The Instigator
statedebater
Pro (for)
Winning
14 Points
The Contender
Ore_Ele
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

The USFG should withdraw its extended nuclear deterrent presence in japan (nuclear umbrella)

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  
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: 11/16/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,223 times Debate No: 13674
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

statedebater

Pro

this is going to be a policy round, as if in high school, i will clarify on the topic first then allow my opponent to argue first and i will then argue back

basically what i'm claiming should happen is that the USA should take away the nuclear agreement with japan that states if they get attacked by nuclear weapons we will attack the attackers
Ore_Ele

Con

Okay,

As per your instructions, I will allow you to clarify first, then I will argue first.

Thank you,
Debate Round No. 1
statedebater

Pro

The Plan is simply take away the extended nuclear deterrence otherwise known as the nuclear umbrella or missile defense, from Japan. This will solve for an China or an north Korean war. The way it does this is by allowing Japan to have nuclear weapons to deter China or North Korea if they try to attack, this will increase relations with the Japanese, so put American first and vote affirmative.
Ore_Ele

Con

I think it is important for the voters to be informed of what the nuclear umbrella really is before we ask voters if they think it should be removed or not.

The nuclear umbrella is an agreement that we are in with Japan, among other nations, that if they are attacked we will defend them. It is to allow smaller nations the freedom to not have to worry about investing massive amounts of money in a military when they have a lower population, and so would have to invest more money on more advanced technology to just to maintain the same level of strength. This was originally implemented during the cold war so that every nation didn't need to develop their own nuclear weapons for their own protection from anyone that may threaten force.

I believe that it is very important to note that the agreement is that we will only DEFEND other nations. We are in no obligation to join them in an offense conflict.

I don't see any problem with telling our allies that we will protect them if someone attacks them. And I don't see how telling Japan that, "if you are attacked, we may not be there for you so you may want to start worrying about protecting yourself," is going to increase our relations with the Japanese, as my opponent suggests.

I thank you, and please support defending our friends when they are attacked, and vote con.
Debate Round No. 2
statedebater

Pro

i first like to thank my opponent for explaining what the nuclear umbrella is, sorry i didn't clarify.

anyways, i think we should remove the umbrella, true that it never states that we would fight the other country but just by having the agreement proves that we could escalate to war and we would be involved, if we are going tell them that we might not be there some time, is just like saying lets take it away, my opponent contradicts himself with that argument, besides that are relations will improve, he also never gives specific evidence about how japan wants us out, that's exactly how we will get better relations
it is unlikely that the United States would exert the type of pressure that could damage severely the U.S.–Japan alliance in order to prevent a determined Japan from pursuing an independent nuclear deterrent. Japan is the preeminent economic power in the Asia–Pacific and has successfully sustained a democratic form of government for more than 50 years. The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) states look to Japan for economic leadership and, through the U.S.–Japan alliance, for security assistance---this comes from CLIFTON W. SHERRILL, Florida State University, Comparative Strategy July 1, 2001

now not only will this help to allow them to get nuclear weapons but they will get nuclear weapons
the Japanese public is now less condemning. Not surprisingly then, nationalist parties that advocate for a nuclear weapons capability are gaining popularity and traction in Japanese politics.---this is from Elizabeth D. Bakanic. While a master's student at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Bakanic worked on a policy report that recommended ways in which to prevent proliferation chain reactions in Japan, South Korea, and Egypt. Accordingly, in fall 2007, she traveled to Tokyo, conducting interviews with Japanese and U.S. government officials, nuclear experts, and academics. She simultaneously served as a Department of Homeland Security Graduate Fellow for Science and Technology.

now before my opponent can brig up the argument saying that japan would come back and hurt America i would first like to say that nuclear weapons will be small and defensive here is my evidence to back this up

Japan is simply too small and vulnerable to contemplate any but the most minimal deterrent options against counter value targets Such a punitive approach has long underwritten the doctrines of such smaller nuclear powers as France and China relatively short ranges , imply a modest regional deterrent force even hard-liners and proponents of nuclearization embrace a defensive-minded nuclear doctrine.-- this comes from Toshi Yoshihara and James R. Holmes The authors are associate professors of strategy at the U.S. Naval War College. Toshi Yoshihara has served as a visiting professor at the U.S. Air War College, in Montgomery, Alabama. James R. Holmes has been a senior research associate at the University of Georgia Center for International Trade and Security, Athens, Georgia. Their work on sea power in Asia has appeared in such journals as Comparative Strategy and The American Interest, as well as this journal

now will all these arguments on the table i will allow my opponent to answer, vote pro its the only way to fully solve.
Ore_Ele

Con

Ore_Ele forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
I'll give it a shot.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
sounds interesting.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 1 year ago
9spaceking
statedebaterOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by JessiWessi 6 years ago
JessiWessi
statedebaterOre_EleTied
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:61 
Vote Placed by statedebater 6 years ago
statedebater
statedebaterOre_EleTied
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 Captain-Badguy 6 years ago
Captain-Badguy
statedebaterOre_EleTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03