The Instigator
Carpatus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
littlelacroix
Con (against)
Winning
28 Points

Should Nuclear Weapons be completely abolished?

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/12/2008 Category: Technology
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,261 times Debate No: 6228
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

Carpatus

Pro

Imagine this for a second. One day a terrorist group develops a nuclear bomb then manages to but it inside a small package and slip it into a country, lets say Russia. The group then detonates the bomb and Russia, not knowing the terrorist group had set off the bomb, thinks the U.S. did it since they are really the only ones with stockpiles of nuclear weapons. In response, Russia launches it own nuke at the U.S., taking out New York, L.A., or any other major city. In return the U.S. send one of their own and congratulations. It's the start of a nuclear apocalypse.

While this situation is hypothetical, there is a very real chance of this happening and, among other reasons following this, is why there should be a complete disarmament and destruction of nuclear weapons by all countries of the world. Doing so would prevent the above situation since if a nuke did go off, no other nation would have nuclear weapons and there wouldn't be any over-reacting on the part of the attacked.

Currently 8 nations have access to nuclear weapons: the U.S., Russia, U.K., France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. This only increases the chances of someone using a nuke and setting off the time-bomb of a nuclear apocalypse. Then there's North Korea who the U.N. doesn't trust with nukes, evident by the fact that the U.N. wanted North Korea to stop their research in that field.

Now for even more reasons why.
1. Nuclear weapons are morally repugnant. Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable.

2. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups.

3. While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly true in Russia, which now had control of all of the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former Soviet Union. The military is disastrously underfunded; technicians and officers who were used to a high standard of living are now finding themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear weapons. The danger of a weapon being stolen, or - in consideration of the current political instability in Russia - a nuclear base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons.

I don't know about you, but I want to live into my 60's and 70's though with the way things are looking right now, I don't foresee that happening.

All information is from the International Debate Education Association at idebate.org or what I've seen on the news.
littlelacroix

Con

First, I would like to start off by saying that abolishing nuclear weapons would not prevent terrorists from acquiring them. Since man has already created nuclear weapons, we know how to create more. Just because we abolish the existing ones, doesn't mean that terrorists will give up on building one.

Secondly, nations like North Korea and Iran, if they continue seeking nuclear weapons, have a poor history of diplomacy and would refuse to cooperate with the will of others. The UN asked North Korea to discontinue their nuclear program and they withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Iran, even though they were just supposedly seeking nuclear energy, originally refused to let the UN in and see the country's program. Some countries would refuse to participate in this act and would leave many countries at complete risk since Mutually Assured Destruction would no longer exist.

Since there is no means of accomplishing the resolution, I offer the following counter plan as a more successful solution to the problem of nuclear weapons.

The International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is a branch of the UN that is in charge of all nuclear programs in the world. A revision of the IAEA, would be beneficial. Some of the revisions would include strict access to all programs in the world and some means of enforcing their will. If the IAEA has strict access to all nuclear programs then it could be determined who detonated the nuclear weapon, a nation or a terrorist group. This way we could prevent a nuclear war, even in the wake of a disaster. Also, if the IAEA has some means of enforcing their will, then any country that refused to participate in this program would receive sanctions for their actions.

If two guys that hated each other were pointing guns at one another, would it be smart to lower your gun knowing that he would shoot? No. By abolishing nuclear weapons, we as a country would be leaving ourselves in great danger from those unwilling to participate. There are other ways of ensuring safety.
Debate Round No. 1
Carpatus

Pro

Carpatus forfeited this round.
littlelacroix

Con

I have nothing more to say here until my opponent posts his next argument. Thank you
Debate Round No. 2
Carpatus

Pro

Carpatus forfeited this round.
littlelacroix

Con

I guess I have nothing more to say.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
The resolution is nonsense because there is no means by which nuclear weapons can be abolished, and the resolution suggests none. Why not simply resolve "War should be abolished, and peace, freedom, and prosperity should be universal ... and there should be free donuts too." If a nonsense resolution is desired, it might as well be all-encompassing.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Excessum 7 years ago
Excessum
CarpatuslittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by Johnicle 8 years ago
Johnicle
CarpatuslittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 
Vote Placed by InquireTruth 8 years ago
InquireTruth
CarpatuslittlelacroixTied
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 
Vote Placed by littlelacroix 8 years ago
littlelacroix
CarpatuslittlelacroixTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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