The Instigator
noneofyourbuisiness
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Actionsspeak
Con (against)
Winning
29 Points

Should Americans promote the use of 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 5 votes the winner is...
Actionsspeak
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/17/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 801 times Debate No: 49285
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (5)

 

noneofyourbuisiness

Pro

Only for certain countries. I need information for a class project due 3/19/14!!!!!
Actionsspeak

Con

I'm looking forward to this debate hopefully each us of us can learn from it and I will attempt to make my argument easy to read so it will be presented in bulleted form with little bias, and each round will end with a conclusion and sources.

Definitions [1]

Promote: to help (something) happen, develop, or increase

Use: the act of using something

Biodiversity: the existence of many different kinds of plants and animals in an environment

Nonintervention/non-interventionism: A foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. [2]

Nuclear bomb Statistics: [3]

- The United States currently the U.S. has 7,700 nuclear warheads.
- Russia currently has 8,500 nuclear warheads.
- The United Kingdom currently has 220 nuclear warheads.
- France currently has 300 nuclear nuclear warheads.
- India currently has 90-110 nuclear warheads.
- Pakistan currently has 100-120 nuclear warheads.
- North Korea currently has less than 10 nuclear warheads.
- Israel currently has 80 nuclear warheads based on U.S. data, but may have up to 200.

Environmental impacts: [4] [5] [6] [7]

- If 100 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs were detonated then the smoke would block out sunlight, cool the planet, and produce climate change unprecedented in recorded human history, in fact a bomb 260 times more powerful than Hiroshima nearly detonated over North Carolina in 1961.

- The production of nuclear weapons has polluted soil and water at hundreds of facilities. Many of the pollutants are carcinogenic and/or mutagenic, some even remain hazardous for thousands of years.

- Nuclear bombs kill organisms and decreases biodiversity. Plants, animals, and microbal life are the basis of nearly half of all market drugs in the United States, in addition biodiversity aids agricultural, business, and industrial sectors.

Health impacts: [8] [9]

- In Hiroshima the estimated death total from one nuclear bomb is 330,000
- In Nagasaki the estimated death total from one nuclear bomb is 250,000
- Radiation has effects that happen over a longer timeline such as cancer, by causing mutations in the DNA of living cells.

Foreign Policy [10]

- Pakistan and India (who both have nuclear bombs) have alot of political tensions, I believe it is within these countries interest to end the tensions immediatly.
- Russia and the United States have had alot of political tension, and the whole world is lucky no nuclear action that likely would have led to mass retalliation occured.
- I believe the foreign policy is non-interventionism, since war (nations destroying each other) doesn't occur.

Conclusion

I believe it's apparent that promoting the use of nuclear bombs harms foreign interaction and that the use of nuclead bombs should never be promoted and i'm highly in favor of non-interventionism. Your side states that Americans (note: the term Americans includes political leaders such as Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, the Clinton's, etc.) should help/aid the use of nuclear bombs, I look forward to seeing your argument and thanks for starting this debate.

Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.fas.org...
[4] http://content.time.com...
[5] http://www.motherearth.org...
[6] http://www.independent.co.uk...
[7] http://actionbiodiversity.org...
[8] http://www.aasc.ucla.edu...
[9] http://k1project.org...
[10] http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
noneofyourbuisiness

Pro

Well I think that we should not use them i think that we should have them in case we are attacked we have defense oter than war and so should certain other countries.
Actionsspeak

Con

Can you clarify your argument, while we still have 3 rounds left?

I've got private messages from you asking to state your side along with mine, now I see that you've made no argument/rebuttal/source.

So are you conceding since you no longer say the U.S. Should promote the use of nuclear warheads, but rare usage in desperation times of war? Are you just conceding and asking me for advice on your project? Do you wish to debate?

(If you want advice you should go to the forums, however i'm still willing to aid you.)
Debate Round No. 2
noneofyourbuisiness

Pro

If americans dont promote the use of nuclear weapons then will it even change what other countries think that want to promote it? Probably not so why not just promote it anyway to show that we are not scared to use them.
Actionsspeak

Con

My opponent now says:

"If americans dont promote the use of nuclear weapons then will it even change what other countries think that want to promote it?"

However this is an incorrect statement made with no credibility, and countries that have western culture are very influental to each other. This is without even saying the U.S. is the world's strongest superpower, a rather peaceful one, and has no need for nuclear in fact the U.S. hasn't been at war sine June 4th, 1942. I'm hoping next round you will make your first argument (finally) and not just list your ever-changing viewpoint with no credibility or logic. [1] [2]

Sources:
[1] https://www.khanacademy.org...
[2] http://www.senate.gov...
Debate Round No. 3
noneofyourbuisiness

Pro

Well first off I don't like the idea of just going off half cock and sending out a nuke to just any country but what I do believe is that we should promote the use of nuclear weapons for respect.

1. If we promote the use of nuclear weapons then all countries WILL know that if they choose to start a war with or without the use of nuclear weapons, then we WILL use our nuclear weapons. In other words,
"If the United States ends up using military force against Iran's nuclear program, it should do so with nuclear weapons."
"I think a ground war in Iran with American boots on the ground would be a horrible thing and I think people like to toss around the fact that we have to stop them in some way from gaining this nuclear capability. I don't think it's inevitable but I think if you have to hit Iran, you don't put boots on he ground, YOU DO IT WITH TACTICAL NUCLEAR DEVICES AND YOU SET THEM BACK A DECADE OR TWO OR THREE. I think that's the way to do it with a massive aerial bombardment campaign."
-Congressman Duncan Hunter

I agree with that because if a country wants other countries to THINK that they have nuclear devices then, "Good, good for them if they want to threaten countries that they DO have nuclear weapons then fine, but the second you say that you have found the key to making working nuclear devices, then we will bomb you WITH the nuclear weapons that we DO have."
-Me

http://www.google.com...

academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu
Actionsspeak

Con

Now you finally made your first argument, so I will begin rebuttals.

You said:

"Well first off I don't like the idea of just going off half cock and sending out a nuke to just any country but what I do believe is that we should promote the use of nuclear weapons for respect."

I don't see why the world's greatest superpower who already has vast respect should from most countries should demand more respect from other countries by using nuclear annihilation, care to explain further?

You said:

1. "If we promote the use of nuclear weapons then all countries WILL know that if they choose to start a war with or without the use of nuclear weapons, then we WILL use our nuclear weapons."

This debate is whether we should promote the use of nuclear weapons, meaning regardless of whether or not it's in a war. Anyways these countries already know the U.S. has the world's strongest armed forces.

You also listed Duncan Hunter (who received a military discharge) essentially saying the U.S. should detonate nuclear warheads in Iran to set them back technologically, so I took the liberty listed some reasons why the U.S. shouldn't and doesn't need to use nuclear warheads against Iran.

Some statistics from globalfirepower show that the U.S. clearly doesn't need to use nuclear warheads against Iran. [2] (the U.S. Ranks first in military strength among every nation in the world):

MANPOWER

- Total Population: 316,668,567

- Available Manpower: 145,212,012

- Fit for Service: 120,022,084

- Reaching Military Age Annually: 4,217,412

- Active Frontline Personnel: 1,430,000

- Active Reserve Personnel: 850,880

LAND SYSTEMS

- Tanks: 8,325

- Armored Fighting Vehicles: 25,782

- Self-Propelled Guns: 1,934

- Towed Artillery Pieces: 1,791

- Rocket Projectors (MLRS): 1,330

AIR POWER

- Total Aircraft: 13,683

- Helicopters: 6,012

NAVAL POWER

- Aircraft Carriers: 10

- Frigates: 15

- Destroyers: 62

- Submarines: 72

RESOURCES

- Oil Production: 8,500,000 bbl/day

- Oil Consumption: 19,000,000 bbl/day

- Proven Oil Reserves: 20,680,000,000 bbl/day

FINANCIAL (in USD)

Defense Budget: $612,500,000,000

Reserves of Foreign Exchange and Gold: $150,200,000,000

Purchasing Power Parity: $15,940,000,000,000

GEOGRAPHY (in km)

Square Land Area: 9,826,675 km

Coastline: 19,924 km

Waterways: 41,009 km

Now here are some reasons why the U.S. shouldn't use nuclear warheads against Iran:

1. It would have devastating environmental effects. (This argument I made went unrefuted earlier.)

2. It would have devastating human health effects.(This argument I made went unrefuted earlier.)

3. Their are other solutions that would prevent reason 1+2 from occuring (or atleast lower the effects of 1+2) such as strong sanctioning from the international community, search and seize Iran technology that relates to nuclear warheads/devices, or using the U.S. military force which is vastly superior to Iran.

Sources:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Debate Round No. 4
noneofyourbuisiness

Pro

noneofyourbuisiness forfeited this round.
Actionsspeak

Con

I enjoyed this debate, and only wish my opponent made an argument.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
Oh sorry that's the last time we declared war :l
Posted by Actionsspeak 2 years ago
Actionsspeak
@See

Hmmmm... I fact checked you date and found nothing but my senate.gov source and a wiki source I just found showed my date to be correct. Can you give me a source?
Posted by Seeginomikata 2 years ago
Seeginomikata
The U.S. hasn't been at war since June 1942 !?!?
Sorry to nitpick, but the correct answer is September 2, 1945.
Posted by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
Oh crap. i didn't realize this debate had a 6 month voting period. I hate those.
Posted by noneofyourbuisiness 2 years ago
noneofyourbuisiness
Just build up supply I think that nukes should be used only if they warn the other country so that they can get the innocent civilians out of the country ASAP.
Posted by dmussi12 2 years ago
dmussi12
Are you saying we should use nukes on other countries, or just build up supply?
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 2 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
noneofyourbuisinessActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full points to Con. Conduct as Pro forfeited. Arguments as Pro made no arguments until the fourth round and it was weak. S&G as Pro made far more mistakes. Sources points go to Con for citing sources, even though some seem rather biased.
Vote Placed by Josh_b 2 years ago
Josh_b
noneofyourbuisinessActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: It seems as though pro forgot that the debate was for debating and not for messaging, or that messaging was not for debating and didn't post any thing of substance until R4 when the debate was almost over.
Vote Placed by Relativist 2 years ago
Relativist
noneofyourbuisinessActionsspeakTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Well....asking someone to do a thorough project on nuclear weapons....Anyway, FF loss of conduct Pro made a lot spelling errors no matter how short his sentence was and Con essentially made proper rebuttals and his contentions was well heard.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
noneofyourbuisinessActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Not a real debate, someone using this site to get someone else to do their research... However CONDUCT: Forfeit. S&G: Random all caps, including claiming a congressman spoke in ALL CAPS, poor puntuation!!!! It was enough to distract from what little substance he put forward. ARGUMENTS: Actually quoting himself is a new one, but waiting until near the end to put forward any argument, and then running away after it was refuted; no contest. SOURCES: con provided them to help pro with the assignment, however it's a very clear and large edge in this category.
Vote Placed by Juris 2 years ago
Juris
noneofyourbuisinessActionsspeakTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used a lot of statistics and I liked it. It was very informative. Further, Con tackled clearly the motion of the debate unlike Pro who was very vague with his arguments. The consequences of the proposal was attacked significantly by Con. Overall, con argued well and presented stats.