The Instigator
Orwell
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
lauraxue
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Nuclear disarmament is a bad idea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
Orwell
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,094 times Debate No: 29937
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

Orwell

Pro

I will be arguing that the UK, US and other western countries should maintain their nuclear deterrents. I will have the BoP to show that nuclear weapons are still necessary in the post-cold war era, and that they make the world a safer place.

The first round will be for acceptance and any terms.
lauraxue

Con

Like you said, nuclear will make this world safer, but nuclaer weapons have already ruined people's life when the militaries are usig them. And you know nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons in the whole world, and while they exploding the radiation will last for a really long time and affect people's body, they will have radiation disease and when they get a baby, the baby will be abnormal.
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.
Debate Round No. 1
Orwell

Pro

Since the end of the Cold War many have argued that we no longer need nuclear weapons. This holds particular sway in Britain where right now the Government is considering a non-nuclear replacement for Trident. However, since the fall of the Soviet Union new threats have emerged. Among others, Pakistan and North Korea have developed nuclear weapons, with Iran currently doing so.

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.

http://www.reuters.com...
http://www.guardian.co.uk...
lauraxue

Con

I don't agree with you. Weapons are made for defending and attacking, no mater what kind of weapon. Even they keep the nuclear weapons and don't use it now, they will still use it someday in the future. But if none of the countries keep that, although there's a war between them, they still don't have a big destructiveness.
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."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
http://www.independent.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 2
Orwell

Pro

You say that "Even they keep the nuclear weapons and don't use it now, they will still use it someday in the future". Nuclear weapons have not been used in the last 67 years, and the safe-guards preventing accidental use are only getting stronger, meaning that with every year it becomes less likely that they will be accidentally detonated. "if none of the countries keep that, although there's a war between them, they still don't have a big destructiveness". The trouble is that countries like North Korea and Iran aren't prepared to get rid of their nuclear arsenals, so in the event of a war they might still use nuclear weapons, even if we don't. You said that Russia's defense budget is $38 billion/y, when actually it is about $72 billion. While I agree that the US does spend too much on defense, nuclear weapons account for less then 10% of military expenditure.

"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.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.globalzero.org...
lauraxue

Con

You said that nuclear weapons have not been used in the last 67 years, but that is not neccessary.
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.
http://library.thinkquest.org...

The more nuclear weapons, the less safe the people have.

vote Con. :)
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
OrwelllauraxueTied
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:30 
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.