybeh
Posted by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Isn't it called also called the Game Theory?
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
@Dino:

If that was my entire R2, I'd probably win :P
Posted by dinokiller 6 years ago
dinokiller
Nickc92, its not as easy as u think.
There wont be a time where suddenly everyone loses its thirst for power and abandons their nukes.
Its better if u arm them all with nukes for power balance.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Nickc92m93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted Con's arguments. History was brought up, and Pro beat emotion using logic. Con used no sources.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Nickc92m93sammanTied
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: Even though appeal to emotion can be a legitimate argument, it was poorly done in this case. Pro did a good job explaining how MAD works and Con did not show the inherent flaws within MAD.
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
Nickc92m93sammanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: While nukes may be "inhumane" They are still neccisary as long as other countries have them. We have them and should use them as threat only.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
Nickc92m93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's argument was simply an emotional plea, Pro was well supported and sourced.
Vote Placed by BlackVoid 6 years ago
BlackVoid
Nickc92m93sammanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didnt give a single way nukes could be used. Pro gave a reason they will not.
Vote Placed by Atheism 6 years ago
Atheism
Nickc92m93sammanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: I found m93's arguments to be clear and straightforward. He successfully refuted Nick's arguments, making a point of them in the final round, and also fulfilled his burden.