The Instigator
goldman
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Sniperjake1994
Pro (for)
Winning
11 Points

Will proliferation and development of nuclear weapons fuel Third World War ?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Sniperjake1994
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,083 times Debate No: 12586
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

goldman

Con

I believe proliferation and development of nuclear weapons will not trigger Third World War. Once upon a time the United States and the Soviet Union had a large amount of stocks of nuclear weapons in the world. But fortunately third world war did not take place. I present two reasons. The first is that the leaders of two super powers strongly recognized the worst situation. If it would happen, all the countries of the world would be involved in the total war on a global scale and almost all of the people in the world would die and industrial civilization would collapse. The second is that strategic Armes Reduction Treaty was sighned between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, after the end of it nuclear weapons have been proliferated into some of the developing countries. In particular North Korea, Iran, and other rogue countries have spent too much on getting, developiong and increasing the amount of nuclear weapons by themselves. Those countries have a hateful feelings toward highly developed industrial countries like North Korea, the U. S. Briton. France and so on.
The United States and the United Nations have been persuading those countries to refrain from buying, developing and holding nuclear weapons. However, they have not accepted their demands so far. They are always reluctant to have an opportunity to talk about reducing the nuclear weapons with super powers of the West. I believe leaders of North Korea, Iran are not interested in waging nuclear war with the rest of the world. It seems that they are eager to exert an enormous influence in the world political stage and threatening the rest of the world by possesing highly developed and sophisticated nuclear weapons. In reality leaders of rough states want to live longer and to maintain the highest and supreme power in society as a political dictator as long as possible. Therefore, I strongly believe that proliferation and development of nuclear weapons will not trigger Third World War in the future. I hope someone challenge this debate and continue our arguments.
Sniperjake1994

Pro

I would like to thank goldman for starting this debate. I affirm the resolution as stated above.

Definitions:
Proliferation: increase production
nuclear weapons: any class of nuclear based weapons
fuel: help start not necessarily trigger
World War 3: a global war involving many countries.

Clarification:
The rise and development of power nuclear weapons will trigger or help set WW3.

Pro's case:

1) Israel currently possess about 80 nuclear weapons. (http://en.wikipedia.org...) Currently Israel and the surrounding Arab countries are fighting with conventional weapons. It has been confirmed Iran has the capability enriching uranium. It only takes 3 nuclear weapons to raze Israel, thus as Israel's only primary defense is to launch nukes back first. If Israel is destroyed and the U.S is its ally, then the US will launch nukes at supporting Arab countries. Iran and its allies such as China, N.Korea, and Russia will launch nukes at the U.S and its allies. U.S allies will then declare war and we have a world war 3. (http://www.worldtribune.com...) (http://propheticseasons.wordpress.com...) (http://www.yalibnan.com...)

2) The Russian Mafia and other underground criminal organizations have been acquiring and selling "loose nukes" to any buyer; meaning Russia's decommissioned nukes are stolen by the Mafia and sold to terrorist organizations or any buyer. Anyone armed with nuclear knowledge is able to create a nuclear bomb, thus starting or leading to WW3. (http://findarticles.com...)

Rebuttal on Con's case:

1) So what if both countries realize this? It only takes a small issue to evolve into a world war, such as previous world wars. A small country can start a world war. (WW1 Serbia; WW2 Poland and Japan)
Currently Russia is no longer a superpower and had collapsed, only the U.S recognizes the situation. The U.S has and will continue to use its nuclear arms deterrence to push around the non-nuclear countries. Some day a terrorist nuclear attack from these countries will begin or lead to a world war 3.

2) ST.A.R.T (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) only regulates between the U.S and Russia. Other rogue countries have the capability of starting a world war 3. It does not necessarily has to be the US to push the button. Countries as named by Con: N.Korea & Iran as he had stated countries with hateful feeling towards highly developed industrial countries.
Treaties do not necessarily prevent wars. For example Hitler's treaty with Stalin about not attacking each other was broken when Hitler invaded Poland and the Soviet Union thus starting WW2. Same will apply to ST.A.R.T.
ST.A.R.T is only bound by the U.S and Russia. None of the other nuclear states are bound by ST.A.R.T, so they are free to begin a World War 3.

2nd paragraph: Iran is willing to wage a war against Israel; but, with the U.S backing Israel Iran is currently further developing more deadly nukes. Same applies to N.Korea over S.Korea. N.Korea is currently researching for the capability to launch a nuke overseas to the U.S. (http://www.foxnews.com...)
(http://www.foxnews.com...) Both countries as my opponent stated will use use nuclear threats to maintain power, if these threats are misled this will lead to a World War 3. An example would be the Cuban Missile crisis, a very close call for World War 3.

For the reasons above vote for Pro the rise and development of nuclear weapons will fuel WW3. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
Yep, Pro definitely wins. The Con laid some questionable ideas down in his own case, e.g. North Korea and Iran. The Pro expanded on these iffy areas, as well as described a specific scenario (Israel counterattack) and a general scenario (Any group who buys from the Mafia). Pro also used sources, so that wins those points from me.

I feel as if the biggest flaw in the Con's point of view is that it's almost entirely realism-oriented. Sure, the Con is probably right that Iran and North Korea really have reasonable, political goals in mind and not "I want to radiate the world" goals. The Pro dances in the same beat with its Israel and "Misled threats" arguments, but it would have been much easier to carry a whole different tune. The Con relies almost entirely on a Mutually Assured Destruction, "This is a global economic, political, and military chess game" view. This pretty much ignores any terrorist organizations who have few logical goals in mind. Although I still liked the Pro's arguments, I would have laughed in agreement if I'd seen a simple "Do you think Al Qaeda or Jemaah Islamiyah care that there are international pieces of paper saying stuff or that OTHER people have realistic goals or that OTHER people will die? Boom, launches nuke, country retaliates with nuke, WWIII, roasted."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
Sniperjake1994
goldmanSniperjake1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Ninja_Tru 7 years ago
Ninja_Tru
goldmanSniperjake1994Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05