The Instigator
apologia101
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mirza
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Nuclear weapons are necessary for a state and each country should be allowed to own them

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
Mirza
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/5/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,707 times Debate No: 14668
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

apologia101

Pro

Nuclear technology has taken weaponry to a whole new level. The human race, some suggest, could be wiped out in seconds if one country pushed the button. I say however that these weapens are necessary for each state and we should let all states develop them further. Challenge me.
Mirza

Con

Thank you.

Definitions
Nuclear weapon: a weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reaction.[1]
State: A body politic, especially one constituting a nation: the states of Eastern Europe.[2]

Necessity: The condition or quality of being necessary.[3]

Arguments
My opponent argued that nuclear technology has taken weaponry to a whole new level. While this is based on consensus, it does not support my opponent's case. The resolution directly implies that nuclear weapons are necessary for every state, and that each and every one of them should, in fact, possess them (i.e., nuclear weapons). Therefore, this point is negated.

Moving on, my opponent implied that some people suggest that the human race could be wiped out if a country launched a nuclear attack on another country. This is not far from the truth. The fact is that nuclear weapons are highly destructive, and they are, without doubt, the most destructive weapons that we have developed. If a country attacks another country with a nuclear weapon, the chances that the victimized country avoids retaliation are minimal. However, that is not necessarily the case with military strikes by more decent weapons. A good example of this is the artillery attack on the South Korean island, Yeonpyeong, which happened last year.[4] The North Korean regime decided to fire artillery shells at South Korea, and yet, the South Korean regime did not retaliate.

And, we should ask, why did the South Korean regime make such a pacifist decision? That is because the devastation of the attacks were not wide, nor would a retaliation have been the best decision. Today, both countries are as they used to be. A retaliation would have resulted in thousands, probably even millions, of deaths within a few months of battles. However, would such peace talks happen if sudden nuclear strikes took place? Most probably not. Had the North Korean regime decided to launch a nuclear strike, at least thousands of people would have been left dead, many more thousands would have been wounded in one way or another, and harmful radioactivity would keep devastating the targeted area for many years to come.

This clearly indicates that nuclear weapons pose high dangers if abused. With the various competing governments that we have in the world, letting every single of them have nuclear weapons would probably be devastating to the world.

2. Corrupt states and leaders
Imagine that all the countries in the world possess nuclear weapons in random qualities and quantities. The overall danger posed to the world is horrid, whether every country possesses 10, 100, or 1,000 nuclear weapons. According to Transparency International, over half of the countries in the world are either corrupt, or at the verge of being so.[5] These countries tend to have civil wars, citizen unrest, and/or other conflicts which are indeed to be taken seriously. Now, if all these countries had nuclear weapons, how does my opponent think that we would establish world peace? Surely, even though nuclear weapons have functioned as war deterrents in the past, and probably still do so, the fact remains that rogue states might not be deterred by the enemy's nuclear weapons. Take Somalia as an example. If some terrorist groups rose to power, and they possessed nuclear weapons, how would they handle the weapons peacefully? Who would make sure that they would not use these weapons in order to trigger a global war? The various terrorist organizations tend to worsen the lives of people by great scales, and nuclear warfare would not be unpredictable for these people.

3. Small states, easy targets

Small countries like Monaco, Malta, San Marino, and so forth, these can be destroyed by one or two nuclear strikes on their soils. War usually leads to horrific consequences, and it can withal lead to positive changes at certain occasions. However, that is due to the fact that if two countries wage war, they do, in most cases, not destroy each other completely. That, however, would not be the case with two small states waging war using the most destructive weapons, namely nuclear weapons. If Monaco attacked Andorra, how would Andorra possibly retaliate, or how would it survive even if it did manage to retaliate? If Andorra attacked Great Britain, how would it stand a chance against a larger country? Where does the necessity of nuclear weapons come to question? It's nonsense.

4. Why only few countries need nuclear weapons
It has been agreed upon, internationally, that further development of nuclear weapons is against international law. It means that one cannot argue for the justice of nuclear weapons possession, because development before the 90's was different to development afterwards. It used to be permitted, but it no longer is. Furthermore, as I have demonstrated above, it is highly dangerous to permit every country in the world to possess nuclear weapons, and even encourage them to do so. Various terrorist groups in the world use whatever is at their disposals to eliminate innocent targets, and nuclear weapons being in their grips is idiotic. That being reflected, even if these groups wanted to use nuclear weapons as defense tools, the fact that the international community would not be able to confront them in decent ways if the groups started spreading violence and oppression among many people, speaks for itself. An act of defense toward innocent people would not be a safe choice for the international community, since the terrorist groups would find easy ways of spreading violence by launching nuclear strikes in their favor.

5. Where is the necessity?
My opponent has not made any valid argument to support his case. He merely stated that nuclear weapons should be developed further, and that they are necessary. What are they necessary for when it comes to every country possessing them? Are they beneficial to the global economy? Are they deterring war between the corrupt states? Are they cleansing the world of terrorist groups? Are they eliminating hunger? Not the least. I await a response from my opponent.


The resolution is negated.

References

[1, 2, 3] http://fur.ly...
[4] http://www.bbc.co.uk...
[5] http://www.transparency.org...
Debate Round No. 1
apologia101

Pro

apologia101 forfeited this round.
Mirza

Con

I hope everything is well with my opponent, and that he can return to the debate again.
Debate Round No. 2
apologia101

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response and apologize for my slow response.

I will argue that these weapons are necessary in that it is now to late to eradicate them. By this I mean by this that the best solution possible is to totally deactivate and destroy these deadly weapon, however, it is perhaps too late to do that. Therefore, we must allow each state to own them so as to keep a balance of power in the world.

Let's say that country A owned nuclear weapons and B did not. In this hypothetical scenario, there would exist an imbalance of power between the states. A would exercise too much power and perhaps cause a threat to B because of its ownership of deadly weapons. Entering into country A's thinking, one may find such ideas as "I have a greater military power over my neighbor B, I can harass him, cause fear and almost control it". B's mind will be filled with such thoughts as "Yes, B can destroy me, I am militarily incapable of defending myself against A if he were to attack me. While this is not a perfect picture, I dare to say that this is the world in 2011. States with Nuclear power, namely US, Russia, China, etc, exercise threatening power over those states that do not own nuclear weapons. There is a problem akin to the A/B countries scenario. To solve this, it would be good to allow each state, A and B, the ability to own and make Nuclear weapons--this would balance the power and bring leaders of all states to act sensitively in relation to other states militarily. When all have these weapons, B states can now feel more secure. And A can act be more sensitive as it is now more worried about its well being.

I suggested that all states should own these weapons not because I am fond of nuclear wars. It is a know fact that Nuclear weapons is an issue, it has created tensions in the world. This is because some states have them and some don't. Those who do threaten those who don't. Giving each state freeway to handle these weapons could create a more secure world. Each state would be equally insecure and equally safe.
Mirza

Con

"I thank my opponent for his response and apologize for my slow response."

You are welcome, and there is no need to apologize.

"I will argue that these weapons are necessary in that it is now to late to eradicate them."

This is a weak argument. If it is late to remove a problem, does it mean that the problem should be strengthened further, rather than being weakened, although not eradicated?

"Therefore, we must allow each state to own them so as to keep a balance of power in the world."

What kind of balance would there be?Somalia with nuclear weapons would not be able to attack Russia, in most cases. South Africa would hardly hit any country on any other continent (besides Antarctica) than its own. The countries with nuclear weapons are also the countries with some of the most powerful militaries in the world. Even if all countries in the world started possessing nuclear weapons, there would still be a disadvantage. The militarily powerful states would not only be able to attack more effectively, but they would also stand strong in defense.

Moving on, my opponent expands on his argument by setting up a hypothetical scenario. However, his argument does not get much stronger. The fact is that even if China attacked a country that does not have nuclear weapons, it would most likely be attacked back by its allies and the international community. If China attacked Denmark, then USA, which possesses nuclear weapons, would step into the fight because it has a defense treaty that belongs to NATO. Therefore, there is no need for every country to have nuclear weapons in order to create a balance between the states.

To conclude, my opponent has made interesting points, but they are nevertheless not very strong. He has not refuted my arguments either. On top of that, I would like to add that a country does not need nuclear weapons in order to be mighty. SFRY (former Yugoslavia) did not possess these weapons, it did not have ties to NATO or the Warsaw Pact, yet it didn't get invaded by either side, and it has one of the most powerful militaries in Europe, even in the world, disregarding nuclear weapons.

The resolution is negated. I thank my opponent.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
~~CONTINUATION OF RFD~~

Not a very fun debate to read, but an easy one to judge nonetheless.

~~~~
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
Correction: "and it has..."

I meant "and it had" (regarding Yugoslavia).
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
apologia101MirzaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by apologia101 6 years ago
apologia101
apologia101MirzaTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by m93samman 6 years ago
m93samman
apologia101MirzaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: "Let's say that country A owned nuclear weapons and B did not. In this hypothetical scenario, there would exist an imbalance of power between the states. A would exercise too much power and perhaps cause a threat to B because of its ownership of deadly weapons." The offense Pro attempts to garner from this argument is non-resolutional. Further, Pro drops all of Con's arguments, and forfeits a round. Conduct/Convincing Arguments go to Pro, and Con's sources outweigh Pro's lack of sources. Not