The Instigator
benjaminfranklin
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points
The Contender
abard124
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points

Should the US destroy their nuclear stockpile?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 4/5/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,769 times Debate No: 7710
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (6)

 

benjaminfranklin

Con

North Korea recently tested a new type of missile, which could be retrofitted for use with nukes. They say its for their space program. In response to this, Obama has gone overseas saying that the US is committed to a day when the world is without nukes. He says that not committing to this means subscribing to the idea that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

I think that nuclear weaponry is far too mass-proliferated for any country to dismantle their weaponry. Human nature will always exist. If the US doesn't have nukes, someone will get them. I am against nuclear testing. I am against nuclear war. But it seems like an impossibility that humans will ever dismantle all these weapons. Arguments?
abard124

Pro

Until the 1940's, Nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction were never there.
Since then, they have only been dropped as acts of war twice.
The reason for that is that those two killed about 210,000 people.
That was the worst thing America ever did.
Even though we are now allies with Japan, if I were Emperor Hirohito, I wouldn't have broken so easily.
Now, we have used 2 more than any other country as an act of war.
If we are so mad at the DPRK and Iran for having nukes, what makes us so special that we can have them?
Now, we both agree that nukes are bad.
You are just appeasing people like former Co-President Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. We know from WWII that appeasement doesn't work.
It isn't right to keep nukes while preaching something else.
It isn't right to spend so much money on keeping the nukes secure and making the nukes, when we don't plan on ever using them.
Most of all, we need to set an example for other nations, because, if we have a full scale nuclear war, everyone is affected, the ozone layer goes away, and we live in ratholes for the last week of our life where we suffer from starvation and radiation poisoning.
Don't give in to what happens when it can change.
Debate Round No. 1
benjaminfranklin

Con

Thank-you for your argument. I'd like to start out by affirming the logic in Pro's arguments before I talk about why I disagree.

Your point is right that America is hypocritical when it tells other countries to disarm, but this is not a question of whether or not America should be telling others to disarm. Also, an analogy comes to mind. America is not the same as a country like North Korea. Think of a child with a gun. The child may harm himself or others, because of his immaturity, and the fact that he doesn't understand the consequences of the weapon. Should an adult take the gun from him? Yes? What if that adult owns guns, and is licensed to do so, as well as having training. Should he let the child keep the gun, even though taking it is hypocrisy? North Korea professes to hate America, and threatens with its nuclear technology. America, while unstable on many issues, has something to lose. I WANT TO AFFIRM ONE THING THOUGH: this is not a debate on American hypocrisy. It may very well be hypocritical for us to tell others what to do with nukes. That is not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that we shouldn't disarm. Maybe we shouldn't tell others to disarm either, but that's for another debate.

If we never intend to use them on other people, we technically shouldn't have them. This is a good point, when kept on a short scale. See my citation below about the possibility of an incoming asteroid. This is a bit of a tangent. Shortly after that, I'll bring up my main point.

We shouldn't be spending money on developing more nuclear weapons, Pro has a good point here. The only development that should be happening is determining how to limit radiation, or create protection against the possibility of an incoming asteroid, or to create missile defense. Pro is right: we have plenty of nukes. But once again, I AM NOT ARGUING whether or not we should have less nukes. I believe we should have less, cutting as much as 75% or more of our current nuclear ordnance would be appropriate. The argument is about whether or not we should have ZERO nukes. Also, I'd like to clarify that I'm talking about this century, and the current global situation. I'll go into detail about NATO, global affairs of nuclear countries, etc, after I introduce my main point.

Robert Roy Britt wrote of an asteroid that recently came close to Earth, saying, "The asteroid is named 2003 SQ222. It came within 54,700 miles (88,000 kilometers) of Earth, or less than one-fourth the distance to the Moon, on Sept. 27, researchers said late last week. That breaks a near-miss record set in 1994."
- http://www.space.com...

The possibility of an asteroid extinction humanity could be repelled by some sort of nuclear weapons technology. But research should be geared toward the aim of space defense, rather than killing humans.

This asteroid tangent doesn't directly pertain to the debate, so I'll narrow this down to my main point:

Imagine disarmament. A grand announcement would be made. Celebrations would be had. But would it be real? Could every country in the world disarm their nukes at once? With honesty? This is where the feel-good idea of a world without nukes falls apart.

Many countries have nukes, not just the US, which has over 5000. Russia, North Korea (or so they say), India, France, The UK, China, Pakistan. There are an estimated 20,000 nuclear weapons worldwide, and which is down from 65,000 in 1985 (thank God).
-http://en.wikipedia.org...

In today's global climate, disarmament is a pipe dream. All it takes is one country to hide one nuke. Look at the situation in current events: we even can't get North Korea to STOP making nukes. They have broken multiple treaties, and have gotten around the latest one by claiming that their latest missile deployment technology is for launching satellites.

This can be solved by empowering NATO, and creating stronger alliances. If NATO actually had power, then they could enforce worldwide sanctions, like one against nuclear weaponry. Then they could punish a nation for using nuclear weapons. The problem is, that poorer countries will always want more power - this is human nature. If no powerful countries have nukes, those that do have them will form alliances, and threaten to use them, or actually use them.

Another factor comes into play when considering today's global politics: most countries don't like the United States. They do not trust the United States. They would not believe us if we SAID that our nukes were gone, even if it was TRUE. I was talking with my roommate, a South Korean exchange student, and he told me that most countries hate us. Not some. Most. South Korea is an ally to the US. Tae-Wan is a well-educated citizen of that country, he knows two languages, and he has served in the South Korean army. He has conducted surveillance of North Korea.

There are countries that don't like the US, and they will hide their nukes will grinning at us and shaking our hand if we go for a global disarmament. This is the reality of the situation. Until NATO has more power, or there is a better defense system against Nukes, the weapons will remain out there whether we have them or not.

Just a side note: dropping the nukes wasn't the worst thing the US ever did. The genocide of the American Indians was worse, among other things. Also, it may have prevented casualties, to be honest. Taking the Japanese mainland would have been near impossible, and many more US and Japanese troops probably would have died. My Grandfather served in WWII, and told me of the Japanese dedication to their cause. This is also evidenced in their tendency to use "Kamakazi" suicide bombers. They would have fought tooth and nail. The nukes probably saved civilians by ending the war decisively.

Also note this excerpt about a battle between Japanese and American forces in WWII. Please take note of the 100,000 Japanese civilians that died.
"Battle of Okinawa: April 1, 1945 to June 16, 1945 ? The Last Battle of World War II and the bloodiest battle in the Pacific War. USA attempt to use Okinawa as a stepping stone for the Invasion of Japan. Japan lost 120,000 soldiers defending the Island and 100,000 Japanese civilians also died. USA had 58,000 Casualties." - http://www.strategypage.com...

Nukes are just one element of war, which will go on. If all countries don't fully disarm, which I think they won't, we will be leveling the playing field for war, and those that have the nukes will actually use them.

In order to disarm, NATO needs to show unity and power. The US needs to stop bullying its way into foreign affairs, and let NATO start doing that, which is the thing its supposed to do in the first place. If a unified front can be created for world law, then nukes could be effectively outlawed. Only then will it be appropriate for us to disarm. And the time when that can happen does not appear to be around the corner, no matter how the US paints us as a good country that enforces world peace.

Only by relinquishing our claims as enforcer will the US be able to count on any form of stable worldwide law. This is not happening. Even Barack Obama, who I believe is helping us in world affairs with policies of negotiation, still thinks we should be in Afghanistan. This type of action means we must keep nukes, unless we want to stop being an aggressor.

World law is still only a fantasy. So disarmament is still folly.

Open to arguments.
abard124

Pro

"Also, an analogy comes to mind. America is not the same as a country like North Korea. Think of a child with a gun. The child may harm himself or others, because of his immaturity, and the fact that he doesn't understand the consequences of the weapon. Should an adult take the gun from him? Yes."
Okay, since that is nearly verbatim from another debate I participated in, I will briefly touch upon it, and if you want me to go deeper, you can read the other debate (and possibly get some ideas). Basically, North Korea and Iran, they don't know that they're "little kids," and in their mind, we're the little kids, and they're the adult. I'm not saying that they're right, but that dog won't hunt (to quote Ann Richards).

"this is not a debate on American hypocrisy. It may very well be hypocritical for us to tell others what to do with nukes."
Agreed. I'll stop bringing those other countries into this.

"See my citation below about the possibility of an incoming asteroid..."
That is a valid point, but a nuke isn't the way to destroy it. That is really likely to cause problems with the ozone layer, as well as problems that we never anticipated. Just look at what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were so many things that we never anticipated that made us worse off.

"Imagine disarmament. A grand announcement would be made. Celebrations would be had. But would it be real? Could every country in the world disarm their nukes at once? With honesty? This is where the feel-good idea of a world without nukes falls apart."
What if we don't make a grand announcement? What if we don't celebrate? If we disarm, but keep a low key and don't tell other countries, and threaten them whenever they threaten us. That's what I suspect with Israel. Truthfully, their conflicts are so close to home that whoever they nuke, Israel is probably gone anyway.

"In today's global climate, disarmament is a pipe dream. All it takes is one country to hide one nuke..."
We're not arguing that. we're arguing American disarmament. Then, although I said I wouldn't mention this, I lied, we will have more authority to tell them what to do.

"Also, it may have prevented casualties, to be honest."
I don't really believe that fighting fire with fire works terribly well. There were so many casualties due directly to the nukes, and just as many, if not more, due indirectly to the nukes. I'm sorry, but killing 200,000 innocent people does not prevent casualties. Yes, Japan was very dedicated, but the nukes killed so many civilians that there is no way to justify it.

"no matter how the US paints us as a good country that enforces world peace."
Well, the ethnocentric neoconservative views that most of us have, like it or not; including the former co-presidents Bush and Cheney, even FDR, even you, even me, even president Obama; are not going to get us to be that good country that enforces world peace.

"Only by relinquishing our claims as enforcer will the US be able to count on any form of stable worldwide law. This is not happening. Even Barack Obama, who I believe is helping us in world affairs with policies of negotiation, still thinks we should be in Afghanistan. This type of action means we must keep nukes, unless we want to stop being an aggressor."
I want to stop being an aggressor. I don't consider it being an aggressor to try and find the guy who masterminded the 9/11 attacks.

"World law is still only a fantasy. So disarmament is still folly."
I wish the UN had more power, but I do think that they could pass resolution banning nukes, although it would be helpful if there was an actual punishment for breaking it.

Looking forward to the next round!
Debate Round No. 2
benjaminfranklin

Con

"If we disarm, but keep a low key and don't tell other countries, and threaten them whenever they threaten us."
Theodore Roosevelt said, "talk softly and carry a big stick." You propose that we yell and carry nothing.
To threaten with nukes is just as likely to cause a nuclear war, albeit a one sided one. Not letting people know we've disarmed is completely pointless. Furthermore, it weakens your entire point. If you think we need to threaten people with nukes to keep the peace (and I agree) then we need them. To not have them and threaten with them is entirely ridiculous. It's either we need them or we don't.

I guess we have found a fundamental difference in our argument as well; you believe that the US should disarm WITHOUT other countries following suit. As you said, "We're not arguing that. we're arguing American disarmament." I'm sorry, but if we're arguing American disarmament, we should be arguing global disarmament. Our country doesn't have the world's biggest standing army, China does. It's the ultimate ethnocentric arrogance to think that the US will still have power to defend itself and its allies if we don't have nukes. Think about it this way:

The world is not a nice place. Countries don't all have good living conditions. Countries seek to change this by making war against richer countries. It's like a rich man walking down the street and getting mugged by a poor one. The only thing stopping countries from taking action against us is our military power, like it or not. If we don't have nukes, we will be at the mercy of countries that have nukes.

Here's an example of what could happen: China wants to start an illegal trade route with Iran, trafficking, weapons, technologies etc. China does this for more money. The US knows of this. We tell them to stop. They give us the middle finger and tell us they'll nuke us if we interfere. We are powerless. This type of situation could actually lead to the use of nuclear weapons, moreso than both sides being equally matched.

Example 2: Russia invades Georgia. Human rights violations take place, and the country is commandeered. Russia seeks to attack another country, and expand its power into Europe. We want to intervene right? We have to defend our allies right? NOT IF WE DON'T HAVE NUKES. Without nukes, we have no power to threaten them, nothing to stop them with. They will smile and keep on going, taking the money and land they want.

IF we disarm, it must be in unison with the other nuclear powers of the world. You mentioned appeasement, and how it doesn't work. That is a perfect point to weaken your argument. In WWII the US didn't intervene. European countries signed treaties with Germany. And Germany invaded because it wanted more power, despite these treaties. Military power is necessary to counteract human greed. Without it, we'll fly a white flag until our country burns to the ground around us, and that my friend, is human nature. Humans take what they can get.

I believe in disarmament only if there is a world organization to enforce law, like a NATO that has actual power, or all countries do it at the same time. And I don't believe all countries can disarm at the same time, because someone will lie. That is my point. The following is some counterpoints against some of your arguments.

"I don't really believe that fighting fire with fire works terribly well."
Well I guess you really don't understand war, do you?

"Just look at what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There were so many things that we never anticipated that made us worse off."
I want some examples of the "unexpected" bad things that happened. The results of that action went exactly as planned, my friend, by ending the war and minimizing overall casualties. I brought up a quote about the battle of Okinawa, in which 100,000 civilians died, as well as 58,000 US casualties, and 120,000 Japanese soldiers.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ENDED the fight against Japan. If you were a WWII soldier, then this was a good thing, because it meant that instead of dying or being dismembered, you were going home to your family. LIVES WERE SAVED. The battle of Okinawa (total deaths, 278,000) was a drop in the bucket compared to what would have happened on the Japanese MAINLAND. So tell me, what what terrible things happened that, "were never anticipated"?

Let's talk about NATO:
The fight in Afghanistan is a perfect example of how NATO is crumbling as an organization. The Economist's article, Have Combat Experience, Will Travel, sums it up: "The NRF is a force that should be on steroids, and instead it's on life support."

The NRF was created in 2002, and is the NATO effort to split up its forces into smaller expeditionary forces. Later in the Economist's article, they go on to talk about how the European nations are under-supporting NATO - here are some numbers they cited - "America spends about 4% of GDP on defense, but only four European countries (Britain, France, Greece and Bulgaria) meet NATO's minimum of 2%. Partly as a result, America in 2007 deployed about 14% of its troops on operations, while European countries could barely muster 4%."

A lack of global law enforcement and accountability is why I think disarmament is a pipe dream. That and the fact that everyone should disarm at once, or no one should. Nukes are what prevent superpowers in Europe and Asia from sweeping us out of the way. To think that the US will retain military superiority without nukes is the ultimate ethnocentric arrogance, in my opinion. The ultimate ignorance is thinking other countries won't vie for power if we disarm.

Open to argument.
abard124

Pro

"To threaten with nukes is just as likely to cause a nuclear war, albeit a one sided one."
Really? Let's phone a friend. I'm thinking Benjamin...
"we need to threaten people with nukes to keep the peace (and I agree)"
So, which is it? Does threatening people with nukes cause war, or does it keep the peace? I don't need to argue your points when you do so yourself. But enough of that. I don't like being mean. Anyhow. Either way, the other countries don't need t know that we don't have nukes. And, even if they did, the last thing we want is a nuclear war. Absolutely nothing good comes out of it. And frankly, I'd rather the U.S. become an Iranian territory than the ozone layer to disappear and we have to live out the short remainder of our lives in a rathole. Besides, keeping nukes and never using them is a tremendous waste. Here's a website showing how much nukes cost, even just to store. https://www.osti.gov...

"I guess we have found a fundamental difference in our argument as well; you believe that the US should disarm WITHOUT other countries following suit. As you said, 'We're not arguing that. we're arguing American disarmament.' I'm sorry, but if we're arguing American disarmament, we should be arguing global disarmament."
I don't want to go into a full on schpiel about a moving target and such, as one particularly formal debater did to me, but I would like to just briefly touch upon the fact that the topic of the debate, which you worded yourself, reads, "Should the US destroy their nuclear stockpile?" I was just trying to stick to the topic. But once again, I don't like being mean, so you can argue what you want. It is your debate, after all.

"Our country doesn't have the world's biggest standing army, China does."
Thank you, Richard Nixon, for making us be friends with China. Obviously, we can't be completely oblivious to a possible threat from China, but we need not worry too much. And we've lost before (sort of), to Vietnam...

"It's the ultimate ethnocentric arrogance to think that the US will still have power to defend itself and its allies if we don't have nukes"
Tecnnically speaking, yes, but if we haven't used any in 65 years, and between now and then we've been to Korea, Vietnam, the cold war (where there were no nukes used, but we were pretty afraid), the gulf war, Afghanistan, and Iraq (where we went [supposedly] to dispose of theirs). I probably forgot one or two in there, but my point is, of all of those, we never used nukes, but we still won. That's quite a few wars, and 65 years is a a long time, and we never used nukes.

"The only thing stopping countries from taking action against us is our military power, like it or not."
Even without nukes, we have a very formidable army. And, as I said, we don't have to tell other countries that we don't have nukes. We don't really know if North Korea has nukes. If they don't, that strategy has been workingdamn well for them.

"Here's an example of what could happen: China wants to start an illegal trade route with Iran, trafficking, weapons, technologies etc. China does this for more money. The US knows of this. We tell them to stop. They give us the middle finger and tell us they'll nuke us if we interfere. We are powerless. This type of situation could actually lead to the use of nuclear weapons, moreso than both sides being equally matched."
Replace Iran with Sudan. That's what has been going on recently. No nukes, but we think they stopped, or are in the process of stopping.

"Russia invades Georgia. Human rights violations take place, and the country is commandeered. Russia seeks to attack another country, and expand its power into Europe. We want to intervene right? We have to defend our allies right? NOT IF WE DON'T HAVE NUKES. Without nukes, we have no power to threaten them, nothing to stop them with. They will smile and keep on going, taking the money and land they want."
You still seem to be jumping a bit between "nukes cause war" and "nukes cause peace." But anyway, you are getting scarily close to saying that America's only lifeline is its nukes. That is simply not true. And after seeing that we haven't used them in 65 years, they more or less know that we wouldn't have the balls to use them anyway unless they did on us. So, in effect, we have the choice to be much more aggressive, which would be bad, or stop relying on our nukes. And if we stop relying on them, we have no reason to keep them.

"Military power is necessary to counteract human greed."
To some extent, but once again, you're giving the nukes far too much credit.

"nd I don't believe all countries can disarm at the same time, because someone will lie."
Yes, they will. And maybe one army isn't enough to stop them, but every army that signed the UN resolution (or whatever), that could beat out the nukes.

"Well I guess you really don't understand war, do you?"
I live with the fact that war is occasionally necessary, but on the scale of nukes, no good can come out of it.

"I want some examples of the 'unexpected' bad things that happened."
Radiation, for one...

"minimizing overall casualties."
For the Americans, anyway, but the Japanese are people, too.

"A lack of global law enforcement and accountability is why I think disarmament is a pipe dream."
I said that you could argue what you wanted (U.S. or Global), but I was hoping you would at least stick to one side. You can't go back and forth between American and Global, because that makes it very difficult to rebut. Even so, the price to pay for a stronger global law enforcement (as long as it isn't a country) is much less than the price to pay for a nuclear war.

Open to non-contradicting; constant arguments on one topic.
Sorry if I sounded like a jerk there :-)
Debate Round No. 3
benjaminfranklin

Con

I want to start by pointing out an irony: I agree with you. Safety from nukes needs to happen. Nukes MUST be eliminated from our society. From the world. Human progress, something I love to study, something I take pride in, depends on it. You are right. You are right about the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (although I think a land war would have been devastating too). You are right that nukes don't make peace (although I believe they prevent world war). This is where we disagree:

Now is not the time. You believe the UN, and with conventional armies, can enforce overall peace, and prevent world war. I don't. I see the failings of the UN as reasons that we need nukes right now. The UN couldn't enforce sanctions in North Korea, time and time again. The UN did nothing to help Rwanda during genocide, even though troops were deployed. The UN is underfunded and its units are tragically low on troops due to a lack of unity between the nations involved.

You believe that the US can disarm, with no fear of other nations attacking it and winning. I believe that other countries have formidable standing armies, and with the advantage of nuclear weapons, may very well attack us, and win.

There will be a day when nukes should disappear, but that day is not today. I respect your optimism; I wish I could share it. But based on what I know about world affairs I don't.

Without nukes, we would be well on our way to better things as a species. We would be focusing on techniques for energy, for efficiency, for feeding nations. That is why the UN must be bolstered. That is why the US needs to stop thinking provincially, and start supporting a global system of law enforcement. Words need be the only weapon used to solve problems. But today, words need to be backed up with power, and the only commanding power is nuclear technology. Standing armies are utterly useless against it, as has been proven before. What follows is some counterattacks against minor points.

We are not arguing whether or not we should reduce our enormous nuclear stockpile. I think 5000 nukes for one country is absurd, and your article is a great point that highlights this. Also, strides are being made to reduce our nukes (I highlighted a figure about this earlier). Nukes cost money to store, but this pertains to reducing our stockpile not eliminating it. We're arguing about total elimination, at this time. Please don't digress.

What do Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, and Vietnam all have in common?

1) they are small countries. 2) they have no nukes.

We didn't attack Russia in the cold war, because they had nukes. So World War III was not sparked. Superpowers did not clash. An epic conflict, with an insane body count, was avoided. Your argument that nukes were ineffectual through this period ignores the bigger picture. Nukes prevented a larger conflict, and reduced the fighting to minor incursions.

Please, reread the quote about Okinawa. 100,000 Japanese civilians died in one battle.

You believe I am giving nukes too much credit. I believe you are giving our army too much credit. Throughout history, superpowers have been overthrown by alliances between smaller nations. The same may very well happen if we don't have nukes, and others do.

AND LET ME SPECIFY: a lack of global law enforcement and accountability is why I think AMERICAN disarmament is a pipe dream. To think that global forces and threats do not effect whether or not we should disarm is narrowminded.

Another argument: nuclear technology is not an American exclusive technology anymore. Many countries have it, and even more are developing it. If we disarm, that will solve nothing. Only if the world disarms, will there be safety. My opponent and I both agree that the world will not disarm if the US does.

I said,
"I don't believe all countries can disarm at the same time, because someone will lie."

My opponent said,
"Yes, they will."

This is not a stab against him, just a testament to his common sense.

He has also stated that the US are not using nukes in the last 65 years means we shouldn't have them. The reason we have not been attacked or seriously threatened by nukes from other countries is because they are aware of our nuclear power, and the chance of a counterattack.

What follows is my simplification of my argument. The previous pages of cited information, allegorical comparisons, and exposition back these points up, but I want to simplify this as much as possible:

Can the US disarm and remain safe from enemies that have nukes?
No.

Can the US disarm if other countries disarm simultaneously, and are held accountable for their disarmament?
Yes.

Can enemies be held accountable for disarming, or have standards imposed on them when it comes developing weapons?
No.

Is this the right time to disarm?
No.

Thusly:
Should the US destroy their nuclear stockpile?
No.

Thank-you for your reasoned arguments. Good luck.
abard124

Pro

"Although I believe they prevent world war"
What would you think if in 20 years, we call this so-called "war on terror" World War III? I might be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if Somalia gets in, then Sudan, and once it's all connected, it's a world war in my book, or bad enough.

"I see the failings of the UN as reasons that we need nukes right now."
That would be like me saying, "Even though I think guns are bad, George Bush didn't do a good job of preventing domestic terror and violence, so I only feel safe with a gun." On the surface, it makes sense, but if you dig in, most people would say, "No! Why would you go against your morals like that? You just need to vote for people who you feel safer under." (sorry. This example worked better a few months ago). It goes the same way with yours. Instead of going against my morals and yours, we could strengthen the power of the U.N. Granted, we can't vote for our U.N. representative, and I admittedly don't know much about Susan Rice, but we did choose Barack Obama, who in turn chose Susan Rice. What we also can do is write letters to Ban Ki Moon and tell him to be more active in making the U.N. more powerful. You mentioned Rwanda (although the U.N. general in the movie was one of only 2 people besides Paul that stayed, but I digress). They could also be doing something with Darfur. Maybe the U.N. should do some teambuilding or something. But my point is, it makes much more sense to put our money into strengthening the U.N., instead of using the same dollars to protect some nukes that we aren't going to use. But, who am I to ask? Well, I'll ask someone else. "That is why the UN must be bolstered." See, you agree. The thing is, I think we just have the order differently. You say U.N. first, nukes later. I say it saves money and sanity to get rid of nukes while working with the U.N.

"Please don't digress."
Terribly sorry...

"Your argument that nukes were ineffectual through this period ignores the bigger picture. Nukes prevented a larger conflict, and reduced the fighting to minor incursions."
Your argument that they did ignores the bigger big picture, or should I say pictures. Because other countries with nukes know either (1) we wouldn't attack them unless they attack us, or (2) they saw what we did to Iraq, who didn't even have nukes, so they figure they might as well attack us anyway. If the first one happens, it's as bad as losing, because they could still manipulate us (and one could say that's what Iran is doing). And if the second one happens (and thank god it hasn't), we're in a nuclear war, and I do believe we both established that that was bad.

"Please, reread the quote about Okinawa. 100,000 Japanese civilians died in one battle."
In an unsent (fictional) letter from Harry Truman to Emperor Hirohito:
Dear Mr. Emperor,
I just wanted to introduce myself, as I just became president about a week before the whole Okinawa thing. You know, speaking of Okinawa, as you probably noticed, a whole bunch of people died. Gosh, I'm really sorry about that. I lost a bunch of people, too. Now, heres the thing. You have a choice. You can surrender now, after seeing what we can do. Your second choice is that we have these bombs, and just one of them can kill as many people as Okinawa did. We have more than one, and it wouldn't kill a single American. We can make plans for one to land on Tokyo. I know you don't want that. So, it's your choice.
Write back soon,
Harry Truman

Obviously that isn't a real letter, but it would have worked better than a preemptive strike. And even if he didn't like it, I think little boy would have been enough, if he knew we had more.

"AND LET ME SPECIFY: a lack of global law enforcement and accountability is why I think AMERICAN disarmament is a pipe dream. To think that global forces and threats do not effect whether or not we should disarm is narrowminded."
So, which is it? American or international disarmament. If you go back and forth, you'd have to go to every single point and label it "American" or "International." Otherwise, I might be arguing completely the wrong point.

"Another argument: nuclear technology is not an American exclusive technology anymore. Many countries have it, and even more are developing it. If we disarm, that will solve nothing. Only if the world disarms, will there be safety. My opponent and I both agree that the world will not disarm if the US does."
See, going back to international. Although you did (albeit loosely) tie them together by saying that we could get attacked, you really should stick to one topic. Either way, we both agree that the world should disarm, and you really should stick to your morals in a possible life or death situation.

I can totally hear your arguments. They all make good logical sense. The thing is, it seems that the aspects we agree on seem to set us apart the most. We agree that nukes are bad. You say we need them anyway, I say we get rid of them. We agree that other countries won't listen to the U.N., and the U.N. won't do anything about it. I say that we fix the U.N., you say we avoid that particular problem, at the risk of other problems. Why did Barack Obama get elected? Because he would bring change. Well, we need change here. If Barack Obama had said that Bush's problems were bad, but it's too much of a risk to fix them, he would not have been elected. My point is, we need change, and we need to destroy our nukes. 75% of them, that's a start, but the other 25%, a waste of money and space. That money should be going to repairing the U.N.

I would like to thank you for a very enjoyable debate, and may the better debater win!
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
I thought Superman got rid of all the nukes in the late 80s.
Posted by rangersfootballclub 8 years ago
rangersfootballclub
LOL the U.S will destory its nukes , bet you anything they will mayeb tommrow maybe 100 years , but they are only going to destroy it when they find a bomb twice as powerful ... look the only major disadvatnage to nukes is the obv , the cost and if they fall into wrong hands ... but these nukes keep the peace , they stopped a cold war , they probably stopped world war 3 at some point , because of a little thing called self mutral destruction i think , were if one country launches a nuke within 2 mins the country that launches the nuke has hundreds of missles heading its way in Reltaltion ... no country is insane enough to destroy the planet ... except terrorists , but unclesam found a way of making terrorists reconsider launching nukes , by saying that the second a terrorist group attack u.s soil with a nuclear weapon , they will bomb the crap out of all muslim holy citys ... nukes keep peace at an expensive price peroid.
Posted by ournamestoolong 8 years ago
ournamestoolong
Only in a agreement with all our enemies should we destroy all our weapons.
Posted by I-am-a-panda 8 years ago
I-am-a-panda
The U.SA. should destroy their nuclear stockpile....over China, Russia and the Middle East.
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
...and utopians.
Posted by mongeese 8 years ago
mongeese
I think you're going to have a tough time getting someone to debate you on this. After all, the only people who would want the US to give up their weapons would be foreign invaders.
Posted by Brewmaster 8 years ago
Brewmaster
I think the US should pile up all its nukes in one bigass pile, then explode them all together. That'd be SWEET!
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Just an hour on the site and already setting up a debate. Good for you! It took me days before I gathered the nerve.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by atheistman 7 years ago
atheistman
benjaminfranklinabard124Tied
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 rougeagent21 8 years ago
rougeagent21
benjaminfranklinabard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by ConservativesRule 8 years ago
ConservativesRule
benjaminfranklinabard124Tied
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 ikickm 8 years ago
ikickm
benjaminfranklinabard124Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 
Vote Placed by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
benjaminfranklinabard124Tied
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:70 
Vote Placed by abard124 8 years ago
abard124
benjaminfranklinabard124Tied
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