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

This House Would Abolish nuclear weapons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
KacynWilliams has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/17/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 456 times Debate No: 102645
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I belive nuclear weapons should be banned because they have destroyed a lot over the past few years .
Any country that has nuclear weapons uses them as leverage over other weaker countries.
They have caused more harm than that can be repaired and even in TOKYO peoples are still bearing children that are disabled, this is a result of nuclear explosions.
Radiation poisining remains present for years and years, good arable soil is lost, manpower (humans) are lost , and wildlife destroyed.
Nuclear testing over oceans poses a threat to marine and all aqua lifeforms so thats why i stand firm against nuclear testing,weapons and all forms of nuclear technology.


No. Just no. Nuclear weapons shouldn't be destroyed nor banned. I'm not saying we will ever need them, but you think that some argument is going to get Korea to just up and destroy their chemical weapons? I think not. We need them, just in case we are ever hit where it hurts. I'm definitely not saying that we should use them freely like some squirt gun you bought for a dollar at Wal-Mart, but what I am saying is that they should be used purely as self-defense. When another country strikes, and we know they eventually will, we will have our chemical weapons ready to slam down on their economy. I don't want to hurt innocent people, and I'm sure they don't want to hurt innocent people either, so I think that we should only use them in a case of self-defense and self-preservation in our race as Americans. Do not worry, personally I would have them all destroyed, absolutely demolished, but what happens when you try to destroy a chemical/nuclear weapon and it explodes because that's what happens when you try to destroy something so powerful? Exactly.
Debate Round No. 1


Nuclear weapons are computerised and they can be hacked. Less than a weak ago the National Health Services (NHS) was hacked and it is being held at ransom, but this is only health we are talking about, now imagine if terrorists where to crack the nuclear weapons (nukes)
encryption and hold them at ransom, do you really think anything good would come out of this especially AMERICA is always saying that it does not bow to terrorists. It would rather protect its prestige than the people. Universal disarmament is not an easy thing to accomplish but its a step forward. Nuclear wars do not just destroy people they destroy hospitals, schools, buildings, even children which is a price to big to pay and it also claims up to 50 square kilo meters of land that could house over 20 000 people and still have farming land left. Disarmament can be carried out while scientists figure out a way to permanently neutralise these nukes. W ell Korea might not completely disarm because it fears America, Russia might also not fully disarm but when this becomes universal and all parties are in agreement a consensus will be reached and a deal will be struck. There will always be terror and chaos in the world but removing nuclear weapons is a begging to a much longer journey and here I quote your words, "Do not worry, personally I would have them all destroyed, absolutely demolished" well I say to you here is a solution.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 10 months ago
A State of the Union is to address Congress on the fact that by basic principle Nuclear Weapons are nothing more than a Chemical Weapons making them illegal by International law. So this law can be tested in a judicial separation, however the common defense is for medical sterilization. Arguing biological natural threat.

It is unclear if Nations like North Korea and Iran understand we are far more likely to detonate a nuclear device over our own soil by necessity then a foreign nation. All Nuclear powers are. Again the basic legal argument against atomic weapons is they are chemical weapons and the only legal reason to have them is so we may use them on ourselves if needed. In a drastic circumstance.

What makes this issue even more complicated is that chemical contingencies for natural large scale disaster such as volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and dust storms have created a need for research in management of airborne particles. Hence a form of fallout management by constitutional definition.

The United States Constitution by its use of a change made upon it by First Amendment describes how the Drug War is in fact nothing more than a Cold War comparative to the natural course of public and law's shaping word history.
Posted by John_C_1812 10 months ago
The Constitutional understanding of why Atomic weapons exist is the deterrent factor. Even though the weapon is placed inside a long range ballistic missile they provide greater defense against invasion not because of the distance they might reach. As missile can be detonated upon takeoff or shortly thereafter, leaving any invading forces exposed. The reality of the Cold War scenarios gave people opportunity to reach this conclusions, the direct solution became a game of Russian roulette.

The basic principle is that all super powers establish a capability of self-destruction upon invasion. It is why the Cold War will never return. Our reality is now replaced with what we label as Drug War not Cold War. The switch of slang taking place as any chemical Warfare is the basic principle behind a Geothermal Global Nuclear War, Atomic War simple equals Chemical Warfare. Uranium is an enrich substance meaning a chemical weapon.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.