The Instigator
Frost
Pro (for)
Winning
13 Points
The Contender
Rayze
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Resolved: The US should remove its tactical nuclear weapons from Turkey

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 3 votes the winner is...
Frost
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,735 times Debate No: 29237
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Frost

Pro

During the Cold War the US placed intermediate ranged nuclear missiles, as well as nuclear bombs in Turkey. They have remained there ever since. These nuclear weapons do not serve any tactical or strategic purpose and in fact they impede national consensus on non-proliferation.

This is my first time using this website so please excuse any faux pas that I may make. I think it would also be interesting to include a questioning round. I believe that this round setup will provide for the best debate:

Round one: Acceptance
Round two: Each side presents his/her argument without acknowledgeing the other sides arguments. There should be no refutation.
Round three: Each side presents the other with three questions based on the arguments presented in round 2 (No questions will be answered in round 3).
Round four: Each side answers the others questions.
Round five: Each side will present his/her closing arguments and final pieces of evidence, refutation, ect.

Example:
R 1
Pro: Hi.
Con: Hello.

R 2
Pro: I believe cats are good because a, b and c.
Con: I believe dogs are best because a, b and c.

R 3
Pro: Do dogs really do A? Are cats or dogs cleaner? Which animal requires more time?
Con: Which animal is more loyal? Are cats or dogs more intelligent? Which animal is friendlier?

R 4
Pro: I conceede that dogs are more loyal. Both cats and dogs show similar levels of intelligence. However I believe that cats are friendlier.
Con: I have seen dogs do A. Cats are cleaner. Dogs may require more time than cats.

R 5
Pro: Even though dogs are more loyal cats are friendlier and dogs take more time ect.
Con:Dogs are loyal companions and are worth the time, cats may be friendlier but a dog can protect you ect.

Obviously this example is over simplified but I just wanted to be as clear as possible. And I couldn't include any evidence in the example but in the real debate evidence should be included.

If you think that this style of debate is confusing or unnecessary, just say so in the opening round and we can just use the basic debate format.

Thanks and good luck!
Rayze

Con

I accept this debate, and may the better debater win
Debate Round No. 1
Frost

Pro

Ok, same to you!

The first reason I believe that the US should remove its nukes from Turkey is because those nukes serve no tactical purpose. This is true because they no longer are able to be quickly deployed in response to any situation that would require them. When the Cold War was under way, the US strategy at the time called for nuclear weapons in Turkey in order to protect against soviet invasion of Europe. When the weapons were in their prime, the time it would take to deploy them was measured in minutes and hours. Now according to NATO the weapons ready time is measured in weeks and months. In addition there is no American air wing or Turkish air unit currently stationed in Turkey that is rated "nuclear capable"[1]. This shows how little these weapons mean to the US nuclear strategy. The impact of this is that because these weapons serve almost no military value or importance the US should remove them.

[1] http://thebulletin.org...
Rayze

Con

Under NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, the nuclear weapons serve as a political deterrant from nations and factions from attacking the Turkish nation. In addition the weapons despite currently serving no tactical deterrance, are symbolic and show that the US is still committed to assisting NATO allies. The gesture of the US to loan nuclear weapons to NATO allies is significant since it prevents the US from simply saying to turkey in times of Turkish strife, "yeah, we'll support you." while not even deploying its military. (http://www.defense.gov...)The gesture of keeping nuclear weapons prevent a similar vocal but litte support currently seen with France. Currently France is fighting alone against Mali insurgents who have beaten back Mali government troops. France's allies have expressed vocal support, but in actuallity they have only sent the bare minimum to support the French. In fact the African Union forces who are supposed to take over still haven't mobilized troops, and won't even be in Northern Mali until next week.(http://news.yahoo.com...) Thus inorder to prevent NATO allies from committing acts of minimal support the US should still retain its Nuclear weapons arsenal in Turkey,



Debate Round No. 2
Frost

Pro

Question 1:
Which is more of a deterrent, the nuclear weapons stored in Turkey or the conventional forces stationed there?

Question 2:
Can the weapons be considered an empty gesture seeing how if there was a need for a nuclear strike the weapon would not come from a Turkish airbase?

Question 3:
Is the "political deterrent" these B61 bombs supposedly provide enough to justify the $10 billion [1] that needs to be spent in order to keep this weapon operational?

[1] http://articles.washingtonpost.com...
Rayze

Con

Question 1:
Should the US undermine NATO cohesion for economic reasons?

Question2:
If the US removes the Nuclear weapons from Turkey, does it guarantee that Turkey will still be supported physically by if it was losing a war and needed help?

Question 3:
Which is beneficial in the long run; Supporting NATO or US exceptionalism?
Debate Round No. 3
Frost

Pro

Answer 1:
Seeing as how there would still be over 250 US nuclear weapons in Europe after America removed its arsenal from Turkey, I don't believe that this would undermine NATO cohesion, and therefor would be a justified action in regards to NATO.

Answer 2:
Understand that I am not a expert on Foreign Policy but it is my belief that if Turkey was attacked or was in need of American assistance that the US would support that aid. A US Democratic Party delegation group met with Turkish officials in Ankara on 30 May to confirm, "Turkey can always depend on the US, while the US can always rely on its close friendship with Turkey." This statement is what I based my answer on.

Answer 3:
Removing nuclear weapons from Turkey does not mean that the US would no longer support NATO. It would be more beneficial for the safety of Turkey to put troops there, not unusable nuclear bombs. The current NATO policy would only call for nuclear weapons as a last case scenario so in this case I believe removing the weapons would actually support both NATO and the US in the long run.
Rayze

Con

Answer 1. While conventional forces stationed in Turkey are a deterrent, the wrath of NATO implied through the Nuclear Weapons stationed in Turkey send a much clear message to aggressors that Turkey is not alone.

Answer 2. Well according Bilkent University Professor Mustafa Kibaroğlu, he speculates that if the Obama administration presses for the withdrawal of nuclear weapons, which Turkey wishes to maintain, then Turkey-US relations may be strained. So the weapons are not an empty gesture.

Answer 3. Yes, it is similar to how the US is pumping billions of US dollars to foreign governments to strengthen US relations with said foreign governments.
Debate Round No. 4
Frost

Pro

I want to take time to try and address the main arguments of my opponents case starting with his argument of how the weapons provide political deterrent and are a symbolic gesture. He tells us, I quote, "Under NATO's policy of nuclear deterrence, the nuclear weapons serve as a political deterrent from nations and factions from attacking the Turkish nation". However because I proved and he ceded the point that the weapons serve no tactical importance, if we really had Turkeys best interest in mind we would provide the Turkish government with a way to actually physically deter an enemy, not simply seem powerful.

Then when the con side says that "The gesture of the US to loan nuclear weapons to NATO allies is significant since it prevents the US from simply saying to turkey in times of Turkish strife, "yeah, we'll support you." while not even deploying its military" its a little bit ironic because by giving Turkey nuclear weapons while not providing them with a way to use the weapons does just that. Its an empty symbolic gesture because in Turkeys time of need they would still need to ask for Americans support.

Then the con side talks of assisting NATO allies and furthering NATO cohesion but I am forced to believe that Mr. Rayze actually knows very little about NATO. If he had actually taken the time to understand basic NATO policy he would realize that for over ten years NATO's stance has been in support of non-proliferation. NATO has been doing everything they can to STOP the spread of nuclear weapons, not support it. We will know that our relationship with Turkey is truly that of allies when we can base our relationship on more than just shared weapons.

Then if we look to how Mr. Rayze responded to some of my questions we can see that he is taking a very one sided look at this issue. When he says that "the wrath of NATO implied through the Nuclear Weapons stationed in Turkey send a much clear message to aggressors that Turkey is not alone" he continues to miss the point that implied force does not save lives. Except for the bombs dropped on Japan, no nuclear weapon has ever been used in war. The idea that NATO would allow the use of nuclear weapons in response to small, isolated conflicts between Turkey and its Middle Eastern neighbors is inane.

Mr. Rayze then brings up the point that the problem lies in the fact that the removal of the weapons would strain relations between the US and Turkey, and I agree with him on this. But I believe that if we took the several billion dollars that we spent on the nukes and spent that money on supporting their military, healthcare system and actually making progress for the people of Turkey then in the long run our relationship will grow even stronger. This is because there is one enemy that nuclear weapons cannot target; terrorists. The U.S. National Library of Medicine writes that terrorism is a growing issue in Turkey. Between 1984 and 2000 an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 Turkish citizens were killed by a nearly continuous stream of terrorism-related events [1]. It is impossible to use nukes against small terror cells regardless of what way you cut it. The Turkish government has recently begun to take a more aggressive approach to fighting terrorism and has deployed special forces troops to fight terror through cross boarder strikes [2]. By actually working with the Turkish government and supporting them in operations like these, whether it be through providing troops to work with their soldiers, giving them equipment necessary to fight terror and secure there boarders or giving them financial aid to allow them to implement public health programs or support education, removing the nukes and instead using that money will work to further the American goals of fighting terror and the Turkish goals of making their country safer.

Mr. Rayze and I both want the same thing actually, we want want to find a practical answer to the question of "how do we help Turkey". Because removing our nuclear bombs from Turkey provides more advantages than leaving them there ever could, you must side not only with me but also with the country of Turkey.

Thank you Mr. Rayze for giving me the opportunity to debate something that I believe is important. The best of luck to you in whatever you choose to do in the future,
Frost

[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[2] http://www.turkishweekly.net...
Rayze

Con

I must say that my opponent has refuted any further arguments, thus I concede and urge a pro vote.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Rayze 4 years ago
Rayze
Hey Frost, good debate to you too, and welcome to DDO
Posted by Frost 4 years ago
Frost
Hey Rayze, good debate. You got stuck defending a hard side that i'm sure you never really had any past experience with. Thanks for being a good sport about it.
-Frost
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
FrostRayzeTied
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: I did not read through the debate in detail, but simply noted that Con gracefully conceded after arguing several rounds. Therefore, arguments to Pro, and conduct to Con. Well done!
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 4 years ago
Deadlykris
FrostRayzeTied
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: Conduct to Con for a graceful concession. Arguments to Pro for Con's concession. Sources and S&G tied.
Vote Placed by OhioGary 4 years ago
OhioGary
FrostRayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: First of all, welcome to DDO Pro! The structure of the debate was odd for me, with both sides sharing BOP and then a round dedicated to asking each other questions. Nonetheless, I was ready to give the whole thing to Con, but Con conceded in the very last round. Yeowza! Whole thing to Pro.