The Instigator
MtthwUsaf
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
revleader5
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament in America

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: 12/22/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,319 times Debate No: 811
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (5)

 

MtthwUsaf

Pro

The US government is now starting a process to overhaul its nuclear arsenal for the price of many many billions of dollars. Many feel that this is required because many of our warheads will soon become useless. I say let them be come useless. Actually lets take it farther and start getting rid of even more of them. It is my belief that the US should unilaterally reduce our nuclear arsenal to a given point, say where we can only destroy the world once or something, probably a few hundred nuclear weapons. Then approach the rest of the world with a plan to get rid of the rest if they sign on. The reasons that I believe this are many and will be laid out below.

1) Cost: The current plan to replace warheads will cost about 100 billion dollars. This is on top of the cost of current upkeep, personnel, and any number of other items. At a time when military spending is at an all time high, one more way to cut costs can only be good.

2) No remaining threat: Iran, North Korea and any other country around the world is not dissuaded from creating or using nuclear weapons by our arsenal. Even if they did attack us with nuclear weapons, we would not respond in kind. We would us conventional weapons to pound them back to the stone age. Countries such as Russia and China are different but still dont pose the same threat that they used to. The idea of mutually assured destruction will remain in place whether we have nuclear weapons are not. If the US was turned into a radioactive wasteland, the toll on the world economy would be enormous. Even seemingly dictatorial wannabes such as Putin understand this. Many world leaders who have come to power since the end of the cold was have risen in popularity by working to tie their countries into the world economy. Those efforts protect us in the future.

3) Immorality: There was once a time where massive carpet bombing raids were a fact of war. The only way that the Allies could assure the destruction of a factory during WWII was to level an entire section of a city. This is no longer the case. Since the framework in which wars take place has changed, so has the morality of those types of actions. Even "tactical" nuclear weapons are destructive beyond what we can imagine. They also create the same type of long term, indiscriminate suffering that lead us to ban chemical and biological weapons.

4) Why chance it: These weapons are so destructive that even one falling into the wrong hands is almost unimaginable. I know it hasn't happened yet, but why not get rid of the ones we have so that there cannot be an accident.

5) World Leadership: Why is it so easy for Iran to ignore the US when we tell them not to produce nuclear weapons? Well, I think one reason is that we are the only nation to have dropped nuclear weapons on someone else. I also think that we lose credibility by saying that we can have them but they can't. If we stood up and told the world that these weapons are horrible, in fact they are so horrible that we are getting rid of them, the world might just listen.

Well, thats my start. I look forward to hearing from someone who feels differently.
revleader5

Con

Getting rid of nuclear warheads is a terrible idea. Let me explain before you jump to conclusions. If another country attacks us, we need to be able to show it that we aren't going to take any crap. This is not how we handled 9/11 on the reasoning that we weren't positive at first who even attacked us.
Debate Round No. 1
MtthwUsaf

Pro

Besides the fact that I still like my other arguments I would like to highlight my second and third point here. I think they explain why we neither need nuclear weapons to show other countries that we "wont take any crap" and that trying to use them for that is completely wrong.

Lets say that after 9/11, the Taliban stood up and said, "We helped these people attack you and we are still hiding them in our country." Would that justify dropping a nuclear weapon on Kabul? What about the Tora Bora region? In either case we would kill thousands if not millions of people who had nothing to do with the attacks or the Taliban government. On top of that we probably would not have killed Osama Bin Laden. All we would have done was give a generation of people birth defects as further reason to hate the US.

So now, lets us a different country, maybe China. Say on New Years Eve a nuclear weapon explodes in New York and China says that they gave the technology to terrorists or that they themselves detonated the bomb. Now, which response shows more resolve, not to mention the moral high ground. We could first, responding in kind and blowing up Beijing with a nuclear bomb. Or we could mount a systematic attack with F-22's and B-2's to cripple their outer air defenses with GPS guided conventional bombs. Then continually destroying military targets all throughout the country until some kind of internal change occurred in China.

I think saying that we need to use nuclear weapons to intimidate people is to seriously underestimate the capabilities of our military.
revleader5

Con

This is what I love. Almost nobody can understand the following concept. I have not met more than 2 people who agreed with me on this.
TERRORIST GROUPS DO NOT CARE WHO THEY KILL. THEY WOULD KILL MILLIONS OF OUR INNOCENT CITIZENS IF PRESENTED WITH THE CHANCE. THEY THRIVE ON KNOWING THAT WE WOULDN'T DARE DROP A BOMB ON THEM TO KILL THE GUILTY IF IT MEAN KILLING INNOCENT. THAT IS HOW WE WON WWII.
Debate Round No. 2
MtthwUsaf

Pro

Once again I have to reference my third argument, we carpet bombed in WWII because we had to, there was no other way to get the job done. Now, technology has advanced and the situation has changed.

Since this debate now seems to revolve around the idea of terrorism, here is the question that you have to ask, does the US having nuclear weapons deter terrorists? The answer is obviously no. The US, China, Russia, France, Pakistan, all targets of terrorism in recent years and all have nuclear weapons. Even if we said that we would use them in response to a terrorist attack, why does bin Laden care? We don't know where he is in order to drop the bomb on him.

The most basic flaw that I feel your last argument has is what it seems to say we should do. Since terrorists will kill anybody, we should to. How does that make us any better or different than them? Let not forget that this "War on Terror" is not just a normal war. You CAN'T kill all the terrorists. We can and should go after the heads of organizations and such but if you really wanted to completely eliminate the treat of terrorist acts you would have to kill every person on the planet.

This is a war over ideas and a nuclear bomb, no matter how big, cannot kill an idea. Only words and thoughts can kill an idea. Thats why I would much rather meet an Iranian citizen on here and have a discussion like this than meet them in the desert of Iran while looking though a bomb scope. On here you can talk and exchange ideas and maybe, just maybe, change their minds.

Remember, the US was a victim of what many would call terrorist attacks from the very beginning. Some British officers decided that indiscriminate killing was the only way to get rid of the revolutionary fires in this country. But they were wrong. Their actions only stoked the fires of freedom in our forefathers. So today, I like to think that I live in a country where, when the choice is given, we chose to take the high road, even if it is the road less traveled by.

I had fun, look to see you all on here again soon.
revleader5

Con

I would rather have bin Laden watching his back in fear that we drop a nuke on him, than have him rolling over in laughter as we destroy our own weapons. If another country drops a nuke on us, I say we give them a 10-1 ratio of nukes. Ten for each one they drop on us. Throwing their country into peril and turmoil is doing something. You're crazy if you think that bin Laden won't be a little thrown off if he's running from place to place trying to not get nuked.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
<<Ten for each one they drop on us. Throwing their country into peril and turmoil is doing something.>> What kind of argument is that? Are you suggesting that 2 wrongs make a right??
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by invertman 9 years ago
invertman
MtthwUsafrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by MtthwUsaf 9 years ago
MtthwUsaf
MtthwUsafrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by Cindela 9 years ago
Cindela
MtthwUsafrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by ishamael_89 9 years ago
ishamael_89
MtthwUsafrevleader5Tied
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 
Vote Placed by revleader5 9 years ago
revleader5
MtthwUsafrevleader5Tied
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