The Instigator
rangersfootballclub
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
zippo
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the cold war.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/23/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,404 times Debate No: 7526
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

rangersfootballclub

Pro

I stand as stated above , nuclear weapons kept the peace in the cold war . the cold war , which in case causes any confusion , the one I am referring to is that of the u.s.a and the u.s.s.r ... please do not knit pick at this , I would appreciate a nice debate ...

I will leave my opponent to enter his claim , you must be prove that nuclear weapons did not keep the peace ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will define what a nuclear weapon or "nuke" is and ..

"A weapon of mass destruction whose explosive power derives from a nuclear reaction."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
zippo

Con

I remember as a child, I was picked on by this neighborhood bully (he was bigger much older) however I finally stood my ground and smacked him in the face, out if fear of the continuation of being bullied. Well it worked!!!! For a week, until his bruise was gone and he wanted revenge, so if you mean to say that it keeps and maintains the peace? or do you mean it made the peace (and the loser had to accept) If a country is anything like a bully they will eventually want revenge once they are all healed up and patched up. So say it keeps the peace? I don't think thats agreeable at all. It merely forces your opponent to succumb to the brutal power that a nuclear weapon would have caused. However, there is no peace involved
Debate Round No. 1
rangersfootballclub

Pro

rangersfootballclub forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
rangersfootballclub

Pro

sorry for not posting a response ! could not get a hold of a computer !

You say that with your example of punching the bully on the face that , a country would want revenge .
however in this argument , nobody has taken any action yet remember ? Neither Russia or the U.S took any direct military action on each other excluding some cases which you could argue like the Bay of Pigs or Korea etc.

but no country threw a punch at each other because of thing called mutual assured destruction.
definition - Severe, unavoidable reciprocal damage that superpowers are likely to inflict on each other or their allies in a nuclear war, conceived as the heart of a doctrine of nuclear deterrence.

because of this countries did not invade , because think about it . If Russia invaded the U.S and likewise , each country would have launched a retaliation against one and other , but after the first country's launched a nuke , the other would have done the same , causing almost all country's with nuclear weapons to launch them. Leaders realised quickly that , they could not destroy there enemies without destroying themselves and everything with it.

I stand to the resolution above Nuclear weapons kept the peace during the Cold War , I have not stated at any point that nuclear weapons are the way forward etc , I simply argue my case , if there was no nuclear weapons during that period of time , these two countries where going to go at each other like crazy sheep.
zippo

Con

You make the case, that nothing had happened, which is fair and true. I make the case that using WMD to deter a war did not keep the peace, it still only forced their opponent to succumb to the very idea of a WMD war. A threat in most cases is exactly the same doing the action itself. Just like if i called your house and started threatening you with WMD. Once you licked your wounds and perhaps became a stronger person you would want revenge on me to make me feel the way you did when i was threatening to you. Also in court threatening someone is punishable by law, because there is no peace involved when you threaten someone or actually go through with the threat.

I stand by the fact that using WMD to stop the cold war was not peaceful.

Thanks for finishing the debate ranger.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
yes good debate sorry bout that one round , should have made this one longer .

i would like to post to your response when you say "I make the case that using WMD to deter a war did not keep the peace, it still only forced their opponent to succumb to the very idea of a WMD war. A threat in most cases is exactly the same doing the action itself."

think about it , both countires have the cabailtie to destroy each other , they might want revenge but its not sane to take revenge as you andeverything will die , i still belive that just the tthreat alone of a nuclear bomb is enough to put off a country from attacking , notice japan surrendered after america dropped two nukes on it ? do you think that russia was not planning an attack on its arch rival to be the world leaders and do waht they want at a time were every other country was still licking its wounds from ww2 ? or that america did not want to eraticate the threat of a communist russia ? nuclear bobms prevented a ww3
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
thought you gave up ranger, thanks for showing your true colors today and completing this debate. Not to mention a great argument.. Ima use this time to think it over. Again thanks.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
really sorry i couldnt post y response etc for first round , couldnt get access to my computer away gettign fixed ! and also if you get slapped you will feel pain for a while and have to live with the indignity of being slapped , however if you get nuked i would have to say unless your ashes can feel pain , you would be dead insantanly and would not care , also as for just held off or prolonged fighting , remind me of what real war between the u.s.a and russia took place ?
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Not to make fun of the first round, but slapping someone makes a bruise. Nuking people dismantles entire societies, even countries. (dismantles was the nice word for it) If someone threatens to slap me I'll be like OK whatever... weirdo! But if someone threatens to nuke me well.. I stay back :P I don't like 1200 REM

... My point was, just because you held them back doesnt mean it was peaceful nor does it mean they wont want revenge in the future. Just like the bully in my scenerio. Unfortunately i didn't have weapons of mass destruction as a child, so i had to change the context a bit. Im glad younghoole understood what i meant though.
Posted by YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
One could argue that the weapons didn't keep the peace, but just held off further fighting. As Con stated, no peace was invovled. Also, the weapons themselves cannot do anything. The possession of the weapons by the countries may have. But the weapons themselves are incapable of doing anything.
Posted by Epicism 8 years ago
Epicism
Not to make fun of the first round, but slapping someone makes a bruise. Nuking people dismantles entire societies, even countries. (dismantles was the nice word for it) If someone threatens to slap me I'll be like OK whatever... weirdo! But if someone threatens to nuke me well.. I stay back :P I don't like 1200 REM
Posted by zippo 8 years ago
zippo
Im back for MORE!
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Hi Rangers fan, change the argument time to 72 hours and I'l accept this debate.
My internet connection sometimes goes loopy for long periods and I wouldn't want to forfeit a round because of it.
Thanks.
No votes have been placed for this debate.