Nuclear weapons have helped the world
Debate Rounds (3)
I would like to debate the topic of whether Nuclear weapons have helped the world, or harmed it. I will be taking the "Pro" side, and supporting the fact that nuclear weapons have helped our society.
I look forward to a healthy debate.
Nuclear weapons, a scary and effective tool, created in 1945, by a team of top American scientists, is now commonplace in today"s world. First in my argument, is the peace that nuclear weapons have made. After the bombings of Japan, the world"s nations have now been very peaceful, with a few minor hostilities, of course, but no major battles and a lack of enthusiasm for them. If there were to be a war, it would end very quickly, with one combatant coming out better, but no attempts to annihilate the other, the reason for this is the fear of nuclear weapons. Although admittedly a shaky peace, it is peace, and will most likely last for a while. This effect drastically stops the number of lives lost, and the number that will be. Its energy in also indispensable, making up for 10.9% of all our world's energy.
As there is an ambiguity regarding the interpretation of the topic of debate, I will interpret it as 'nuclear weapons have helped the world become a better place'.
This so called 'peace' is nothing but a calm before the storm. Let us consider the scenario when such weapons get into the wrong hands, such as a terrorist organization, it would put all human life in danger. Nuclear weapons have brought upon the capabilities of destroying the whole world. (http://en.wikipedia.org...)
If there is a war, it would wipe out entire nations and its radioactivity will spread to other neighbouring nations as well. What's the assurance of no retaliation and the initiation of another world war? The Japan bombings were only a trailer of its actual capabilities.
"Although admittedly a shaky peace--- most likely last for a while."
What will happen when this state of peace ends? Global annihilation.
I would also like to remind my opponent that nuclear weapons do not produce productive energy.
Also you said "Nuclear energy is not productive long term," this statement is actually false, currently Bill Gates is backing a company recycling nuclear waste as energy, also many isotopes used to save lives come from nuclear waste. Cesium-3, used in blood banks, only occurs in nuclear waste. . For example, Nuclear medicine uses radiation to allow doctors to make a quick, accurate diagnosis of the functioning of person's specific organ. It is used to treat cancer, and wipe out targeted cells. Over 10,000 hospitals treat this way.
"In your argument you --- not mindless"
I would like to clarify that by stating 'Let us consider the scenario -- put all human life in danger', I only meant that every human will be at risk as terrorists (or ISIS) could possibly destroy any city they wanted, such that no one could be considered fully safe and everyone would be in danger, NOT that terrorists are capable of destroying all human life altogether.
"Also you said "Nuclear energy is not productive long term,""
I do not recall having stated this. I only wanted to remind you that nuclear weapons do not produce productive nuclear energy.
Nuclear powerplants produce productive nuclear energy. The source you have provided, that is "http://www.nei.org... related to benefits of energy harvested from nuclear powerplants which are different from nuclear weapons.
The opposition has clearly mistaken nuclear weapons for nuclear powerplants.
As there is not much left for me to counter, I would like to conclude the final round of the debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.