The Instigator
cody30228
Pro (for)
Losing
9 Points
The Contender
l2jperry
Con (against)
Winning
33 Points

The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear 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  
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: 1/2/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,952 times Debate No: 1259
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (14)

 

cody30228

Pro

The United States should be allowed the use of hard power to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons because:
protection of citizens
Why it's effective
protection of global reputation

hard power: the use of military force or threats
soft power: the use of peace talks
gaining nuclear weapons: the accusation of weapons, not enriched uranium

1. Protection of Citizens
Philosopher John Locke is famous for his ideas of a social contract. He believed that citizens will give up rights and the government has to protect them. This social contract can not be broken. When it is, the government dissolves because it loses it's power. (Theoretically) The United States government follows the social contract:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..." Declaration of Independence
As you can see, this follows the social contract.
So the United States has an obligation to it's people to protect them from threats. Thus, the US is obligated to do anything in it's power to stop imminent threats. Why? Because the US does not have to protect other citizens of other countries, because they don't fall inside the social contract.
So the US MUST do anything in it's power to protect it's people, even if it hurts others.

2. Why hard power is effective
Joseph Stalin said, "No man, no problem". This makes sense. Kill the oppressor and the oppressed are free. If we kill the man who is using nuclear weapons, than nuclear weapons will not be used. We could also utilize threats. Obviously soft power is not working. Kim Jong il completely disregarded soft power in his quest for nuclear power. Where as if an invasion or threat of invasion was posed, Kim Jong il would not have been able to gain nuclear power.

History tells us so, and our logic tells us so. If we force the man to stop, it stops. If the man dies, it stops.

3. Protection of Global Reputation
During the cold war, the only thing that saved the lives of 250 million Americans was deterrence. The USSR did not want to attack us for fear that we would attack back. What would have happened if we did not tell the USSR ambassador to the UN that we would use force unless the soviets withdrew their arms from Cuba? They would have continued. We can use hard power, or threats, to deter attacks against America. When do not negotiate with terrorists. Why? Because of leaders KNOW we have to set a precedent! We will not allow terrorists to attack us. You may not agree with the War in Iraq, but no other terrorist attacks have been made in America because we F***** them over! England fell to many attacks because they did not respond with force. We must continues the precedent that we will not allow nuclear weapons! We must support this statement with force. Or else it fall weak, we will set a precedent similar to England, and we will be attacked
l2jperry

Con

The United States should not use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

I'll now refute your points...

1. Protection of Citizens.
- The motto of the American Revolution was "Give me liberty or give me death," not "Give me life, and take away my liberty." This social contract theorized by John Locke is completely against American's citizens best interest. When people begin to give up their rights in order to be protected by the government we will have a huge problem.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

- This does not in anyway follow the social contract you speak of. This only says it is the governments job to make sure that all of it's citizens maintain their unalienable rights, guarantee'd by our creator. It in NO way says, give up your rights so that the government can protect you. Therefore, using this totally contridicts your argument. It says that when the government begin's to become oppresive and take away rights, that it is the peoples responsibility to either change the government, or overthrow it.

2. Why hard power is effective.

"If we kill the man who is using nuclear weapons, than nuclear weapons will not be used."

- Well, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, is in fact, the United States. According to this sta

- The United States can not afford to use hard power. If we wanted to use hard power we'd have to go to war with Iran, and North Korea while still funding our war in Iraq. It's just the solid truth, we can't afford to fight wars all over the globe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- It is only natural for Iran, and North Korea to want to become nuclear armed. They are near countries who are nuclear armed, and therfore they want it for protection and diplomacy. India, Pakistan, and Israel all have nuclear technology.

- Why should the U.S. fear these smaller countries who want to become nuclear armed when there are much bigger, stronger countries who already have nuclear technology? Britain, China, Russia...

"Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate." - JFK.
Debate Round No. 1
cody30228

Pro

My Points
1. Protection of Citizens
"When people begin to give up their rights in order to be protected by the government we will have a huge problem."
-When people give up all their rights to be protected their is a problem. But the government CANNOT protect it's citizens without power. The government "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed" I assume that you accept this line because you used it to attack me :) So the government, as we both agree, gets it's power from the people. Thus people must give power to the government.

"This only says it is the governments job to make sure all of it's citizens maintain their unalienable rights"
-Yes, and one of these rights is LIFE. THE government, as you just said my friend, only guarantees rights. guarantee = Protect and Unalienable right = life. So, the government must protect our life.

"It says that when the government begin's to become oppresive and take away rights, that it is the peoples responsibility to either change the government, or overthrow it."
I kinda agree. The government MUST fulfill its obligation in the social contract. If they don't, they will be overthrown. When teh government forcefully takes rights away that are not needed to protect the people, is when the government must be overthrown.

You mis interpret my social contract argument. What my first point dictates is that
1. Govt. gets power from people
2. Ppl overthrow Govt. that does not protect
3. Govt. must fulfill Social Contract
IF #3 is true, then it shows why we MUST do something that works. Hence, my Second argument.

2. Why hard power is effective
"Well, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, is in fact, the United States. According to this sta"
im guessing you left something out. but yes the USA is the only country SO FAR to use nukes. But Iran's prez. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that he WILL USE NUCLEAR FORCE TO DESTROY ISRAEL. Thus, teh danger of a nuclear attack is plausible by other countries.

"The United States can not afford to use hard power."
I never said that we would use hard power on every country all at once.
You ignore that hard power is also threats, not only violence
We should means we need to start making measures to
The United States spends trillions of dollars on defense a year. the only reason Iraq is so costly is because we are using urban warfare and cannot fully use of military. If we,as my teacher has said, "went world war II on their a**es" the war would be over in weeks. Neither Iran nor North Korea could withstand an all-out fight with USA. besides, Israel would mainly fight Iran for us, and the UN would sponsor the enforcement of non-nuclear proliferation and help the US if we asked for it.

3. Reputation
You completely ignored the fact that we must uphold our reputation.
Thus you accept it as standard in debate
This means that the use of only soft power will result in future attacks on the USA. This is bad

--------------------------------------------------------------
1. Only natural to want nuclear armament
it is natural for me to want a wide screen tv. should i steal from a store
it is natural for me to want a cookie. should i take one when im not supposed to
it is natural for me to want to drive 120mph. should i do so when its against the law
Just because they want it, does not mean they should have it. Protection, like India, is one thing. Promising violence, Iran, is another.

2. Fear small countries
The story of David and Goliath
The story of the American Revolution
Small enemies aren't always going to lose.
These countries already have nukes. we should try to be peaceful with them. Voting for hard power only affects future countries, not Russia or China. These countries that we both agree we should be nice to SUPPORT US IN STOPPING NORTH KOREA FROM GAINING NUKES
l2jperry

Con

1. Yes I agree, the government gets its power through the consent of the governed. But the people should not simply give away liberties in order to be protected by the government. Yes the government needs to protect our life, but not by taking away our civil liberties. *cough, cough* Patriot Act. However, this really has nothing to do with our debate. So moving onto the use of "hard power" as you say...

2. I don't believe the country to only use nukes should be telling other countires they can't have them. However, for the sake of the debate i'll go into it a little further.

- You have said that the President of Iran has stated that he would use Nuke's to destroy Israel. (I would like to see a source, but again i'll continue as if the statement is true) It is not the U.S. Government's responsibility to protect Israeli citizens. Although I agree that it would completely be horrible if something like this occured. But you did say that "Israel would mainly fight Iran for us." So doesn't it make sence to allow Israel to be independent, maintain national soverignty, and take care of herself? Again this is not what we are debating about, so moving on...

3. I thought I had put this in the first time, I must have mistakenly gone past it. The United States is hated across the globe for it's intervention. It's called blowback. They don't like us because we interfere with their countries. Picture a foriegn enemy with guns and tanks in your home town streets.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. I will cede my point on the naturality of wanting Nukes. However, I do not believe that Iran or North Korea's only reason for wanting a nuke is for destruction, but for protection. And you said yourself that protection is one thing when you referred to India.

2. I never said we shouldn't fear small countries. But i'll debate it...

David and Goliath - Only matters if you believe in the bible.

The American Revolution - The English lost because they were trying to mantain an Empire they couldn't afford, similar to the present United States. Also, because they were too stubborn to engage in guerilla warfare.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY MAIN POINT!

The title of this debate is..."The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons."

Hard power should only be used in the case of soft power failing, we should always try to be diplomatic first. And we should only get involved in using hard power to protect Americans from an imminent attack. Therefore, soft power should be used to prevent countries from obtaining Nuclear Technology. We should lead by example by dismantling our Nuclear Technology! I wonder how you take that statement, because one may feel we need our nukes for protection. Perhaps the same reason why other countries seek nuclear technology...

Honestly I would really like some sources as to the President of Iran promising to use Nukes to destroy if he had them.

And I would be willing to debate that hard-power is not making threats.
Debate Round No. 2
cody30228

Pro

I hate these last rounds because they are always so long. And yes it's my fault too.

Ok to shorten things up
you said
1. Where govt. gets power is off topic
that's cool, we just both agree then it's not a voting issue

2. Let Israel take care of itself
ok source...source...source...found it!
"Iran's president stood by his earlier call to "wipe Israel off the map"
http://www.nytimes.com...

it's our responsibility because we
a) have signed alliance agreements with Israel (like NATO)
b) like you said it would be wrong to allow it to happen
Iranian news agency, IRNA, quoted him as saying. "Westerners are free to comment, but their reaction is invalid.""
http://www.nytimes.com...

they don't listen to talks (soft power)

In Nov. 4, 1979, an American embassy was captured and hostages were taken in Iran
http://www.pbs.org...

once again, soft power failed.

2. Imminent attack only
it is impossible to prove when an imminent attack will be unless Iran flat-out tells us they will attack. Pearl Harbor, no imminent threat before hand. Same for September 11. What we need is caution. And we need to be prepared. Soft power has failed, we need hard power

3. Lead by Example
a) USA has signed the UNs Non-Nuclear Proliferation act, and has agreed to not make more nuclear weapons
b) attempts have been made in US government for disarmament

4. Hard power not threats
Hard power is use of military influence. That means direct attacks or threats
Soft power is diplomacy and trade.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY MAIN POINTS
if you have read above, it is easy to determine my points
1. soft power has failed
2. iran is a threat
3. something must be done

Thanks and good debate
l2jperry

Con

Alright, on to each statement.

2. If you read through your source all the way, you would have seen this...

"But the secretary of the Iran's national security council, Ali Larijani, who has headed Iran's nuclear talks since August, said at the demonstration that the news media had misused the president's comments. "

and

"he did not have any intention to speak up in such sharp terms and enter into a conflict."

I think that it is perhaps just war propoganda from a war-mongering administration, and some news corporations. *cough, cough* Fox.

2a. Israel can defend itself, if Iran ever had nuclear technology and sent one at Irasael, they'd have 5 more coming right back at them. Iran would not be so stupid as to start a nuclear war with a country far more superior in nuclear capabilities.

2b. It's interesting that you bring the 1979 hostage situation up because it actually helps my case. Jimmy Carter FAILED to use soft power to release the hostages. He then tried to use hard power and failed as well. Your source even says that. It says 8 servicemen died in the process and nothing was accomplished. Then Reagon took office and through negotiation the hostages were released. SOFT POWER DID WORK!

3. There was plenty and plenty of knowledge before Pearl Harbor and 9/11. It was the governments incompetence that allowed them to happen. Both were because of blowback as well. Therefore, softpower unless the threat of imminent attack.

4. Agree'd.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Main Points :
1. Softpower has worked, Ex. Iran Hostage situation in 1979 under Reagon. (Hardpower actually failed with Carter)

2. Iran is not a threat to us or Israel, Israel can take care of herself. Bush's administration is using it as war propaganda.

3. You're right, something must be done. America need's to stop playing World Cop.

Thank-you for the debate as well.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by KingYosef 9 years ago
KingYosef
It doesn't make sense, why can the country with the most nukes tell other countries they can't have them. that would destroy Americas global image.
Posted by malaki 9 years ago
malaki
tl;dr but based on your title this debate went something like OMG COPY PASTE MY HEG FILE!!! amirite?
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by azntwinz2 9 years ago
azntwinz2
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by scottschilkey28 9 years ago
scottschilkey28
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by DeATHNOTE 9 years ago
DeATHNOTE
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by deluvit 9 years ago
deluvit
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by richguy_69 9 years ago
richguy_69
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by lmjacobs 9 years ago
lmjacobs
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by Dr-Truth 9 years ago
Dr-Truth
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by KingYosef 9 years ago
KingYosef
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
cody30228l2jperryTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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