The Instigator
G131994
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Quinoas
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

We Should Abandon Nuclear Power

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2013 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,078 times Debate No: 31473
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

G131994

Pro

'We Should Abandon Nuclear power'

First Round Acceptance and condition's
My only condition
All sources must be referenced.
Quinoas

Con

This will be challenging I agree with you but I will challenge myself.
In the event nukes are coming at us what do we do?
Other countries could have nukes that we dont know about and well be disarmed and they will have power over us?
And last what would you do if they asked you to get rid of ours first?
Please think about these and get back to me.
Debate Round No. 1
G131994

Pro

First I thank my opponent for excepting in what is my first debate.

Albert Einstein once said ""The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except for the way we think, and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophes""

Consider an aeroplane every time one crash"s we learn something new, we then try to fix it, we consider them safe but still they crash whether mother nature human or mechanical to blame. These also affect nuclear power stations no matter how well we understand them or how well designed they are things will go wrong. But when a nuclear plant goes wrong the consequences can be catastrophic.

On the 26th of April human and design error were responsible for the worst nuclear disaster of all time Chernobyl 190 tons of toxic material expelled into the atmosphere The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths including In the Gomel region of Belarus, incidence of leukaemia has increased 50% in children and adults The total economic damages to Belarus will be $235 billion with over 400,000 forced to evacuate and never return . Over 2,000 towns and villages were bulldozed.

But safety is not the only concern in 2013 a critical Public Accounts Committee report stated that the private consortium managing Sellafield has failed to reduce costs Since 2005 the annual costs of operating Sellafield had increased from "900 million to about "1.6 billion. The estimated lifetime cost of dealing with Sellafield Is estimated to be "67.5 billion fuel may be cheaper in the short term but the long term costs are huge along with the initially capital costs 2007, Florida Power & Light ("FPL") estimated the total cost of building just two 1100 MW plants between $5,492/kW and $8,081/kW. Leading to a total cost of total cost of $12.1 billion to
$17.8 billion, for just two 1100 MW plants.

In contrast At Drax the western Europe"s largest power station they are converting 3 of their 6 coal fired boilers to run on biomass a carbon neutral renewable source of energy at a cost of only 700 million converting 3 of their 660 mw generators to be able to run off biomass generating a total of 1980 mw
If you discount construction mining and transport nuclear produces less co2 than coal or oil but leaves waste that will remain detrimental to life 1000's if not 100,000 of years. We currently generate of about 12,000 metric tons of used fuel per year. We currently have no way of safely dealing with this.

In response to my opponent I consider the debate to be of all forms of human use of nuclear power, we as a human race should also end our use of nuclear weapons if we as a human-race abandoned it there would be no danger of rouge nations such as Iran or North Korea acquiring them. Why should we give 5 people (leaders of nations who have nuclear weapons) the potential power to destroy life as we know it ?

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.ccll.org.uk...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Quinoas

Con

You have posted good points and I commend you for quoting Einstein but please think about the questions I asked in round one.
In the event nukes are coming at us what do we do?
Other countries could have nukes that we don't know about and well be disarmed and they will have power over us?
And last what would you do if they asked you to get rid of ours first?

But back to business
"If we disarmed all of our nuclear weapons, we would be in a vulnerable position."

"The U.S. should not completely disarm our strategic arsenal. The other so-called Nuclear Countries are still researching, not throwing away their nukes. We will just be left defenseless when it really matters. If India and Pakistan start launching nukes at each other, and we support one and not the other, and the other decides to launch at us, where are we then?"

"^^^^Unquote Then you are dead!"
Debate Round No. 2
G131994

Pro

I am sorry for not answering you question directly. I shall attempt to now

I think our definitions of ""we"" differ you define ""we"" as the population of the USA, however I live in the UK so the word ""we"" in your context will not affect me.
In the context I am using the word ""we"" I refer to ""we"" as the human-race. In this context if we abandoned nuclear power, in effect ""if we as a human-race abandoned all forms of nuclear power"" then no country on earth would have access to such dangerous weapons.

Also in this context of use of the word we ""other so-called Nuclear Countries are still researching, not throwing away their nukes"" would also abandon their nuclear program.
This would make the world a much safer place.
Yes the argument can be made that nuclear weapons saved lives in ww2 however there was no threat of Japan sending a nuclear bomb the other way. With more and more countries researching ""the bomb"" the risk of one coming the other way is increasing.

Also you make the point
""In the event nukes are coming at us what do we do?"" I suppose you say your last goodbyes it does not matter if you have nukes to fire back or not. if you have nukes coming towards you are dead. what defence will it make to you?
Yes countries may be deterred from sending them at you in the first place. However if we as a human race don"t have any nukes because we as a human-race have abandoned them. They won"t have any to send at you
To conclude the world is a much safer place if NO ONE has access to such weapons.
Quinoas

Con

If an enemy kept some nukes secret then we would be screwed.And I love the UK thanks for Dr.Who?
Debate Round No. 3
G131994

Pro

Haha No problem.

Yes but you would be screwed either way. If you have a nuke flying at you your dead.

Also The premise of the debate relies on the human race abandoning their nuclear weapons if a country holds onto their nuclear weapons then they have not abandoned them and therefore ""we have NOT abounded nuclear power"".

To conclude No country on earth should have nuclear power even when used for civilian purposes. It is inherently dangerous, and the risk of a rogue nation acquiring it is too great. With the consequence to incomprehensible to imagine. The motion states we should abandon nuclear power. If the human race did not have access to such weapons there would be no chance of them being used against us. This would create a safer world for all.

Albert Einstein once said ""The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything except for the way we think, and we thus drift toward"s unparalleled catastrophes"" catastrophes such as the ones witnessed at Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three mile island, have proved him right. Let"s not provide the opportunity for him to be right again. Let"s remove all possibilities of another catastrophe,
Lets abandon nuclear power as a human race once and for all.
Vote pro.
Quinoas

Con

And last if you don't want to die vote con ;)
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.