The Instigator
Beginner
Pro (for)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
numberwang
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Beginner
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 686 times Debate No: 68297
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Beginner

Pro

Zaradi's tournament: http://www.debate.org...

PRO (me) - States ought not to possess nuclear weapons

CON (numberwang) - States ought to possess nuclear weapons

R1 is acceptance

R2 is arguments + refutations

R3 is arguments + refutations

R4 is refutations. No new arguments.


BOP is shared
numberwang

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Beginner

Pro

Thank you numberwang for accepting the debate.

Again, I will be arguing that states ought not to possess nuclear weapons. It is implied that all aspects of the resolution are common knowledge and thus do not require explicit definition.

Trolling is an automatic loss, and whether or not a side is guilty of trolling will be heuristically decided by the judges.

Overarching point: The resolution asks us, ought states, meaning the totality of all sovereign nations, not have possession of nuclear weapons? The resolution is not limited to the United States and includes states such as Iran, North Korea, the United Kingdom, Russia, etc.
PRO, meaning me, is arguing that all states ought not to possess nuclear weapons.

Contention 1: Nuclear Weapons are expensive to maintain
A U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Studies project, completed in August of 1998, showed that the U.S. nuclear weapnons program had incurred a total of $5821 billion dollars from 1940 - 1996[1]. The Nuclear Tech Initiative (N.T.I.) reported that the United States will be spending at least $179 billion dollars from 2010-2018 on maintaining its nuclear arsenals with this cost rising from $16 billion to $25 billion over this time period[2].
Nuclear weapons maintenance costs the U.S. government a significant portion of tax income. The question we should ask is: are the costs of maintaining nuclear arsenals justified?
Contention 1 Subpoint 1: The costs of maintaining nuclear arsenals are not justified.

Contention 2: Nuclear Weaponry has outlived its purpose.
Aside from its one time use in Japan, nuclear weapon has never been pracctically deployed with attrition, diplomacy, etc. being the preferred alternative 100% of the time since World War ll. Nuclear weapons exist only to provide diplomatic pressure. The logic is that the threat of deployment serves as a deterrent to war. Yet despite the deterrent, the U.S. alone has been in 21 sustained military conflicts and war since WWll[3].
In 1969, President Richard Nixon of the United States sent a squad of eighteen B52s bombers armed with nukes hundreds of times more powerful than the ones detonated in Japan. Nixon's plan, by sending the nukes, was to scare the Soviets and to deter them from further supporting Vietnam. The Soviets ignored the gesture and continued its financial and military support without a single hitch.[4] There was no reaction.
Even during the Cold War, these supposed war deterrents known did absolutely nothing to deter war. 21 wars.
If the purpose of nuclear weaponry is to prevent war, then it has either lost its effectiveness in 1969 or it has never been effective in the first place.
21 wars.
Whatever the reason states still have nuclear arsenal, it clearly does not justify the hundreds of billions invested into maintaining them. We are no longer in the Cold War. The deterrent that nuclear arsenals are supposed to be are no longer effective, and have been ineffective as early as 1969.

Contention 3: Threat of Nuclear War
It is generally agreed that nuclear war would be devastating. Even just the tiny arsenal held between Pakistan and India would have very significant planetary effects[5].
Global nuclear war means the extinction of the human race and much of life itself. Let's ignore all other arsenals and focus the U.S. and Russia. U.S. and Russian arsenal alone would be capable of artificially producing a mass extinction similar to that which killed off the dinosaurs[6].
The potential cost of maintaining a nuclear arsenal, the threat of total extinction, is massive, and whatever benefits that the world's nuclear weaponry supply do not, in any way, justify the potential of such terrible consequences.

Contention 4: Stop dangerous nuclear weapon sales
Having all nuclear weapons decommissioned, as proposed by the PRO side of the resolution, would also mean that we no longer need fear nuclear weapons being sold or stolen. If the state of North Korea, for example, decommissions its nuclear arsenal, the world no longer has to fear its arsenals' sales to other organizations. This applies to all states.

Summary:
It's been established that nuclear weaponry clearly serves no authentic purpose. If all the states in the world were to decommission its nuclear arsenals, there would be no need to build up nuclear. Both the threat of nuclear war and the pointless costs of maintenance are relieved.

Sources:

[1] http://www.brookings.edu...;

[2] http://www.nti.org...;

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...;

[4] http://archive.wired.com...;

[5] http://www.popsci.com...;

[6] http://www.nucleardarkness.org...;

;
numberwang

Con

I'm gonna concede this debate. The day before I accepted I found out my living situation would be drastically changing so I've not been doing anything for this and I probably won't have time to for the rest of the thing. Sorry about that.
Debate Round No. 2
Beginner

Pro

Beginner forfeited this round.
numberwang

Con

I'm gonna post a rebuttal in the final round, and since I didn't really argue this debate and my opponent forfeited/closed his account, I think it'd be best if it just didn't get voted/was voted null.
Debate Round No. 3
Beginner

Pro

Nope. Still here.
Extend.
Concession taken.
:)
numberwang

Con

Concession finalized
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by numberwang 1 year ago
numberwang
Just do it here it works all the same.
Posted by Beginner 1 year ago
Beginner
I completely forgot to define terms and rules. D:
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 1 year ago
bladerunner060
BeginnernumberwangTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: A concession. Con gets conduct for 2 reasons: 1, Pro forfeited a round (which, on its own, isn't sufficient to award conduct due to the fact that it came after the concession, after all...still, not fantastic), and 2 (the main reason I generally award conduct in situations like this), I think honorable concessions should be rewarded. As always, happy to clarify this RFD.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 1 year ago
Blade-of-Truth
BeginnernumberwangTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded the debate in R2, thus Pro wins.
Vote Placed by Zaradi 1 year ago
Zaradi
BeginnernumberwangTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con concession.