The Instigator
brad1999
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Mathgeekjoe
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

We should ban all 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Mathgeekjoe
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/1/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 615 times Debate No: 74606
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

brad1999

Pro

Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately. There have never been weapons like these. They are not for fighting the enemy in the traditional sense. They are for wiping out the populations of countries. There are no other weapons that can kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours. The civilian populations have no hope; no place to hide. They are led "like lambs to the slaughter". The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists tells us that 50 of today"s 26,000 nuclear weapons could wipe out 200 million people. "Nuclear weapons have provided us with the capacity of self-destruction. former peace and security adviser for the United Nations, launching the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)9 . Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. That is what nuclear arsenals potentially do. The mass killing of civilians is condemned by international law as a crime against humanity. In fighting a Just War (a war that is being fought because it is the only available way of defending against an aggressor) it is necessary to fight the attacking force, not slaughter the population as a whole - that is genocide. In supporting a government which deploys nuclear weapons, and does not work seriously to get rid of them, are we declaring ourselves willing to be party to such a crime?
Mathgeekjoe

Con

"Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately."
They do not kill any more indiscriminately than any other bomb. They have a certain blast radius and depending on the type of explosion may produce fallout downwind. If the United States were to use a nuclear weapon, we would have calculated the amount of people it would kill before hand. This means that we decided who it was going to kill and discriminated against them.

"There have never been weapons like these."
Yes and no. There has not been a weapon that existed before hand capable of their destruction, but currently there of weapons that are capable of doing the same damage as a small nuclear weapon. The type of weapon that is rivaling nukes is a type of thermobaric weapon, Russia currently claims to have the strongest one.

"They are for wiping out the populations of countries."
This statement is incorrect, the main targets of nuclear weapons actually is military targets. These include missile silos and air bases. The only cities that would be targeted by nukes would be ones with massive airports that could be used in war. In addition there are more creative uses of nuclear weapon. Such uses include using them as EMPs which are mostly non-lethal and produce a barrier of ionized air which can block communication from enemy equipment that survive the EMP. Another use is using them as interceptors of volleys of ballistic missiles, such use produces zero fallout or any other negatives while saving many lives from the enemies missiles. Nuclear weapons are also the only countermeasure earth has against asteroids if we didn't get a large warning time.

"There are no other weapons that can kill hundreds of millions of people in a few hours."
Thermobaric weapons are also capable of such destruction. And unlike nuclear weapons lack any other uses other than destruction.

"The civilian populations have no hope; no place to hide."
Despite that civilian populations are not the typical target of nuclear weapons, if they were use for such purposes, they would be still survivable. People survived the nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima without injury by merely being within conventional open tunnels designed for normal air raids. (1)

"Nuclear weapons have provided us with the capacity of self-destruction."
Common myth about nuclear weapons is that they can kill off humanity. This is simply not true.
(1)

" Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of an ethnic, religious or national group. That is what nuclear arsenals potentially do."
Same with any weapon. In fact if we were to abolish nuclear weapons, the next top weapon, thermobaric weapon, would be far more likely to be used against civilian population since that is their only use because of the way they explode.

"In fighting a Just War (a war that is being fought because it is the only available way of defending against an aggressor) it is necessary to fight the attacking force, not slaughter the population as a whole - that is genocide."
That is why nuclear weapons aren't aimed at civilian populations but military targets.

"In supporting a government which deploys nuclear weapons, and does not work seriously to get rid of them, are we declaring ourselves willing to be party to such a crime?"
Well that is like saying if you support the second amendment then you support murder, which in just incorrect. But never the less, if we were to get rid of nuclear weapons we would be more guilty of causing an arms race of thermobaric weapons which in turn would be more likely to cause mass death and destruction do to the lack of alternative uses. There is also the entire problem of if you were trying to abolish nuclear weapons you would fail to get rogue nations to abolish, which in turn increases the likelihood of them being used against civilian populations.

In the end, banning of nuclear weapons even if successful would cause more death and destruction than leaving them exist. On top of that, it would be near impossible for the abolishment to be successful. Such a failure to abolish would only leave rogue groups have them and take them away from responsible groups. Such an attempt would greatly increase the likelihood of civilian populations being hit by a nuclear weapon.

Source http://www.oism.org...
Debate Round No. 1
brad1999

Pro

Our nuclear weapons would kill more then just there target I have three questions for my opponent

What about the danger of the human race?

Do you realize these weapons can end up in terrorist"s hands?

Do you realize that radiation will cause long term effects on people"s health? Do you really wanna kill more innocent people then enemy"s?

There are 26,000 nuclear warheads in existence. These are enough to incinerate the entire population of the planet five times over. At least around 2,600 of these weapons are on high alert. This means that they can be launched within about 45 minutes or less of the warning of an attack (the President or Prime minister will have 10 to 15 minutes to make a decision on launch after the Chiefs of Staff have given the opinion that we are under attack. The Chiefs of Staff have 10 to 15 minutes to decide if we are really under attack after receipt of electronic information that we are). The existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a continuous and totally unnecessary threat to the population of our planet making both true peace and peace of mind impossible. The people of the world do not want these weapons. Of the 192 states of the United Nations only 8 have built and deploy nuclear weapons*. The remaining 184 states are put at risk by the 8 who have them. Of the eight states that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations of those states been asked if they want them.

Nuclear weapons are to dangerous it will spread radiation which will kill more people as time goes by. Animals would die because there food and water are covered with radiation it will ruin the environment. As of 2005 the Nuclear Weapon in NYC costs $10 trillion dollars we don't have money for that we are in debt almost $20 million dollars

The World Council of Churches, through a Muslim-Christian Initiative, has said "We agree that the Christian and Muslim traditions are unambiguous on the sanctity of human life and on the protection of all forms of creation, including the environment. "We believe that chemical, biological and particularly nuclear weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non combatants and inevitably destroy innocent human life, even as they destroy other forms of life such as animals and vegetation, cause irrevocable damage to the environment for many generations to come and cause human suffering and disease. Therefore, we hold that these weapons are contrary to our religious and ethical principles

I have stated the Environmental, Economical, and Moral status on this issue it would be a catastrophic for us to keep Nukes in place thank you.
Mathgeekjoe

Con

Answer to my opponent's four questions.

"What about the danger of the human race?"
The human race cannot be wiped out by nuclear weapons thus I would find the danger they pose to existence of the race zero.

"Do you realize these weapons can end up in terrorist"s hands?"
I realize that it is theoretically possible for these weapons to end up in the hands of terrorist. This is a risk I consider acceptable since the pros of nuclear weapons outweigh the cons. In addition, abolishing nuclear weapons still wouldn't prevent terrorist from being able to get their hands on them. In fact the reaction of abolishment could cause an increase production of nuclear weapons among rogue nations, which would in turn increase the likelihood a terrorist group would be able to acquire them.

"Do you realize that radiation will cause long term effects on people"s health?"
I realize that the long term effects of the radiation of a nuclear bomb are very minor. I suspect that my opponent may believe a few myths about nuclear weapons. I recommend that my opponent visit http://www.oism.org... so they can learn the truth instead of the myths they believe.

"Do you really wanna kill more innocent people then enemy"s?"
I do not want to kill more innocent people than the enemy. In fact my respect of innocent people's lives is the reason why I support nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons have many non/semi lethal uses. While the next strongest bomb lacks non/semi lethal uses. The end result of banning is guaranteed mass civilian death in the situation of a massive war.

Now to rebuttal my opponents argument.

"These are enough to incinerate the entire population of the planet five times over."
Common myth that comes from faulty calculations. I recommend people who believe this myth visit http://www.oism.org... so they can learn the truth.

"The existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a continuous and totally unnecessary threat to the population of our planet making both true peace and peace of mind impossible."
Quite the opposite, without nuclear weapons, people would have to fear a constant threat of thermobaric weapons or war in general. In fact deterrence has provide a sense of peace between the superpowers, it prevents them from going to war with each other. In the event of a war, nuclear weapons provide alternate uses that are non-lethal. Also there comes the peace of mind that if we were to get a last minute warning of an asteroid, we can either destroy it(if it is small) or deflect it (if it is large) which is only possible with nuclear weapons.

"Of the 192 states of the United Nations only 8 have built and deploy nuclear weapons"
This isn't surprising since nuclear weapons are difficult to make. Also it is a good thing since there is only 8 nations that nuclear weapons can be gotten from. It makes it far more difficult for rogue nations or groups from getting their hands on them.

"The remaining 184 states are put at risk by the 8 who have them."
They would be at much greater risk if no body had them.

"Of the eight states that have developed these weapons, in no case has the populations of those states been asked if they want them."
The only way the populace of these 8 nations would be against nuclear weapons, would be if they believed the massive amounts of myths in circulations, such myths that my opponent believes.

"Nuclear weapons are to dangerous it will spread radiation which will kill more people as time goes by. Animals would die because there food and water are covered with radiation it will ruin the environment."
Another misconception of the effects of radiation. Radiation levels often become safe for people to leave shelters about 2 weeks after the explosion.

"As of 2005 the Nuclear Weapon in NYC costs $10 trillion dollars we don't have money for that we are in debt almost $20 million dollars"
I don't know exactly what my opponent was saying in this sentence. they should clarify it. But if my opponent was talking about the cost of nuclear weapons in NYC, then their statistics are terrible wrong. The total cost of all of the effects of nuclear weapons in the entire united states from years 1940 to 1998 was only 5.8 trillion. I don't know how my opponent would have gotten 10 trillion for just one city.

"he World Council of Churches, through a Muslim-Christian Initiative,"
This group likely doesn't understand the effects of nuclear weapons.

"particularly nuclear weapons do not discriminate between combatants and non combatants and inevitably destroy innocent human life, even as they destroy other forms of life such as animals and vegetation, cause irrevocable damage to the environment for many generations to come and cause human suffering and disease."
This greatly ignores that nuclear weapons have non-lethal uses, it also overestimates the long term effects of a nuclear weapon which are very minor. If you look at the two bombs dropped on japan, the places where they are without effects of the nuclear bomb. This is unlike chemical weapons which can stay in the ground for long periods of time, and biological weapons which aren't aimed at all and spread based on contact.

I now have a five questions for my opponent.

Are you aware that you have stated several myths and misconceptions about nuclear weapons?

Are you aware that nuclear weapons have non-lethal and semilethal uses with very few negatives?

Are you aware that any attempt at banning nuclear weapons would result in rogue nations being the only ones to have them?

Are you aware that if we were to somehow successfully ban nuclear weapons, it would result in an arms race of thermobaric weapons?

Are you aware that nuclear weapons are our only option if we got a late warning of an asteroid?
Debate Round No. 2
brad1999

Pro

brad1999 forfeited this round.
Mathgeekjoe

Con

In conclusion, banning of nuclear weapons even if successful would cause more death and destruction than leaving them exist. On top of that, it would be near impossible for the abolishment to be successful. Such a failure to abolish would only leave rogue groups have them and take them away from responsible groups. Such an attempt would greatly increase the likelihood of civilian populations being hit by a nuclear weapon. In addition it would cause a arms race of thermobaric weapons which can rival nuclear weapons in killing potential. Such thermobaric weapons would also lack the alternate uses that nuclear weapons have, thus forcing them to be used for death and destruction. There are also pros of nuclear weapons such as their non-lethal uses and that they are the only thing that can save us from a late warning asteroid. Since there are significant pros of nuclear weapons and the cons of abolishing them are enormous, it must be concluded because of overwhelming evidence that nuclear weapon should not be abolished unless you want death and destruction.

I thank my opponent for participating in this debate. This debate is now concluded.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mathgeekjoe 2 years ago
Mathgeekjoe
Brad can you answer my five questions?
Posted by brad1999 2 years ago
brad1999
hey i tried
Posted by ImaRealMeanie 2 years ago
ImaRealMeanie
Mathgeekjoe, I humbly offer you the 'You won!' trophy.
Posted by Chain 2 years ago
Chain
i think Mathgeekjoe will probably win since brad doesn't have a good track record of doing well
Posted by ImaRealMeanie 2 years ago
ImaRealMeanie
Just as an example, if the nukes that America dropped in japan didn't happen, there would be many, many more deaths on both sides.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 2 years ago
tajshar2k
brad1999MathgeekjoeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF