The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Should the US utilize a tactical nuclear device to vaporize Syria"s stockpile of chemical 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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/8/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 533 times Debate No: 37509
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




There was a time when the entire cast of characters of the Military Industrial Complex said that to insure that the US Nuclear Deterrent was credible, we needed to test hardware or use them in combat theaters.
Over time, we did less and less testing and no combat use.
So it appears the US has reached some sort of equilibrium with the other nation possessors of the Bomb.
What this appears to mean is something akin to "we have ours " we know you have yours " we both know ours are bigger, better, more " we know you get that " we are not going to use ours " we know you are not going to use yours."
It"s a stalemate. A gentlemen"s agreement!
MAD; mutually assured destruction was/is the watchword for using The Big Bombs.
Everyone knows if the world goes completely crazy and we set the world and its atmosphere on fire, It Is All Over!
So, what have we done to make the Bomb useable?
We don"t want "boots on the ground", anywhere.
We don"t want to pay for a standing army.
We don"t want to pay for their retirement or medical bills.
Veteran benefits have become another source of budgetary angst.
We want to be safe in an unsafe world.
We know that bringing the troops home will make us (and them and their loved ones) feel better.
But not safer!
We know but maybe don"t want to face the reality that not having boots on the ground attempting to exterminate Muslim extremist/ militant Islamist will make us less safe.
I don"t think US citizens will tolerate a draft and without the use of the National Guard troops and reducing the criteria for recruitment the volunteer army would have been reduced to a point where Bush-Chaney couldn"t have mounted their war.
So what have we done to make the Bomb useable?
Practically Nothing?
The Cold Wart put into production all kinds of Bombs.
Big Bombs and small Bombs were built.
Strategic Bombs (big Bombs) were designed to be used on enemy cities, factories, infrastructure, military bases and both military and civilian populations.
Tactical Bombs (small Bombs) were designed to be used on battlefields, against enemy ships, planes, tanks and troops.
A T.B. could be as big a modern missile or as small as a land mine!
A Neutron Bomb was developed that would kill people and leave standing those peoples structures and equipment.
Deployment was problematic for the US due to political considerations at home and abroad.
The stated reason for shelving tactical nukes was the old saw, "if we use them, then they will, and an escalation can quickly spiral out of control."
However that would logically apply to Strategic weapons as well and they have not been shelved.
True all of the reduction agreements have revolved around mutual disarmament but raw numbers may not be as important as throw weight and multiple warheads.
No, what has happened, is tactical weapons were more numerous and therefore an easy "gimme" when down sizing tit for tat with the Russians.
Too, I believe politicians didn"t trust tank commanders and other lowly functionaries with discretionary usage of tactical nukes.
So it begs the question; what have we done to make the Bomb useable?
If anything we ought to be making it cleaner and more "surgical."
It needs to evolve.
Like cancer treatment that was once too big, too harmful to the entire body, it was scaled back, focused and targeted so as to kill the cancerous cells and not harm the rest of the patient or better said, not harm, too much.
The US is currently spending billions upon billions on Bombs they cannot/ will not use.
I say spend some billions on a cleaner, more surgical Bomb that does the US bidding without extreme collateral damage.
All munitions, all boots on the ground, all conventional war events result in unintended consequences.
In war people die.
If we have the will to intervene in Syria we must accept that people will die.
Innocent will die.
If we sit on the sidelines, Assad and his henchmen will continue to kill innocents.
So drop the little bomb, the tactical bomb and make it as clean and surgical as possible.
Let the Bomb do its work.
It could destroy the chemical weapons stockpile by nuclear vaporization.
What was not completely destroyed would no longer be available to Assad.
No US boots on the ground, no more threat of the ramification of toppling the monster that is Assad such as "who will fill the void."
Once his weapons of mass destruction are gone along with the worry of them falling into terrorist hands a systematic noose can be tightened to cut off the head of that snake.
More aid and assistance can then be delivered in the humanitarian method that has always marked US help.
The point cannot be too strenuously made.
Illinois Senator Dick Durbin said recently, regarding US involvement in Syria "Our decision is being made in the shadow of the war in Iraq. "The shadow recalls that moment 12 years ago when the government of the United States of America was guilty of a political mortal sin: It misled the American people into a war."
Syria is not Iraq and the Obama doctrine is not the Bush-Chaney deception.
The monetary cost and the political cost to a continuation of boots on the ground strategies may mark the end of the expeditionary nature of US intervention.
Isolationism is not in the US nature for all sorts of historical and present day valid rationales.
A tool that"s time may have come is a precision tactical nuclear weapon.
I suppose those who ask for our help should decide if our tendered help is worth the secondary and lingering effects.
Of course this idea is a departure from the way things have been done but ask yourself why is it that every US generation since World War II has dedicated a good portion of the countries fortune on the requisite R&D to develop bigger, better, more Nuclear devices.
Not to mention the annual cost of billion to simply maintain past generations of nuclear devices.
If it was only to kill the enemy after they had killed us then the world is truly mad, as are all of our leaders, parents, grandparents and great grandparents.
All of the capitol, all of the time, all of the research facilities and all of the great minds wasted on what?
If the answer is, it was the only way to counter what the other countries were doing and what they had to destroy us, then we are left with madness once again.
So if sequestration is the modern day knee jerk reaction to cutting back on runaway military spending and we have reached a moment in history where it is repeating itself, as in "which do you want, bullets or butter."
I say both!
But I want a bullet that does our work without putting boots on the ground and still allows us to not only repair and maintain our infrastructure but also regain our monetary lead as world leader.
A strong US with a robust economy will be as it has been, a beacon to the world.
Being willing to sacrifice our young so as to assure the world that we are serious about help is a sad and mad commentary on what ought to be our best strategic thinking.
Putting our troops in harms way for no other reason than it"s the way its always been done shows a sincere lack of foresight and is totally lacking in logic.
Drones are the best military tool to come along in generations.
But they cannot do it all.
If you can utilize drones to place the little nuke precisely in place then so much the better.
A marriage of the old and the new that creates a win, win.
Vaporizing Assad"s chemical weapons will not be the end all and be all but it will be the beginning of despots end all around the world.
Listen to the debate currently on Capital Hill.
"We cannot intervene " we cannot be drawn into another Middle East war " we need assurances that we wont have to put boots on the ground " because of sequestration we cannot afford to place the necessary assets in place to assure victory and requisite response capability " we cannot prove that Assad was the one who used the chemical weapons " blah, blah, blah, " every one who can will pontificate and sound not unlike the little red rooster.
The sky is not falling!
The US can and should be the one to help.
It is in our nature and we have been the country to do so or at least to try to do so for generations.
Its time to use the technology at hand!
Syria is a country with borders and a standing army, which has flags and uniforms and the sort of thing that the US was used to engaging with over the past decades.
If we were to declare war on Syria it would be the old fashioned conventional struggle between to armies.
That"s not going to happen.
No sooner would we land US troops on their Mediterranean shore the Syrian armed forces would disappear.
They would bury their uniform and all become goat farmers.
Perhaps one percent would snipe at our flanks but it would be a passive situation pretty quickly.
Winning the war would happen in hours.
Winning the peace might never happen.
That is not the US plan nor should it be.
By taking out Syria"s chemical weapons the US could help level the playing field so the rebels could take back their country.
The biggest take away from the dastardly work of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda is that they don"t have a country, they don"t have borders, they don"t wear uniforms, they don"t wave flags, and they will not take the battlefield and engage a US army.
They want a suitcase bomb!
They want to detonate it in the US.
They would love a baby nuke but they would take chemical weapons.
They are the little snakes that can be neutralized if Assad and his stockpile are as well.
The reasons are many for having another good tool at US disposal.
Arrows in a quiver only need to be utilized when necessary.
Simply having them and showing a willingness to utilize them in particularly egregious situations will speak volumes to those who need a reminder that the US will do as President Kennedy said; "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."


You the U.S: shoud not enter a war that isn't yours to fight for the simpel reason that no one wants you there and if the syrian rebellion and regime do not want you there the U.S. has no right to bomb syrian teritory .
As that is my soul argument i think this argument will not be understand by U.S. voters ho belief there goverment has the right to decide what regime has the right to exist and want regime hasn't the right to exist or what polecis are allowed and what not.
this is a war brother against brother and to be honest no one that doesn't live in the U.S. beliefs there fairy tales of democracy because in fact they are one if not the most weak democracy in this world.
I hope people have still a sense that bomb a country that isn't your enemy because they use weapons in a war is wrong.
My opponent tals about the cost of building bombs clearly to get U.S. voters on his side but honestly you shoud not base your extern polecis on money.
Debate Round No. 1


This is it?
This is your debate reply?
I am saddened by the lack of logic.
You offer feeling.
Perhaps heartfelt feeling, but based on what?
I was waiting and hoping you might offer some additional insight to your feeling, some thinking.
Very well let me address what you have offered.
You discount the innocent lives that have already been lost.
You don"t even mention the despot, Assad and his dastardly deeds.
You do say brother against brother.
That"s an interesting phrase.
Wars do not play by many rules but the chemical weapons usage "by one brother upon another brother" or more importantly by one monster upon the innocent children of another brother is and has been an international rule for nearly one hundred years.
Syria is a signatory to that rule of war but their word is worthless.
From all international reports from both governments and media the new fighters in Syria are outside agitators.
Here are a couple of quotes for you:

Late 2011 marked growing influence of the Islamist group al-Nusra Front within the opposition forces. In 2013 Hezbollah entered the war in support of the Syrian army. The Syrian government is further upheld by military support from Russia and Iran. By July 2013, the Syrian government controls approximately 30"40 percent of the country's territory and 60 percent of the Syrian population. The conflict gradually took a more sectarian nature with Alawite and other Shia groups fighting largely against Sunni-dominated rebel forces. It has been suggested, and admitted by militias that the sectarian undertone was purposefully spread by the Assad government in an attempt to form disunity and quarreling among the restive population.

"The Al-Nusra Front or Jabhat al-Nusra (Arabic: جبهة النصرة لأهل الشامR06; Jabhat an-Nurah li-Ahl ash-Shām, "The Support Front for the People of Greater Syria") is an Al Qaeda associate operating in Syria.The group announced its creation on 23 January 2012 during the Syrian civil war. It is described as "the most aggressive and successful arm of the rebel force"The group was designated by the United Nations, the United States in December 2012, Australia in June 2013 and the United Kingdom in July 2013 as a terrorist organization.

Once again, I say Sir, it does not sound like a brother on brother conflict.
Just the opposite, it sounds like the war merchants of the world are trying to divide up another Middle East Country it hopes of spreading militant extremist Islamist domination of the region.
By the by these Islamist terrorist are not seeking freedom and democracy.
No Sir, not for a moment.
They are misogynist!
They want to make women second-class citizens with no rights.
Their women become chattel.
Their women are owned.
Shame be on these "brothers"!
Too they
As the influence of Islamic fundamentalism spreads, more and more women are fleeing its repressive laws - compelling Western nations to deal with such cruel traditions as forced marriages, honor killings, and female circumcision.

Here is another quote:
One early morning in an African village not far from Nairobi, Kenya, young girls are roused from sleep and taken to a nearby river. The waters are cold, helping to arrest the bleeding from a first menstrual cycle, making their genitalia stand out and slightly numb. Soon an elder village midwife takes the children one by one and with a rusty razor, scissors or shard of glass cuts out the clitoris, slices off the labia and applies ashes, herbs or cow dung to staunch the flow of blood. As the girl writhes in pain, other women hold her arms down, her legs apart, her mouth shut tight so that she cannot run away or alarm the other unsuspecting children waiting in their cool bath.

Over 80 million women in the world today have been subjected to similar barbaric mutilation, a traditional practice that continues unabated in at least 28 African countries. According to the Minority Rights Group International, 90 percent of women in northern Sudan, Ethiopia and Mali, and nearly 100 percent in Somalia and Djibouti, undergo ritualistic genital excision. In these countries women are also infibulated, the two sides of the vulva sewn together with catgut or held with thorns, a match stick shoved in place to ensure an opening the size of a pinhole. Lesser mutilations are performed on women in parts of the Middle East and Pakistan, and among some Muslims in Malaysia, India and Sri Lanka.

So much for the brother on brother nonsense!

The US is not, has not and I have not suggested the US have any part in the war in Syria.
What I have said is that the Syrian regime and Assad are too ignorant, too backward to have chemical weapons at their disposal.
So I offered a solution.
Nuke the stockpiles of chemical weapons and evaporate them.
That was my theoretical solution to ridding the world of the threat of the current madman and all the Islamic Terrorists that want to get their hands on the WMD"s.

I will repeat my Debate Argument here:
"Should the US utilize a tactical nuclear device to vaporize Syria"s stockpile of chemical weapons?"
The answer is/was yes!

You say:
"U.S. voters ho belief there goverment has the right to decide what regime has the right to exist and want regime hasn't the right to exist or what polecis are allowed and what not."

The belief in an American mission to promote and defend democracy throughout the world is a modern day manifestation of the US held belief of Manifest Destiny.
The US has tried to right some wrongs and tried to be on the side of the under dog.
Not always have the US been successful and unfortunately the bastardization of US doctrine due to the moneylenders of the world and their manipulation has given rise to isolationist positions.
But terror is wrong and to take Weapons of Mass Destruction out of the hands of the criminally insane is worth US consideration.

Here is one last quote:

The Truth:

It is probably fair to say that Muhammad did not approve of the intentional killing of children. A verse from the Qur"an laments the pre-Islamic Arab practice of infanticide against baby girls. Other evidence from the Hadith suggests that he instructed his men not to kill children in battle, if it could be avoided, but to capture them for slavery.

Children were often given a specific reprieve from the mandate to "kill those who disbelieve in Allah":

[Muhammad said] "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah. Do not be deceitful with the spoils; do not be treacherous, nor mutilate nor kill children." (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992)

But Muhammad"s definition of a child was not the same as our modern understanding. Following the surrender of the Qurayza stronghold, he ordered the execution of every male child who had reached puberty. His men had the boys drop their pants so that they could chop the head off of anyone with pubic hair (Sahih Muslim 4390).

Keep in mind that many Muslims often insist that Aisha reached puberty at age nine, since that is the age that Muhammad began having sex with her. If so, then the age for "manhood" among boys might have been considered around twelve.

Muhammad also played a bit loose with the lives of women and children during wartime. As recorded in both Bukhari and Sahih Muslim:

It is reported on the authority of Sa'b b. Jaththama that the Prophet of Allah (may peace be upon him), when asked about the women and children of the polytheists being killed during the night raid, said: "They are from them." (Sahih Muslim 4322, see also Bukhari 52:256)

This does not justify the targeted killing of women and children per se, but it does prove that collateral damage is entirely acceptable if it accomplishes the military goal of spreading Islamic rule. It is doubtful that Muhammad would ever shrug off the killing of young Muslims as he did the killing of non-Muslim children.

Muhammad did, in fact, draw a distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim children and said that it would be permissible to kill a child who has no prospect of accepting Islam:

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used not to kill the children, so thou shouldst not kill them unless you could know what Khadir had known about the child he killed, or you could distinguish between a child who would grow up to he a believer (and a child who would grow up to be a non-believer), so that you killed the (prospective) non-believer and left the (prospective) believer aside. (Sahih Muslim 4457)

After capturing Mecca, the prophet of Islam also ordered the execution of two "singing girls" who had mocked him in verse:

""two singing-girls Fartana and her friend who used to sing satirical songs about the apostle, so he ordered that they should be killed"" (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 819)

The Russians have offered to take control of the WMD"s in Syria.
Perhaps we will see a new side of the Russians and we pray that Assad no longer kills innocents with chemical weapons.

Peace Be With You


leandro.sanchez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


archimalakas forfeited this round.


leandro.sanchez forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.