The Instigator
Con (against)
1 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

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

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/23/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,192 times Debate No: 12605
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




I would like to thank Sniperjake1994 for accepting this debate and start our argument. Your argument is persuasive and logical. I understand your stance is that proliferation of nuclear weapons among rough countries and terrorist groups will begin or lead to Third World War. Moreover as you say North Korea and Iran are currently further developing high quality and sophisticated nuclear weapons. I believe Third World War will be waged between U.S. including its allies and rough states including terrorist groups which are hateful feelings toward democratic and capitalists countries. However, in reality the U.S. has the strongest and mightest military power in the world today. Therefore, I believe enemies of the U.S. and its allies can not fight on equal bases with the U.S. and allies for a long period of time. Moreover The U.S. has military bases all over the world. This contributes to getting the information about what is going on in various parts of the world from the military point of view. For example, the Secretary of Defense,CIA, the Department of Homeland Security and Pentagon are playing an important role. And for the time if serious situation or regional conflicts might happen in some areas or regions of the world, military commanders and soldiers are always prepared to fight before they are developing into the real war using nuclear weapons. From above mentioned argument my conclusion is that the possibility of Third World War is very low. I hope pro`s next argument.


1. " I believe Third World War will be waged between U.S. including its allies and rough states including terrorist groups which are hateful feelings toward democratic and capitalists countries."

You say WW3 would be waged against the United States. Now, that isn't a bad opinion, however you must keep in mind that the United States was the one who used the first nuclear bomb. You don't mention that necluear power isn't that developed.

2. "...North Korea and Iran are currently further developing high quality and sophisticated nuclear weapons..."

North Korea is far too secluded and secretive to unlock the science of sophisticated nuclear weapons. If they figure it out, chances are that they would be far from sophisticated. Iran is not of the American SUPERRACE, and on a scale of 1 to 1000 of it's percentage of superrace, the number is not OVER 9000. The American Superrace is composed of gay males(such as myself) that are dedicated members of the American Nazi Party, and do not support Gay marriage and they voted for Obama. The women are obdient and stay in the house unless instructed by her PRINCE IN CHARMING ARMOUR. So...Yes.

3. My opinion on your debate is rat poop. I apologize.
Debate Round No. 1


goldman forfeited this round.


DiggyDawg forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by goldman 6 years ago
I thank you for sending me your opinion. As you point out, the reasons fueling war have something to do with serious economic and social situation. In particular, recession, mass unemployment and regulated trade and high tariffs levied on traded goods among the trading countries contribute to fueling war. However, these days IMF, WTO and World Bank are trying to promote world trade and commerce freely and efficiently. Moreover, Economic Summit is held every year to discuss economic and other problems such as regional conflicts, terrorism and arms trade among the heads of the member states. Furthermore, these days anti-war movements led by the general public are taking place not only in the developed countries but in the developing and emerging countries. They are appealing toward the governments that a large amount of public money is wasted to strengthening their military power. They demand governments must use public financial resourcies to cope with recession and to vitalize the economy. In particular, some of the Islamist people who are immigrating to U.S., Briton and France may be involved in anti-government riot or suside bombing because they feel discriminated by the people of those countries. However, it seems they have neither passion nor vigor to wage war using nuclear weapons. Moreover, they have neither sophisticated plot to make war on a global scale nor enough financial resouces to buy weapons to wage war against capitalist countries. In World War 1 and 2 the general public supported those wars and participated in them aggressively. However, these days many people have less interests and courge to support Third World War. They are seeking economic and social stability rather than waging war. Therefore, I believe Third World War using nuclear weapons is less likely to taking place in the future. I look forward to your next argument. Thank you.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
A debate without a resolution and nothing coherent said in the debate.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
@ Goldman: The current question is whether or not the use and development of nuclear weapons fuel WW3? The WW3 event could be today or in the future, but will nuclear weapons be a factor and/or a trigger?

Only democratic institutions have a bare minimum in following John Locke's philosophy. No form of government is perfect; thus, when one's natural rights are threatened one may choose to rebel and overthrow the government in any means possible, even with a nuke. I agree that governments are attempting to maintain order and its responsibility in protecting its citizens and interests, not unwanted aliens outside of its boundaries even eliminating any "threats" to protect its citizens. Yet when a democratic government is overthrown a radical form of government is put into place, most likely a totalitarian government controlling all life's aspect. Ergo, the leader(s) have the moral right to declare WW3 in the sake of protecting its citizens.
In the current global recession peace and stability is difficult to reach, countless times in history stability is reached through war no matter who advocates it. Take into account of pre-WW2, when times are harsh people look to the ones who promise "peace and stability."
Thus the development of nuclear weapons will fuel WW3.
Posted by goldman 7 years ago
Dear Sniperjake1994,
I thank you for your comment on my argument. New movements are emerging to protect our planet, civilization and human life from catastrophe these days. Acoording to the Japan Times( July 27,2010), which is the leading English newspaper in Japan, many governments agreed to sign a treaty which aims to prohibit selling and buying military weapons beyond national borders. This situation reminds me of an analysis presented by British political scientist, John Locke. His argument is that in state of nature if freedom, life and properties of human beings were threatened, he or she exerts a natural right freely and as a result endless war or struggle will continue forever. Therefore he advocated the importance of building a society which regulates the behaviour of human beings to protect them from going to war. He stressed the importance of moral and resposibility of human beings to create a society which is not harmful for them. Therefore the agreement which mentioned above is a step forward to eliminate and regulate the arms trade. We are living in the interconnected , global society.Many people have a strong will and reason to protect only one Earth. There is a growing demand for peace and stability among the people of the world today. As a result, the possibility of Third World War is very low. I look forward to your comment. Thank you.
Posted by Sniperjake1994 7 years ago
@goldman: Ah, to begin where we left off: So you do agree that WW3 would occur as "rough nations" vs the U.S and allies. This brings up to your second point about the U.S having the supremacy military might and acting as a global police force, thus this causes deterrence through the intelligence of rough nations developing nuclear arms.

This is where you are wrong. The U.S military has been wrong in the past and will continue to make mistakes. Take into account the war in Iraq, there "was" nuclear arms there. After years of battles and searching the military found nothing. We started a war believing Iraq has a bomb, the end result is Al-Queda's increased recruitment and bombings. (
Relying on the military's rash decisions dealing with these bombs threats only causes chaos and ultimately a nuke strike. General Douglas MacArthur, U.S supreme general in the Korean War, pushed Congress and eventually the public to launch a nuke at N.Korea because his forces were overwhelmed. Truman relieved his command before he could gain enough support from the public. This example shows the rash and ultimate decision the military will take if overwhelmed, thus the U.S will begin the nuclear war; allies of rough nations such as China and Russia will join the war. Soon we have a nice WW3 going.

Putting the public's complete trust in the military to prevent such occurrences will ultimately lead to a nuclear war, thus the resolution remains affirmed. Thank you.

And diggydawg, don't use these arguments as it would be unfair to goldman. Thanks.
Posted by Labour21 7 years ago
This is crap.
Posted by Narwal19 7 years ago
most likely it would be nuclear because there are more devastating uses with nuclear than coal or hydroelectricity.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
Nuclear power isn't that developed. It's more likely that coal and hydroelectricity will fuel the third world war.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Sniperjake1994 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00