The Instigator
iamfromdebatewars
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
SkyLeach
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

all countries have to denuclearise

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...
SkyLeach
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/19/2016 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 339 times Debate No: 89885
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

iamfromdebatewars

Pro

Why should a country nuclearise? America urges nk or iran to denuclearise but what about itself? I believe each and every country must get rid of these nukes.
SkyLeach

Con

I'm not sure exactly what we are debating. 'Having' to get rid of nuclear weapons implies no choice, and I know of no way to force a lack of choice other than through force of arms.

What countries should and should not do implies a philosophical choice, which can certainly be argued. Even proving a philosophical ethical (or by inclusion and average moral) choice is not enough, however. This creates a foundation for a valid opinion on ethical grounds, but ignores issues relating to force of arms, especially naval, and the right of cultures to self-determination.

Nuclear wepons aren't like conventional wepons, they are area denial wepons. The popular term in the form of the acronymn WMD is more political than strategic. The function of nuclear weapons in war is generally more about strategy than tactical implementation.

From a tactical perspective a person looks at the number of nuclear weapons in the world and panicks, generallly with a 'slippery-slope' argument such as 'if someone starts shooting everyone will start shooting and the entire planet will be destroyed'. This ignores strategic military planning for invasion. The military is very fond of redundancy. By having a lot of nuclear weapons in a great many places they are guarding against the tactic used so successfully in world war two of the german blitzkreig. If we reduced nuclear weapons down to merely the essential number necessary to guard tactically, a strategic lightening invasion of the missile storage and launch sites could be accomplised by a concentrated strike at these locations. It isn't very hard in war to achieve local numerical superiority, it's just strategically problematic (logistics and support). Missiles can't launch at the push of a button, no matter what you see in hollywood. They are like rockets, requiring fueling and precise planning before launch.

Thus the number of weapons on hand is a military strategic precaution and not an indication of a lack of understanding about the dangers inherent in nuclear war.

In truth, the nonproliferation treaty derived from a discussion between the two most common and populous socio-political governmental foundations: communistic and democratic. The most powerful nations derived, at least nominally, from these foundational social memes. Each side had reasons to want to 'arm up' their allies, but there was a very good counter argument to this political motivation: that of stability. Many of the smaller countries weren't socially dedicated to either philosophy. Some were religious, some were effectively dictatorships or monarchies even though they nominally allied with one or the other party. The problem with these types of government is that they aren't considered viable over any kind of long-term social evolutionary span. Monarchies and dictatorships quickly fall, in terms of government systems, especially as the baseline educaiton of the population increases. The demands of technology for governments to adapt and encourage education among their population made these countries worrysome to all of the countries that eventually signed the treaty.

Essentially the worry boils down to the fact that most of the governments that had nuclear weapons already were politically stable, having popular support based in social philosophy that would make military or grass-roots overthrow unlikely or, at worst, slow. Other small countries had militaries that were unpopular, outnumbered, unsophisticated in social control techniques, and thus likely to fall into the hands of emotionally charged and poorly educated social groups. These groups were far less predictable and it was feared that they could actually start an all-out nuclear war if they had access to nuclear weapons following a coup.

This brings us to Iran and, just as frightening, North Korea. The average level of education in both countries is abysmal. The governments maintain power through force of arms and deception (religion in Iran, propaganda and information in NK) but could be toppled by a concerted effort that threw support behind a rival faction. This would destabalize the country, but would be excessively dangerous if either country had nuclear capability. If any group managed to gain power with popular support they could quickly find themselves having to choose between a complete political collapse or concession to popular demands for the use of nuclear weapons.

Nobody wants the use of nukes to be a popular choice by a population, especially a poorly educated, passionate and angry mob.

Regardless of how we feel ethically or morally about nuclear weapons, they do exist. No matter how we feel about them ethically or morally, they have uses for naval combat and area-denial that do not include all-out nuclear war or the deaths of millions of innocents, and thus any argument aganst them relies on a logical fallacy of 'slippery slope' when the use isn't full-scale war.

I can agree with my opponent ethically and morally, but the reality of the argument explains the political position and does not yeild a viable way to change the political calculous.
Debate Round No. 1
iamfromdebatewars

Pro

iamfromdebatewars forfeited this round.
SkyLeach

Con

I yield more time to my opponent
Debate Round No. 2
iamfromdebatewars

Pro

iamfromdebatewars forfeited this round.
SkyLeach

Con

One more argument I will add towards the opening argument from Pro.

He asks why a country should nuclearise. This isn't really a question related to the debate itself, since the debate is about denuclearization, but a strong argument in favor of nuclearization is that the term does not expressly imply weaponization of nuclear fission technology.

All applications of nuclear science require enrichment processes, generally involving cyclotronic acceleration of subatomic particles before directing them at high energy towards a selective element or molecular solution. This process is conceptually identical to the creation of deuterium as a prelude to the creation of heavy water. Heavy Water can be used in nuclear reactors as well as for a catylitic effect in the production of enriched nuclear fuel. Enriched fuel is generally called 'weapons grade' fuel due to the fact that it is so unstable at high pressure it can go into proximity-induced fission (a critical mass chain reaction decay process). For high-power long-life nuclear reactors such as those used in space, enriched fuel is also required. Power output is directly associated with the mass and efficiency of the reactor. For small reactors, such as the one aboard the Voyager spacecraft, highter-purity fuel is needed to generate sufficient energy over extended periods of time due to the half-life of the fuel and limited collant cycling (it's hard to bleed heat in space). Thus a very small amount of highly refined nuclear material is easier to keep cool and generate power with than a larger amount of lower energy fuel that must be kept cool by an equally larger amount of water and a more complex pumping system.

None of this fusion mass can be used for reaction mass (thrust), so the more the power generator weighs the more geometrically costly (in terms of fuel) the launch and every vector change and acceleration boost will be.

As I already stated, other uses include nuclear power generation on earth. Dependance on more developed nations for fossil fuels (coal and oil) is a common problem for countries with no nuclear programme. In this way the restriction on nuclear research is also seen as a conflict of interests problem for economics as well as military.

Finally, nuclear enrichment processes are directly linked to an entire branch of medical science: nuclear medicine. These include PET scans, chemotherapy and other decay-based treatments.

Finally, there's future research potential. Besides CERN, there are quite a number of QFT and QM research projects that depend on decay-based nuclear interactions for their research data.
Debate Round No. 3
iamfromdebatewars

Pro

Con please explain me how nuclear weapons are essential. Cant we live without them? Answer it buddy.
SkyLeach

Con

: Con please explain me how nuclear weapons are essential. Cant we live without them? Answer it buddy.

No. This is the logical fallacy of moving the goalposts and offtopic for the debate. We are not debating that nuclear weapons are essential, we are debating that all countries have to denuclearize, not the essential nature of development of nuclear weapons.
Debate Round No. 4
iamfromdebatewars

Pro

You are a good debater.well the meaning of the debate was that nuclear weapons are dangerous. So all countries have to denuclearise.

Remember the incident in Nagasaki, Hiroshima and chernaboyl?
I agree your arguments had good points. But you please answer me directly in the last round that 'do we need those nukes? If yes then why?'. I am against nuclear weapons not against nuclear power. Nuclear energy is necessary in this world of resourse depletion but not nukes.
SkyLeach

Con

Thank you for complementing my skill. Nuclear weapons are indeed dangerous. They are powerful and overuse can lead to massive ecological and environmental damage up to and including an ELE (extinction level event). This does not mean that they will lead to misuse or an ELE. The argument against nuclear weapons, however, only reached maturity long after they had been developed in mass quantity. Any argument for denuclearizing a current and long-standing nuclear power is effectively a counter-arms-race. As I already said in my, history shows stability in the restraint of current nuclear powers. Neither NK nor Iran are current nuclear powers, and communism was always a cultural motivation for revolution and change rather than a stable political system. China is adapting without choice after observing the fall of the former USSR. Russia is no longer communist and is recovering economically. The baseline education norm in both countries is adapting as a result of economic and social pressure, which increases future likelyhood of a possible peaceful treaty that would allow for full elimination of nuclear ballistic war. This is a goal, however, and does not address the current reality in the world.

Nagasaki and Heroshima were first use scenarios where a few historical facts come into play. The knowledge of the fallout potential predicted that radiation would be short-lived. Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima have recovered and are currently home to millions of Japanese, a mere 70 years later. On a world history scale, this defeats the arguments against tactical usage. Further denaturing the argument, current nuclear weapons have far less radiation (gama and alpha particles are reduced tremendously) with a larger footprint and far higher reaction mass ratio in the warheads. This means that they can be used tactically with a larger footprint and even less long-term damage from fallout. Knowing this, current nuclear powers are more likely to use them tactically, which means that political stability and agreement must be reached, especially economically, before the pressure to reduce the threat is sufficient to have any political leverage against the tactical military justifications.

Any argument that we need them hinges on the fact of the threat of tactical retaliation at ballistic ranges There existinance is an economic and political safegard against the long-standing human history of military economic dispute. Access to resources and the economic strength that follows directly influences foreign policy, debt, and political stance. Thus it is and will continue to be the primary motive for retaining tactical nuclear weapons as area denial defense against military seisure of resources. This hinges on the fact that they can be launched, by any side that simply lies, against any side that tells the truth. The political fallout might be high, but unless there is a check on the power of aggression through force of arms we are left with the victor of any conflict being capable of exercising 'right by might' diplomacy.

In the end, it comes down to trust. They are here, they can be used, do we trust the other people with them enough to expose ourself to deciet. The answer is still 'we trust you but not that much'.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
I doubt the leadership of any major nuclear power would allow tensions to escalate through the use of weapons indiscriminately. It's not impossible, but I doubt it.

I do, however, doubt that many fanatics would hesitate to use them, largely for the same reason. I think it likely that they would expect their targets to hold back. They may even be right. Better to lose cities than the world. I tend to think that the entire UN and NATO would hit the launching country so hard and so fast that they'd be in shock. There is no longer a USSR to stop democratic countries as there was in Korea and Vietnam. If they used nukes, china would almost have to take a hands off approach and throw them to the wolves.
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 1 year ago
JoaquinBarzi
Well i guess that context is what matters here. Would you say an escalation between 2 nuclear nations would probably lead to mutually assured destruction or would they inevitably end up engaging in peace talks
Posted by SkyLeach 1 year ago
SkyLeach
I'm not supposing at all. I used the word 'necessitate', a word that is used to indicate clearly that the response to any given action is not a foregone conclusion. In any question of what will happen and what will not happen one is welcome to express a concern, but the argument is unsupported and weak unless a clear Modus Operandi for the subject has been established historically. Especially in the case of nukes, usage has been minimal and as knowledge of their inherent dangers has grown so has reticence at their use.

Any nation that is on the receiving end of a strike, nuclear capable or not, is immediately given a moral high ground from which to sway international opinion. It is highly likely that unless the use of the weapon can be explained and justified (including morally) to the UN then the country that used the weapons would be facing severe repercussions that do not include (but may include the threat of) nuclear retaliation.

So I'm not supposing any outcome, I'm pointing out that the outcome isn't a certainty and that fear of fallout and escalation would tend to limit their use, even following a first strike. This is especially true if any such first strike isn't against highly populated areas (such as a naval or wilderness strike against a military target).
Posted by JoaquinBarzi 1 year ago
JoaquinBarzi
When you say that the use of a tactical nuke wouldnt trigger down to a mutually assured destruction type of scenario, are you supposing a conflict between 2 nuke-capable nations, or 1 against a non-nuclear one?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 1 year ago
Ragnar
iamfromdebatewarsSkyLeachTied
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: Pretty clear no contest, but... Conduct for forfeit. Arguments: Con opened with a strong case for human rights, then did a bit of a strawman analysis (which turned out to be building up pro, rather than fallaciously misrepresenting him) of common fallacies used about nukes. A bunch more points, but pro decided to systematically drop them all, opting for a single moving the goalpost fallacy (which con righted called out). Pro's case would have had some merit were the resolution that the weapons are not essential, but pro's entire case was effectively handled by "unless there is a check on the power of aggression through force of arms we are left with the victor of any conflict being capable of exercising 'right by might' diplomacy." Which pro chose not to address (it was a repeat of R1 points, so pro indeed had every chance).