The Instigator
pranmar123
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
MilkyChocolate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Should Nuclear weapons be disarmed?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 8/6/2013 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,291 times Debate No: 36415
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

pranmar123

Con

We Should not Disarm our Nuclear Weapons! Disarming our nuclear weapons will not only weaken our military but also cause more problems environmentally and economically. Disarming nuclear weapons is a difficult and will build up a lot of nuclear waste that is nearly impossible to get rid of. Disarming nuclear weapons and getting rid of the nuclear waste will also require a lot of money from our government, which would add to our already huge deficit.
MilkyChocolate

Pro

I gladly accept the challenge, yet I believe that nuclear weapons should be banned for the sake of our world and for the sake of our environment. Speaking of which, I cannot comprehend as to what made you state the following: "Disarming our nuclear weapons will not only weaken our military but also cause more problems environmentally and economicall". It is, in fact, the opposite. By abolishing the use of nuclear weapons globally, we would only ensure world peace and take it a step further. Statistically, over 184 nations have officially vowed not to partake in the use of nuclear arms as they have acknowledged the utmost danger in doing so.

According to http://www.fas.org..., "nuclear detonations are the most devastating of the weapons of mass destruction". It is of no use to use to keep maintaining the costs of possessing such a prodigious amount of power and it has brought nothing good to humanity whatsoever. What do you think about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incidents? What about the current security dilemma between North Korea and South Korea, each threatening to use bomb the other? By abolishing them, we would actually save costs eventually.
SOURCE: http://www.theguardian.com...

Consequentially, non-proliferation of nuclear weapons would prevent environmental damage as well as an economic crisis as you've so unreasonably claimed. Disarming nuclear weapons would, in fact, require little to no costs at all by the government; rest assured, they could afford it hypothetically regardless.
Debate Round No. 1
pranmar123

Con

pranmar123 forfeited this round.
MilkyChocolate

Pro

Sadly, CON hasn't posted anything in response.
Debate Round No. 2
pranmar123

Con

Ahh but, there would never be an way of getting every country to disarm every nuclear weapon. Suppose all the countries CLAIMED that they have and suppose one country kept one. That country would then have control over all the others due to it having the only nuclear weapon.

If you are to disarm them, where would the waste go? It would make garbage fills and/or oceans far worse.
MilkyChocolate

Pro

Diplomacy has proven that everything is possible; look at the end of World War II, when two individuals with completely opposing ideologies organised a conference in which they restructured the whole world in two different bits. It is entirely possible for nuclear weapons to be disarmed. What my opponent is saying, "Suppose all the countries CLAIMED that they have and suppose one country kept one." sounds like a fairy tale and I do hope they intended to use it as such. I urge CON to prove the validity of that baseless argument, inasmuch as external affairs cannot withhold any lies and secret plans for a very long time. If proven guilty, that country will be immediately assaulted by the entire structure of the UN and I doubt they could hold on against them.

Upon disarming them, they are usually sent to nuclear power plants where they are converted into fuel rods and used to harness energy.
SOURCE: http://www.popsci.com...

Nuclear weapons should be entirely disarmed because we live in a precarious era where a third world war is lurking behind every corner; doing the latter would at least attempt to inspire global peace or at least prevent a gargantuan amount of casualties in a future war.
Debate Round No. 3
pranmar123

Con

Sorry, but this is my first debate, Anyways There was really no choice but to call peace in WW2. Otherwise the Axis side would have had no choice but to either be crushed or diplomacy. If you were to get rid of the Nuclear Weapons, countries would start developing weapons that are even worse and CAUSE more destruction. Suppose that WE did disarm the nuclear weapons, there is still Uranium and terrorists can AND most likely will develop a nuclear weapon secretly ans would destroy any country. Would you want terrorists to take over the world? Having Nuclear weapons is the reason we haven't been having any major war since. There are too MANY countries that are hungry for power and do you really think they would disarm them? If they were to then either they will hide one or develop a new one! During WW2 the ONLY reason why it ended was when the US nuked Japan.

Thanks for debating.
MilkyChocolate

Pro

My opponent provide yet another baseless argument: "If you were to get rid of the Nuclear Weapons, countries would start developing weapons that are even worse and CAUSE more destruction.". How do you know that? While it is entirely possible, it would have been much better if you'd provided a source of some sort to defend it. You also mention that terrorists could secretly develop nuclear warheads; I assure you that given today's security exploits and overall paranoia, that would not happen. Terrorists wouldn't take over the world because they have neither the resources nor the men to do it and it's been statistically proven. For more info, please visit: https://www.cia.gov...

Again, you can't clandestinely develop a project based on nuclear weapon development as you will be crushed immediately by the rest of the world no matter how strong a country you are. They will be forced to disarm them, whether they like it or not, and at the first sign of betrayal, repercussions will be felt. They are also impeded by fear, not just honour; the U.S.A has received about 25 letters that contained severe war threats, yet nothing has happened. It seems as though we've become responsible and have realised the pandemically destructive effect(s) of nuclear weapons in general.
SOURCE: http://chicago.cbslocal.com...

My final conclusion is that nuclear weapons are superfluous, redundant and pointless, serving no role whatsoever; not even in preserving world peace. In fact, by continuing to blackmail other countries in this way we'll soon get to a point where we'll actually do it; and from there on there on we won't be given a second shot.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.