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

The UK should dispose of all its nuclear bombs.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/24/2015 Category: Economics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 501 times Debate No: 74122
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




This will be a short debate because i have debated in the past and some of the responses i received were not pleasant. I will be arguing that the UK should dispose of ALL its nuclear bombs by 2016.

here are my reasons

1- Nukes cost lots of money to maintain and the old Brits don't have to much of that. Selling them would be great for the economy

2- Its NOT the cold war anymore. The soviet union is no longer here, and the only possible nuclear threats (even this is debatable) today are North Korea, Iran or terrorists getting there hands on them. There are reasons why none of these require the UK to have nukes.That is why the UK have nukes.

3- No country/group would ever nuke the UK they would nuke the US first and the US has over 7,500 nukes and i am sure they would use more than a efficient amount to deal with the terrorists/rough state. France has 300 and NATO has like 200 so why does the UK need any the west always works as 1.

4-The only real nuclear threat that could threaten the UK s existence would be Russia with 8,500 nukes. BUT even if the USA provoked it enough to make it use nuclear weapons. Both the US/Russia would launch all their nuclear bombs and completely destroy each other. Now it the UK has nukes and this happens (witch it PROBABLY WONT) what would be the difference?

conclusion: I don't really see any argument for it. I live in the UK and if a nuclear war broke out i can imagination the UK being Americas slave (as per usual) and would be backing the US, Sanctioning Russia, and creating LOTS of propaganda. Then when the nukes were launched at each other the UK would lend its master a hand and nuke Russia 2 this would result in nothing more to Russia because the US would have killed like 90% of the population already. You know what would happen to the UK? It would jump in get destroyed and change nothing.

I would rather live than die and take out 100,000 innocent Russians down with me.

note- I would prefer to argue with a fellow Brit.


Hello, fellow Brit here. I am happy to debate this with you.

National security: Without a nuclear arsenal, the UK would have far less national security against possible threats, which may not be clear to us now, but may arise in the future. We cannot predict what is going to happen further down the line, so it is best that we maintain a nuclear arsenal to ensure that if such a scenario develops that we need to use them, we will be able to. Getting rid of them would only serve to remove much of our power.

Diplomacy: Without a nuclear arsenal, the UK would lose its status as a nuclear power, and thus, lose its influence on the international stage. By maintaining our nuclear power, we always have the threat of mutually assured destruction we were ever to be attacked by nukes. This in itself deters other nations from even considering attacking the UK with nukes, and maintains the UK"s influence.

NATO and the USA: It is true that the UK"s allies do already have a substantial amount of nuclear weapons already, and could easily deter any threat without us. However, we cannot simply rely on our allies for national security if we have the ability to protect ourselves. It is important that we maintain our own security rather than allowing our allies to do it for us. If a nuclear war were to ever break out, we would have to rely on our allies to protect us if we didn"t have access to our own.

Conclusion: It is important that we maintain our nuclear arsenal as we have no understanding of what the future holds for us, and thus, will never know if we will need them. So it is important that we maintain them to ensure that if we are drawn into a nuclear conflict, we are able to protect ourselves. By scrapping our nuclear weapons, we would also remove our status as a nuclear power, meaning we have less of an influence internationally.
Debate Round No. 1


I see your point of the future but i am talking about right now. If the UK wanted it could make more in the future. First i will emphasize a point i made then i will try my best to combat yours.

Point: The UK has a large money problem and it costs lots to maintain nuclear bombs and i am sure that 280 nukes sold would also get the UK some money and that would be a good way to get the country back on track.

I hate to quote points because it can be really annoying but i must: " threat of mutually assured destruction"- I know i have said it before but i am sure if anyone launched a nuke at the UK America in particular would nuke them back. Think of a list of countries/organizations that would nuke the UK.

Terrorists: MAD does not really work on them because you don't know were to nuke.
Russia: If they were nuking any won it would be he US. As long as the UK backed down a bit it would be in no danger.
Rough state: If a rough state like Iran/North Korea Nuked any one it would be the US. If it for some reason they hit the UK the US would Destroy zed country.

" Getting rid of them would only serve to remove much of our power."- I agree but maybe that's a good thing if teh UK done it right it would look really good and encourage others to do the same. I mean people in other countries would think a lot better of the UK if they done that and the UK would be under less threat from terrorism.

This debate is going well so far i hope it does not turn into an argument, i have a bad experience with that.


I understand your point about the UK having economic issues in the present time, and I see the benefit in abandoning our nuclear bombs to save money. However, I would argue that we shouldn"t completely remove them due to the reasons I brought up, those being that we it would remove much of our power and damage our international influence. I would propose a middle way between the two where we can decrease our spending, but still maintain enough to ensure security. That way, we can maintain some of what we currently have whilst saving money.

As for encouraging other nations to abandon their own nuclear weapons, I would say that it would be far more effective to propose it on an international level and having other nations do the same as us at the same time rather than the UK being the only nation decreasing its spending. This way, we can get the international community involved, although it would be difficult.

I would also argue that terrorism doesn"t really come into this debate as nukes are used for fighting external forces, whereas terrorism is an internal problem which can never really be dealt with using nuclear weapons. Also, the UK isn"t really being targeted for terrorism due to it having nuclear weapons; it"s being targeted mainly due to its interventionist policies.

To conclude, we shouldn"t abandon our nuclear arsenal unless we have the rest of the international community involved. However, if we were to reduce spending on our nuclear weapons, we should still maintain enough of our nuclear arsenal to ensure that we still maintain our power and influence.
Debate Round No. 2


Money wise i agree with your idea in paragraph one. I agree terrorists don't come into this debate, but.

However the reasons i have continued are:

1- Many countries have tried to get the international community involved to start getting rid of stock piles, but when the country proposing this does not do anything about their own nukes nether do other countries. If the UK got all the nuclear powers in a meeting and said "The UK will depose of all 280 nuclear bombs and all nuclear submarines in the next 3 months, only if all other countries commit to the same" That might be more effective. If it done so lots of world wide people would admire the UK.

2- Briton does not need power for much and even with out nukes it still has the *5th strongest army*. No offense to the UK but its power is usually a bad thing, the UK is not really in any threat, and they were involved in Iraq, Libya and more.

3-My main point(i feel most strongly about): If nuclear war broke out i would hope the UK has no nukes due to the fact i live here and so do over 60million people.

con= -damage our international influence vs pro= -possible nuke free/reduced world -money to the economic -more likely to be safe in a nuclear war. - my argument has altered since the start i see, but same objective, Due to these reason i think that less nukes (despite being better than all nukes) is not on my agenda. All must go.

note- I did not add future threat in con's list because if they did come (in a nuke free world they would be less likely) i would support the making of new nukes.


I guess to finish things off I will conclude my main argument for keeping our nuclear weapons.

I believe it is important that we maintain our nuclear weapons to ensure our own safety, and if we were to remove them all it would be an incredibly bad decision unless, of course, we had the entire international community on our side. But without this happening, I see no reasonable argument for abandoning our entire nuclear arsenal. I would concede to agreeing that we could abandon some to save money, but abandoning them all is a step too far.

I would argue against your main point (that being you hope in a nuclear war the UK does not have nukes) by saying that in a nuclear war (presumably between the US and Russia) the UK would most likely have a role within it, whether that's a good thing or not. My point is, we are one of the worlds most powerful nations and we have a lot of enemies, so it is important that we maintain a strong nuclear arsenal as a deterrent.

To conclude, abandoning all of our nukes would be major mistake as we'd lose a lot of power, both militarily and internationally, that we may need in the future for whatever reason.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by RonnyJ 1 year ago
Not too sure yet myself. Still thinking about it
Posted by biggest_pro_going 1 year ago
by the way what political party are u voting in the 2015 UK election?
Posted by biggest_pro_going 1 year ago
wait sorry i did not see you apologized "-please go away"
Posted by biggest_pro_going 1 year ago
please go away, I saw i of them, you just babble on for ages and they give up.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 1 year ago
Sorry to bud in. But there are uses of nukes that doesn't include wiping out a city. I had about 3 debates on the topic.
Posted by RonnyJ 1 year ago
Don't worry, I haven't given up.
Posted by biggest_pro_going 1 year ago
hey, don't give up.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by PotBelliedGeek 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 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: I will be awarding Con points for better arguments and better s/g. Pro's arguments were largely unsupported conjecture, and pro cited no sources for any of the figures used in the arguments. Con fell into the same trap. A word of advice to both debaters: Sources. Use them. There were no major conduct infractions on either side.