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

Unilateral Military Force is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

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  
Challenge Expired or Declined
Kenneth_Stokes either declined this challenge, or never responded to it. If you are officialniaaa, login to see your options.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/21/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Challenge Declined
Viewed: 999 times Debate No: 37984
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

officialniaaa

Con

Since you think you know it all. BRING IT.Contention 1: Death and illegal traveling are two major ideas in the aftermath of what happens if
unilateral military force by the United States was taken to prevent nuclear proliferation. The definition of nuclear proliferation is According to encyclopedia Brittanica is the process by which one nation after another comes into possession of, or into the right to determine the use of, nuclear weapons; each nation becomes potentially able to launch a nuclear attack upon another nation.tedconversationideas.com about 84% of people in a apocalypse would run or exit their homes. If we were in a crisis many people would pack their bags and leave that country .If America were to take action we would cause more people crossing the border and causing over populated countries deducting major cash out of our countries pocket potentially pushing us more in debt to even care for ourselves and allowing non welcome people to sneak into our country, that would be a cause leading to sneaking terrorists and another World War due to suicide bombers and fallen allies .Think back to the cold war.When two countries were fighting America had to step in policing the world and causing more trauma and drama in that country. Civilians all around the world were scared to live in that region because of the fear of another country bombing them or invading their homes leaving them frozen in time and thinking nothing but to get out. According to ploughshares.org there are exactly 17,300 nukes in the world that can be detonated. This source also states that the United states has exactly 56 allies of today. 0 of those countries own nuclear missiles or power.. If we went to war with any of those countries our allies would make the decision of dropping out or fighting with us causing more deaths to civilians than it would if the affirmative used nuclear warfare. The affirmative side would save more people than the negative would because if we didn't use our nuclear missiles, no country would feel the need to bomb us. If we did take nuclear action, these countries would potentially murder the U.S. and any surrounding allies and our world trade policy and travel. There are many data points that can be proven through this.More people would die due to all uncontrolled nuclear missile fire all across the world this is common sense. More people would be injured miles away due to radioactive land and and nuclear blast. According to Malicah a Hiroshima survivor he was on the other side of the mountain but still got knocked unconscious because of chemicals in the air.Not only death but injury could be a problem in a situation like this,Contention 2: Our country could damage our hegemony and citizen reassurance. To live in a country strong and powerful like Russia, China, Japan, U.S, and Korea according to learnliberty.com you wouldn't want a damaged reputation. If you ruined your hegemony, citizens would stop losing trust and faith into government potentially weakening the government because of careless citizen participation and then causing an outburst like an opression. The great depression happened the same way. I know this because history.com tells me that in the time of the great depression it happened from World War 1 which is a situation like the resolved case i am speaking about. If that happened to a strong country like the ones mentioned above countries would start burning money to get other resources then making citizens travel to other countries looking for someone to ensure their safety and to get a job and to make money for not only themselves but for their family. Nuclear power is a huge deducting in cost also leading to more debt problems and that country heading to debt to cause yet another depression and oppression due to money and it not being put away correctly. Harvard University quote The Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard .... less regulation, and less spending as well as vowing that Cold War d"tente would give way to a drive to crush godless Communism. The definition of communism according to dictionary.com is 1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.Contention 3: Possible extinction of the human race is a high risk and is at stake if unilateral military force was taken.. A word war like this could possibly end the exists acne of humans. Our lives are strongly at risk and terribly at danger if nuclear warfare was used due to chemical power. CNN 2013 Syriashows graphs how many civilians would be killed if the united states exposed syria and Bombed them but we would save more people . A graphic organizer I found on whatscurrent.com says that we could possibly end human race possibly setting off bombs in Syria making other countries mad causin a world war 3 and the worse war yet because it would be from all nuclear warfare. Hiroshima was a devastated land because they bombed Pearl Harbor but we felt the need to bomb neck because we wanted to end a world war. Then , is the only case where the world threw us some slack. Other than that America always steps into situations therefore thinking it's making it better but thereby making it worse. You should vote affiliate because our evidence is current and precurrent and we can save more lives and pull ourselves a little more out of debt as a country due to the purchase of chemical warfare. We would save over 1 million lives if you vote our side. The negative side would save approx . Half of that. We save more people and keep all countries international policy under control . We also control our democracy in relations to government and keeping our people at peace knowing another war is not going to go down. That's why you should vote affirmative side and not negative.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
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
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 10 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.