Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea
Debate Rounds (3)
The first round will be for acceptance and any terms.
And also when the workers and the governmet making the nuclear weapons, or testing them. the nuclear will reveal just like what happened in Japan and other countries before.
If no one is making the nuclear weapon, then the world will be safer.
Out of these countries North Korea seems to pose the most direct threat. Within the last few months it has carried out nuclear tests against the US. It has also released propaganda hinting at an attack on America. While I certainly don't think North Korea is considering a real nuclear strike, if the US and its allys were to remove their nuclear deterrents then it might well, as might other countries.
What is clear is that nuclear weapons are still very much part of the future of those countries defense plans. We also face an uncertain future where fossil fuels and other resources are running out. Given this, I believe that we need to maintain our nuclear deterrents.
And maintaining US nuclear weapons already costs some $52 billion annually. Nuclear weapons, like people, deteriorate over time, so require regular maintenance and refurbishment. This is a huge cost at when the nation is running on borrowed money from China and Japan. Russia's total military budget, including nuclear forces, is estimated at around $38 billion -- less than what the US spends on its nuclear arsenal.
"We have listed many reasons for supporting the goal of total elimination of nuclear arms. First, they are such horrible weapons. To use them against a similarly equipped opponent invites catastrophe: to use them against a non-nuclear opponent is politically and morally indefensible. Their only purpose now is to deter a similarly equipped opponent from using his: their elimination would remove that justification. They have no utility as a military weapon.
Second, the indefinite deployment of the weapons carries a high risk of their ultimate use intentionally, by accident or inadvertence.
Third, the possession of the weapons by some states stimulates others to acquire them, reducing the security of all. Nuclear weapons are a source of instability in the relations between Russia and the West, within and between the former members of the Soviet Union, between the states of North Africa, the Middle East and the Indian subcontinent, and between the nuclear weapon states and the non-nuclear weapon states."
"To use them against a similarly equipped opponent invites catastrophe". This is the whole point of a nuclear deterrent, countries realize that to use nuclear weapons against us would mean mutually assured destruction. "Their only purpose now is to deter a similarly equipped opponent from using his: their elimination would remove that justification". The point here is that we are discussing unilateral disarmament. So long as other countries are not prepared to disarm, nuclear weapons are still required as a deterrent.
"the possession of the weapons by some states stimulates others to acquire them, reducing the security of all". Once again, the problem is that there are already states with nuclear weapons who are not prepared to disarm them. To unilaterally disarm would give states like North Korea and Iran hegemony over us, since they would then pocess far more powerful weapons then us.
The countries that keep the nuclear weapons have lost some of them. USA has already lost a nuclear bomb. Russia and USA both have a missing submarine with the nuclear weapons.
The Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest the world ever came to nuclear war. The United States armed forces were at their highest state of readiness ever and Soviet field commanders in Cuba were prepared to use battlefield nuclear weapons to defend the island if it was invaded. Another one is in 1989, Swiden tested the fire missle. If these happened, the world is destroyed.
The nuclear weapons needed to be destroy, and verify the destruction of them.
" To unilaterally disarm........" I never said unilaterally. You want to trust and verify.
The more nuclear weapons, the less safe the people have.
vote Con. :)
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 3 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:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con says the only morally justifiable use of nuclear weapons is against a nuclear opponent (and thus those are the only countries wherein our nukes have deterrant value); Pro agrees and point out North Korea and Iran are nuclear opponents who are unwilling to disarm. Con said we should not unilaterally disarm, and since Con did not dispute that North Korea and Iran are unwilling to disarm, she's conceded the US/UK should not disarm.
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.