The Instigator
Officialjake
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Rockylightning
Con (against)
Winning
34 Points

Nuclear weapons be banned internationally.

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 6 votes the winner is...
Rockylightning
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/7/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,142 times Debate No: 12279
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (6)

 

Officialjake

Pro

Nuclear weapons should be internationally banned from use as they are less efiecent than some conventional weapons and have not been used since WWII. They also have devastating effects on the enviroment and people of the country it is used on. The united States is buring through cash to make these aweful weapons. And they arnt used.
Rockylightning

Con

I accept this debate, even though I agree with the proposition, just for clarification.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

--Refutations--

"less efiecent than some conventional weapons "

First, spelling error. Second, please provide evidence.

"have not been used since WWII"

Is this a bad thing?

"They also have devastating effects on the enviroment"

So do most weapons.

"people of the country it is used on."

That's the point, weapons are weapons.

"The united States is buring through cash to make these awful weapons. "

Please, provide more evidence, these weapons may come in handy some day, whether it be used for a massive counter-terrorism effort or to fend off an alien race, you never know.

"And they arnt used."

Again, is this a bad thing? If everyone has a gun, nobody would be inclined to shoot someone.

I will bring up my main contentions in round two, I await my opponent's response.
Debate Round No. 1
Officialjake

Pro

Nuclear weapons are less efficient than most conventional weapons due to there wide range of effect and cannot be used for precision bombing. Ex. Nuclear bunker busters are less efficient at eliminating a target than a normal bunker buster weapon.
"have not been used since WWII"

"Is this a bad thing?"
No I guess it isn't a bad thing.

And the effect of nuclear weapons is much worse than any other weapon. It burns the earth around it and forms a big crater and also it covers the surrounding land in lethal radiation that takes years to dissipate. Along with the nuclear fallout that is generated by all of the irradiated dust and dirt that fly through the air that moves to other countries. Also studies have shown that a nuclear weapons explosion generates EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) waves that will effect any electronics in the area and where ever the waves travel to including locations that were not intended to be harmed. You don't have to worry about all of these consequences when dealing with conventional weapons.

I think that there is no need for evidence to show that nuclear weapons is an expensive technology and it is most likely classified information on how much it costs to create a nuclear weapon.

There wouldn't need be the need to defend your country with nuclear weapons against other nuclear weapons if they were internationally banned leading to less radioactive wastes and a cleaner and more happy earth.
Rockylightning

Con

"Nuclear weapons are less efficient than most conventional weapons due to there wide range of effect and cannot be used for precision bombing."

In some cases precision bombing won't win a war. If the cold war had gone hot, we wouldn't have been able to win just by busting soviet Russia's bunkers.

"No I guess it isn't a bad thing."

My opponent has conceded one of his arguments.

"And the effect of nuclear weapons is much worse than any other weapon. It burns the earth around it and forms a big crater and also it covers the surrounding land in lethal radiation that takes years to dissipate."

All weapons have a purpose, this weapons purpose IS to burn the Earth and put radiation there.

"Also studies have shown that a nuclear weapons explosion generates EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) waves that will effect any electronics in the area and where ever the waves travel to including locations that were not intended to be harmed."

This is another pro, EMPs can effect ENEMY electronics, therefore being useful.

"I think that there is no need for evidence to show that nuclear weapons is an expensive technology and it is most likely classified information on how much it costs to create a nuclear weapon."

Voters please note this under the sources category. "No need for evidence".

---Points---

1. Nuclear Weapons Are Useful.

As I stated before, if the US did not have nuclear weapons, there would be no M.A.D. or Mutual Assured Destruction, which is a deterrent for using nuclear weapons. If we simply had bunker busters, we would be dead. If we both had "Nukes" then we surely would have had a war simply because we wouldn't be worrying about killing each other with "Nukes".

Let's just say, very hypothetically that aliens come and invade the Earth? How will we defend ourselves?

2. If we do ban them...

If we do ban nuclear weapons it is inevitable that they will go underground, being manufactured by people who may not know what they are doing and will sell them to the terrorist organization with the highest bid. Also if Nuclear Weapons are banned, this also means that if a terrorist organization actually obtains one of these weapons, they will not fear launching it for they know that they have the only one (or one of the few) "Nukes", therefore they won't fear a counter nuclear attack.

--Conclusion--

My opponent [having the burden of proof] has not stated any evidence supporting his proposal and therefore his arguments may be invalid.

I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 2
Officialjake

Pro

My opponent [having the burden of proof] has not stated any evidence supporting his proposal and therefore his arguments may be invalid."

As I said before Most information about nuclear weapons such as the cost are probably CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!
Which means I cannot see that information and it is blatantly obvious that the technology and resources required to make nuclear weapons is VERY expensive.

"In some cases precision bombing won't win a war. If the cold war had gone hot, we wouldn't have been able to win just by busting soviet Russia's bunkers."

If there where no nuclear weapons there wouldn't be a cold war.

"No I guess it isn't a bad thing."

"My opponent has conceded one of his arguments."
Ok I agree not using the weapons since WWII is a good thing but let rephrase that I also think that this shows that they are not use and are just stock piled.

"I think that there is no need for evidence to show that nuclear weapons is an expensive technology and it is most likely classified information on how much it costs to create a nuclear weapon."

"Voters please note this under the sources category. "No need for evidence".

There is no need for evidence because it is so obvious how expensive these weapons are.

1. Nuclear Weapons Are Useful.

As I stated before, if the US did not have nuclear weapons, there would be no M.A.D. or Mutual Assured Destruction, which is a deterrent for using nuclear weapons. If we simply had bunker busters, we would be dead. If we both had "Nukes" then we surely would have had a war simply because we wouldn't be worrying about killing each other with "Nukes".
"The contender is contradicting the argument here. The topic is that "nukes" should be INTERNATIONALLY banned not just in the US thus making the quoted statement void as there would be no need to have a deterrent for nuclear weapons if no one had them."

"2. If we do ban them...

If we do ban nuclear weapons it is inevitable that they will go underground, being manufactured by people who may not know what they are doing and will sell them to the terrorist organization with the highest bid. Also if Nuclear Weapons are banned, this also means that if a terrorist organization actually obtains one of these weapons, they will not fear launching it for they know that they have the only one (or one of the few) "Nukes", therefore they won't fear a counter nuclear attack."

If countries came up with a safe and reliable way of getting rid of their "nukes" Then the weapons would not go "underground". Like the countries could de-weaponize and drop the warheads into the ocean above an abyss where the immense pressure would crush the de-activated warheads (which wouldn't blow up) and anyone who tries to retrieve them would also be crushed under extreme pressure.

"Also studies have shown that a nuclear weapons explosion generates EMP (Electro Magnetic Pulse) waves that will effect any electronics in the area and where ever the waves travel to including locations that were not intended to be harmed."

"This is another pro, EMPs can effect ENEMY electronics, therefore being useful."

This is an other statement that doesn't make any sense with my statement I made. I stated that the EMP wave would travel to countries that are NOT targeted and cause damages to the electronics in a country that isn't involved. Furthermore you don't need to use EMP waves against enemy electronics if they have been destroyed by the nukes.

Ex. Hypotheicaly if we nuke north Korea then the fallout and EMP waves would affect surrounding countries and south Korea that isn't supposed to be harmed by the bomb.

"people of the country it is used on."

"That's the point, weapons are weapons."

My response to this is that when the US is at war it is a war crime to kill innocent civilians. A nuke does kill civilians which is a war crime. In war weapons are only used on a threat not innocents.

In conclusion, the contender is basing most of his arguments off of only one country not having nukes instead of all countries as this debate is focused on and that it is positive to induce damage to the environment to the extent of nuclear fallout and EMP waves that travel to other countries around the world That would have been unaffected of conventional weapons. There are so many alternatives to "nukes" That are much safer, cost effective, and reliable. I will urge a Pro vote if the contender does not reflect his arguments on the idea that all countries would not have nukes instead of just one. Also the contender is failing to see one of my points that it is not positive to effect other countries by nuclear weapons that shouldn't be involved. And in case you don't know what an EMP does it "fries" the electronics in its AOE (Area O Effect) making the need to replace the electronics effected by the EMP.
Rockylightning

Con

"As I said before Most information about nuclear weapons such as the cost are probably CLASSIFIED INFORMATION!"
My opponent assumes this without even trying to look up evidence, I just typed "How much does a nuke cost" into Google and it came up with statistics.

"If there where no nuclear weapons there wouldn't be a cold war."

Good point, but the U.S. and Soviet Russia would have still been superpowers with the ability to carpet-bomb cities with conventional weapons, therefore they wouldn't hesitate as much to have a war. Even if we did try to ban nuclear weapons, would Russia have agreed? Probably not.

"There is no need for evidence because it is so obvious how expensive these weapons are."

Stating there is no need for evidence is a reason why my opponent has lost the debate.

"If countries came up with a safe and reliable way of getting rid of their "nukes" Then the weapons would not go "underground". Like the countries could de-weaponize and drop the warheads into the ocean above an abyss where the immense pressure would crush the de-activated warheads (which wouldn't blow up) and anyone who tries to retrieve them would also be crushed under extreme pressure."

The manufacturing of these warheads would go underground. Terrorist groups would try manufacturing their own warheads which could be fired at the US without fear of nuclear retaliation.

"This is an other statement that doesn't make any sense with my statement I made. I stated that the EMP wave would travel to countries that are NOT targeted and cause damages to the electronics in a country that isn't involved. Furthermore you don't need to use EMP waves against enemy electronics if they have been destroyed by the nukes."

If we need to take out a huge super power country, who cares if a few cell phone's don't work? Currently any countries we would even think of "Nuking" are so large the EMP would die before leaving.

"Hypotheicaly if we nuke north Korea then the fallout and EMP waves would affect surrounding countries and south Korea that isn't supposed to be harmed by the bomb."

Hypothetically, if we nuke North Korea to stop them from Nuking us, and a few electronics are knocked out in S. Korea, I think that's OK.

"My response to this is that when the US is at war it is a war crime to kill innocent civilians. A nuke does kill civilians which is a war crime. In war weapons are only used on a threat not innocents."

All weapons have a chance of killing civilians, period. With nuclear weapons there is a period of time where civilians can be evacuated when the Nuke is in air. You cannot move a missile silo very quickly.

"There are so many alternatives to "nukes" That are much safer, cost effective, and reliable."

First, weapons are not supposed to be safe. Second, with nukes you get what you pay for. Finally, reliability is not a problem because you don't even have to hit a specified spot, you can miss and the target is still destroyed.

"not positive to effect other countries by nuclear weapons that shouldn't be involved."

Nuclear weapons vary in size, for example you could have a gargantuan nuke that could wipe out a huge area, or you could have small precise nuke that could be used for precision targets, therefore this is not an issue.

"And in case you don't know what an EMP does it "fries" the electronics in its AOE (Area O Effect) making the need to replace the electronics effected by the EMP."

As stated before, a smaller nuke would have a smaller AOE, therefore this point is irrelevant.

To conclude, my opponent has failed to clearly address my second point stating only that "countries could come up with a safe and reliable way of getting rid of their "nukes"". As stated before, some countries would not comply, therefore making the whole deal a failure.

How would you get Nukes banned internationally? Would countries like Iran or North Korea just give up their nukes because the U.S. wants them to? No!

I urge a con vote.
Debate Round No. 3
Officialjake

Pro

I am giving my contender this round due to a lack of time I have because of school
Rockylightning

Con

Please find time to post your rebuttal.
Debate Round No. 4
Officialjake

Pro

Officialjake forfeited this round.
Rockylightning

Con

my opponent has forfeited the round...vote con
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
Love you Yvette :)
Posted by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
Hey, officialjake, can you not votebomb, even if it was in my favor?
Posted by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
Mutual Assured Destruction? Yes
Posted by I-am-a-panda 6 years ago
I-am-a-panda
Ever heard of M.A.D?
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by SuperRobotWars 6 years ago
SuperRobotWars
OfficialjakeRockylightningTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Itsallovernow 6 years ago
Itsallovernow
OfficialjakeRockylightningTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:07 
Vote Placed by Officialjake 6 years ago
Officialjake
OfficialjakeRockylightningTied
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 ravenwaen 6 years ago
ravenwaen
OfficialjakeRockylightningTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Yvette 6 years ago
Yvette
OfficialjakeRockylightningTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Rockylightning 6 years ago
Rockylightning
OfficialjakeRockylightningTied
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