The Instigator
Haristhegreat
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
TheTaxiDriver
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Nuclearisation is better than this armament

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/16/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 591 times Debate No: 65232
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Haristhegreat

Con

Need both sides of this argument. If you are for nuclearization, why? If you are against nuclearisation, why? Would appreciate it if they are unique opinions - plz don't just say that they are "good" or that they just "are bad for the environment".
TheTaxiDriver

Pro

Many would argue that Nuclear weapons keep countries alive and safe because it scares off potential attackers because if they were to invade a country nuclear weapons would obliterate the attackers. Furthermore it also stops countries from using nuclear weapons on each other for example: America launches a nuclear attack at Russia and they detect the missiles so they send their nuclear weapons in return therefore knowing the consequences neither of the superpowers will attack each other.
Debate Round No. 1
Haristhegreat

Con

In order to instigate the use of nuclearisation in armed forces one must first set up a nuclear power plant to be able to harness the power and energy. A nuclear power plant costs $41 billion to set up and can only be used for only 50 years creating just 2400 job opportunities. For half the money, with just $20 billion, one can set up 1.6 million homes (essentially, a large city) and create endless job opportunities for around 220000 people.
Anyways,even if you do not set up nuclear power plants,nuclear weapons have disastrous effects on our mother earth. Yes, there truly is no point in using nuclearisation military means if you are going to destroy the very earth that you wish to conquer through it.Nuclear isn't just power, it's a weapon!
TheTaxiDriver

Pro

Your point is fair but they still may be used for purposes of war. If america didn't drop the two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki many more soldiers would have died and a lot more money would have spent. It ended Japanese involvement quick and fast. It may save money at the cost of civilian lives though.
Debate Round No. 2
Haristhegreat

Con

This armament is doing pretty well as it is. When was the last time a nuclear weapon was used? 69 years ago, in 1945.
If nuclearisation truly was better than this armament than nuclear means would be used more often - why doesn't the US just bomb palestine like it did to Japan? Why are they still using the original methods of guns and bullets?
This is because, although no doubt it makes a country a more intimidating presence, the US realizes the fact that they cannot afford another situation like that of post 1945. One cannot simply nuke the entire world. The radiation effects are still being seen in the births of today in Japan...
This armament is a more conventional way of war; cheaper, more effective and less troublesome.
TheTaxiDriver

Pro

The main problem is that nuclear weapons cannot be "un-invented" so if we can have them we might as well. It will stop countries attacking each other so Nuclear Weapons are the reason no more World Wars have happened. The US also does not have the correct circumstances to bomb another country (in our case Palestine). They would receive huge negative consequences because of the many countries that support Palestine and our opposed to Israel would probably have a long diplomatic talk with the US over its actions. It is not quite the same circumstances so that is why the weapons have not been used since Japan.
Debate Round No. 3
Haristhegreat

Con

First of all, I just realised I wrote "this armament" instead of "disarmament" - sorry for any confusion...

Okay fine, "if we might as well use them", why haven't we? The fact is that nuclear weapons are just being used as a symbol of power and prestige rather than actually being used as a part of an army's artillery. Weapons of mass destruction must be abolished as they are not just a threat to other countries, they are a threat to the lives of future generations and a cause to the countless deaths of innocent children and people. When using nuclear bombs, one must be aware that they instantly vaporize everything and anything within a specific vicinity. You cannot raise the dead from their graves!
TheTaxiDriver

Pro

When instantly vaporized at least the people nearby will die quickly and as gruesome as it sounds could be considered more humane than other weapons such as guns and explosives because if the enemy is not killed quickly what is going to happen. A lot of suffering. "Why haven't we used them" your point about the symbol of power is correct and that is why they are kept. How safe do you think people will feel if they did not have nuclear weapons to keep them safe.
Debate Round No. 4
Haristhegreat

Con

That is exactly why i am talking about DISARMAMENT. If achieved, no one will have to fear nuclear weaponry, no one will "be vaporized", in essence, the only productive mass destruction weapon ever made will be banned.
Without nukes, the world will be a better place. Einstein himself regretted discovering nuclear bombs...
If the creator is against his own creation...
What more can I say?
I rest my case...
TheTaxiDriver

Pro

I am pretty sure it was Oppenheimer who founded the atomic bomb but if we get rid of nuclear weapons we would need to get rid of all other weapons. None are humane and all are designed for the purpose of killing. If you plan on having peace and love from the entire world then yes get rid of all weapons but if you are going to be real there wont eve be a chance because modern technology keeps moving on to create deadlier and more powerful weapons. Nuclear Weapons may protect empires or for all we know, eventually may be their downfall.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by TheTaxiDriver 2 years ago
TheTaxiDriver
Well technically during the Cold War I believe the USSR and the USA both came close to using nuclear weapons, (DEFCON 2 I believe). So in times of war the USA will use nuclear weapons to defend its country and to destroy threats. It is VERY unlikely and they would avoid it at all costs and to agree with Haris yes they would avoid a situation like with Japan but if they are at war, they really don't care about the effects of radiation.
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
Con wrote:

"....the US realizes the fact that they cannot afford another situation like that of post 1945. One cannot simply nuke the entire world. The radiation effects are still being seen in the births of today in Japan..."

Pro I'd be interested in your counter to this. Do you have one?
Posted by Haristhegreat 2 years ago
Haristhegreat
Yeah, really good debate - my first debate actually. Didn't expect things to be so professional...
Posted by TheTaxiDriver 2 years ago
TheTaxiDriver
This was actually a good debate I think. I wish a winner could have been decided through 1 vote at least (obviously Haristhegreat won it, I was only playing devil's advocate for the other side I am for getting rid of nuclear weapons).
Posted by DudeHouse 2 years ago
DudeHouse
In theory disarment is like a million time better than nuclearization. But could disarment could not actually work in real life. Americas like, "hey russia, we did it! We got rid of our entire arsenal. Hurray! Hows it going over there? Did u guys finish denuclearizing yet? Did you? Guys?....."
Posted by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
Do you mean disarmament?
No votes have been placed for this debate.