Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

Should we have nuclear weapons?

PetersSmith
Posts: 5,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
https://www.youtube.com...

When the Manhattan Project was completed, who would have expected the world to be plunged in 70+ years of the threat of a nuclear holocaust? The first atomic bombs were used to end a war, now they're waiting to start another one. There are several arguments on both sides for the preservation or disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Critics: nuclear proliferation would undermine the ability of governments to threaten sufficient retaliation upon attack to deter aggression against them (Mutually Assured Destruction). Most of those who are critical of disarmament resort to the argument of "nuclear peace". In recent times, it's even been suggested that the Iranian nuclear deal could bring stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons. Others say that the threat of nuclear weapons is generally "overexaggerated". They increase a nation"s power and status. Agreements and compromises are much easier to make when the knowledge of the destructive power possessed is given.

Proponents: Under the scenario of total multilateral disarmament, there is no possibility of nuclear war. The evidence behind the assumption that political leaders are rational actors, who place the protection of their citizens above other considerations, trumps theory and deterrence theories cannot be reconciled with the historical record. The doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence is obsolete, and that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective in the post cold war era. Nuclear weapons can accidentally lead to radiation disaster with a massive reach. Large cost and maintenance. Can be considered immoral and unethical. The more common that nuclear weapons become, the more countries that will obtain this power (including terrorists). A nuclear war could also destroy the world or something, I guess that's an argument.

So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 4:40:39 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

When the Manhattan Project was completed, who would have expected the world to be plunged in 70+ years of the threat of a nuclear holocaust? The first atomic bombs were used to end a war, now they're waiting to start another one. There are several arguments on both sides for the preservation or disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Critics: nuclear proliferation would undermine the ability of governments to threaten sufficient retaliation upon attack to deter aggression against them (Mutually Assured Destruction). Most of those who are critical of disarmament resort to the argument of "nuclear peace". In recent times, it's even been suggested that the Iranian nuclear deal could bring stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons. Others say that the threat of nuclear weapons is generally "overexaggerated". They increase a nation"s power and status. Agreements and compromises are much easier to make when the knowledge of the destructive power possessed is given.

Proponents: Under the scenario of total multilateral disarmament, there is no possibility of nuclear war. The evidence behind the assumption that political leaders are rational actors, who place the protection of their citizens above other considerations, trumps theory and deterrence theories cannot be reconciled with the historical record. The doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence is obsolete, and that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective in the post cold war era. Nuclear weapons can accidentally lead to radiation disaster with a massive reach. Large cost and maintenance. Can be considered immoral and unethical. The more common that nuclear weapons become, the more countries that will obtain this power (including terrorists). A nuclear war could also destroy the world or something, I guess that's an argument.

So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

There's too many people in the world anyway. This is a solution, not a problem.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 5:40:34 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

When the Manhattan Project was completed, who would have expected the world to be plunged in 70+ years of the threat of a nuclear holocaust? The first atomic bombs were used to end a war, now they're waiting to start another one. There are several arguments on both sides for the preservation or disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Critics: nuclear proliferation would undermine the ability of governments to threaten sufficient retaliation upon attack to deter aggression against them (Mutually Assured Destruction). Most of those who are critical of disarmament resort to the argument of "nuclear peace". In recent times, it's even been suggested that the Iranian nuclear deal could bring stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons. Others say that the threat of nuclear weapons is generally "overexaggerated". They increase a nation"s power and status. Agreements and compromises are much easier to make when the knowledge of the destructive power possessed is given.

Proponents: Under the scenario of total multilateral disarmament, there is no possibility of nuclear war. The evidence behind the assumption that political leaders are rational actors, who place the protection of their citizens above other considerations, trumps theory and deterrence theories cannot be reconciled with the historical record. The doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence is obsolete, and that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective in the post cold war era. Nuclear weapons can accidentally lead to radiation disaster with a massive reach. Large cost and maintenance. Can be considered immoral and unethical. The more common that nuclear weapons become, the more countries that will obtain this power (including terrorists). A nuclear war could also destroy the world or something, I guess that's an argument.

So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

Obviously we are never going to get rid of all the nuclear weapons, that's just how it is.

But there's no harm in reducing the amount of them we have, so those we do keep can be better cared for reducing the odds of them accidentally being detonated or damaged.
Meh!
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 4:40:39 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

When the Manhattan Project was completed, who would have expected the world to be plunged in 70+ years of the threat of a nuclear holocaust? The first atomic bombs were used to end a war, now they're waiting to start another one. There are several arguments on both sides for the preservation or disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Critics: nuclear proliferation would undermine the ability of governments to threaten sufficient retaliation upon attack to deter aggression against them (Mutually Assured Destruction). Most of those who are critical of disarmament resort to the argument of "nuclear peace". In recent times, it's even been suggested that the Iranian nuclear deal could bring stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons. Others say that the threat of nuclear weapons is generally "overexaggerated". They increase a nation"s power and status. Agreements and compromises are much easier to make when the knowledge of the destructive power possessed is given.

Proponents: Under the scenario of total multilateral disarmament, there is no possibility of nuclear war. The evidence behind the assumption that political leaders are rational actors, who place the protection of their citizens above other considerations, trumps theory and deterrence theories cannot be reconciled with the historical record. The doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence is obsolete, and that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective in the post cold war era. Nuclear weapons can accidentally lead to radiation disaster with a massive reach. Large cost and maintenance. Can be considered immoral and unethical. The more common that nuclear weapons become, the more countries that will obtain this power (including terrorists). A nuclear war could also destroy the world or something, I guess that's an argument.

So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

There's too many people in the world anyway. This is a solution, not a problem.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?
Meh!
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 5:55:42 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
I think they should be kept, but further nuclear proliferation should be prevented. North Korea and Iran certainly should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
Bennett91
Posts: 4,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 10:30:15 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:


I generally agree with the 'pro-nukes' position. The idea of the Nuclear Taboo has yet to be broken; the idea that no one wants to be the first modern country to use a nuke in war making it seem like an acceptable military strategy. India and Pakistan are a good example of nuclear peace, although instead of fighting open wars they probably fund proxies to kill each other. The deterrent effect doesn't stop war or violence, merely channels it into non-nuclear options.

A few problems though is when a nuclear power uses its influence over nonnuclear states. For example if China were to invade its neighbors such as Taiwan or Vietnam it would not need nukes, but the US would have to question if protecting its allies is worth the possibility of China using a nuke against us. Similarly with Israel, who seems less interest in the Nuclear Taboo [http://www.haaretz.com...]

I don't believe in rational actor theory because I don't believe that people are entirely rational beings. People will always be biased, especially in their own country's favor. In case of global nuclear disarmament, the rational thing to do would be to publicly agree to disarm but keep a reserve of nukes hidden. In case of being on the losing side of a conventional war you can reveal you have nukes and threaten to use them. In turn when other countries see this either A) they don't have have nukes so they are powerless or B) they also hid their nukes, thus making the idea of global nuclear disarmament a fantastic joke.

It only takes so many nukes to blow up the world, that was partly why the USSR went bankrupt; they didn't respect that fact and spent way too much money just to ensure they had more nukes than the US. Metaphorically and possibly literal overkill IMO.

But IMO the key to nuclear disarmament relies in anti-ICBM technology. MAD relies on the assumption that if both countries fire nukes both will die; but if one country has the tech to shoot down an enemy nuke while their own will hit the mark then MAD doesn't apply. If all countries could feel safe from nuclear weapons, meaning they would not have to rely on the "rationality" of nuclear nations, then perhaps the desire to create more nukes will subside. Or maybe it will be a Red Queen, as anti-nuke tech improves so must the anti-anti-nuke tech so on and so forth.

In short nukes will always exist because there are simply too valuable as a tool for deterrence, intimidation, and prestige. It would be nice if countries such as the US and Russia agreed to cut down their numbers, but it will never be 0. Also in general military tech has always improved civil society. After all, we introduced nuclear weapons to the world before nuclear energy plants.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.
Sam7411
Posts: 959
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 2:45:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.

There is no such thing as an overpopulation problem
ballpit
Posts: 157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 3:27:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Nuclear weapons are a sensitive topic that I don't necessarily have an opinion on but if I were to say now I would say maybe a partial disarmament is the best decision at this point. I will research further and come back with more information later.
This user is an Angel and will answer any DDO-related questions to the best of their ability. PM for help, or post in the Welcome Thread.
Before you do anything:
http://www.debate.org......
Welcome Thread:
http://www.debate.org......
New Members Read Me:
http://www.debate.org......
Argument Bingo
http://imgur.com......
I avoid fights with gay people because even when you win you lose. - Wylted
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,240
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 3:30:00 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 2:45:16 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.

There is no such thing as an overpopulation problem

Correct, we can colonize space.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 3:37:09 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
When everyone can annhialate each other, it tends to foster more communication, collaboration and political solutions, as opposed to making war an easy answer
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 3:40:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 2:45:16 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.

There is no such thing as an overpopulation problem

Precisely, it was a myth created by liberals in their propaganda book "the population explosion". It was ussd as an excuse to make more oppressive laws, just as the global warming myth does.

They actually are a little more open about their plans, which were placed on their monument, the Georgia Guidestones
stealspell
Posts: 980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 7:28:43 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
https://www.youtube.com...

When the Manhattan Project was completed, who would have expected the world to be plunged in 70+ years of the threat of a nuclear holocaust? The first atomic bombs were used to end a war, now they're waiting to start another one. There are several arguments on both sides for the preservation or disarmament of nuclear weapons.

Critics: nuclear proliferation would undermine the ability of governments to threaten sufficient retaliation upon attack to deter aggression against them (Mutually Assured Destruction). Most of those who are critical of disarmament resort to the argument of "nuclear peace". In recent times, it's even been suggested that the Iranian nuclear deal could bring stability to the Middle East by balancing Israel's regional monopoly on nuclear weapons. Others say that the threat of nuclear weapons is generally "overexaggerated". They increase a nation"s power and status. Agreements and compromises are much easier to make when the knowledge of the destructive power possessed is given.

Proponents: Under the scenario of total multilateral disarmament, there is no possibility of nuclear war. The evidence behind the assumption that political leaders are rational actors, who place the protection of their citizens above other considerations, trumps theory and deterrence theories cannot be reconciled with the historical record. The doctrine of mutual Soviet-American deterrence is obsolete, and that reliance on nuclear weapons for deterrence is becoming increasingly hazardous and decreasingly effective in the post cold war era. Nuclear weapons can accidentally lead to radiation disaster with a massive reach. Large cost and maintenance. Can be considered immoral and unethical. The more common that nuclear weapons become, the more countries that will obtain this power (including terrorists). A nuclear war could also destroy the world or something, I guess that's an argument.

So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

We already have the technology to stop a nuke. There's no point in having them.
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 8:48:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 3:40:18 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/27/2016 2:45:16 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.

There is no such thing as an overpopulation problem

Precisely, it was a myth created by liberals in their propaganda book "the population explosion". It was ussd as an excuse to make more oppressive laws, just as the global warming myth does.

They actually are a little more open about their plans, which were placed on their monument, the Georgia Guidestones

There isn't an overpopulation problem now, but there will be if people keep reproducing like rabbits in third world countries.

Solution: make every country a first world country, and people will automatically slow down their reproduction rates.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:00:54 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 8:48:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/27/2016 3:40:18 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/27/2016 2:45:16 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.

There is no such thing as an overpopulation problem

Precisely, it was a myth created by liberals in their propaganda book "the population explosion". It was ussd as an excuse to make more oppressive laws, just as the global warming myth does.

They actually are a little more open about their plans, which were placed on their monument, the Georgia Guidestones

There isn't an overpopulation problem now, but there will be if people keep reproducing like rabbits in third world countries.

Solution: make every country a first world country, and people will automatically slow down their reproduction rates.

The population explosion said that overpopulation would occur sith 4 billion and we would all die, so liberals needvto make up their mind like conservatives have for the past 200 years without changing it
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:03:08 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 9:00:54 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/27/2016 8:48:19 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/27/2016 3:40:18 PM, Wylted wrote:
At 5/27/2016 2:45:16 PM, Sam7411 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 1:57:11 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 5/27/2016 5:41:27 AM, Axonly wrote:

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you suggesting nuclear weapons is a ethical way to solve the world over-population problem?

There's no real ethical solution to the overpopulation problem.

There is no such thing as an overpopulation problem

Precisely, it was a myth created by liberals in their propaganda book "the population explosion". It was ussd as an excuse to make more oppressive laws, just as the global warming myth does.

They actually are a little more open about their plans, which were placed on their monument, the Georgia Guidestones

There isn't an overpopulation problem now, but there will be if people keep reproducing like rabbits in third world countries.

Solution: make every country a first world country, and people will automatically slow down their reproduction rates.

The population explosion said that overpopulation would occur sith 4 billion and we would all die, so liberals needvto make up their mind like conservatives have for the past 200 years without changing it

How many more billions do you think the Earth can sustain?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:08:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 9:03:08 PM, janesix wrote:

How many more billions do you think the Earth can sustain?

From the numbers I have read, it looks like it will flatten out at ten billion, the numbers I have looked at are from the Club Of Rome, who wants to depopulate the Earth to minimize the environmental impact of humans. I am only concerned about the amount of food we can create and not the environmental impacts, as long as technology keeps improving, we can avoid famines and keep growing exponentially, potentially forever.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:17:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Coincidentally we level out at ten billion and also can sustain ten billion, but not much more. Not much room for error, but I think with technology moving forward we have more room for error than they (club of rome) thinks. http://www.livescience.com...
janesix
Posts: 3,439
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:19:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 9:17:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Coincidentally we level out at ten billion and also can sustain ten billion, but not much more. Not much room for error, but I think with technology moving forward we have more room for error than they (club of rome) thinks. http://www.livescience.com...

How do they know it will "level out" at ten billion?
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:29:48 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 9:19:33 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/27/2016 9:17:15 PM, Wylted wrote:
Coincidentally we level out at ten billion and also can sustain ten billion, but not much more. Not much room for error, but I think with technology moving forward we have more room for error than they (club of rome) thinks. http://www.livescience.com...

How do they know it will "level out" at ten billion?

I'm not going to go into that. I think they are looking at trends in reproduction and survival rates and using those numbers. Even in third world countries, people seem to be slowing down with having kids and starting to get closer to merely reproducing at replacement level. You kinda have to look into the why's on your own, I would suggest going to the club of Rome's website and using their search funcrion to go through their documents. They vwry much want to depopulate the Earth, but despite that, they don'tbseem to be bias at looking at and figuring out the numbers
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 9:47:57 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

I tweeted about this last night. Nuclear weapons are useless, dangerous and a waste of time and resources. I say it's time to ban the bomb.
Just watch this bit from John Oliver
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:07:53 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 9:47:57 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

I tweeted about this last night. Nuclear weapons are useless, dangerous and a waste of time and resources. I say it's time to ban the bomb.
Just watch this bit from John Oliver



John Oliver is the least respectable talk show host there is after that South African on the Daily Show.

Nuclear weapons are needed currently as it is used as a deterrent against nations that have a larger standing army than our own as well as nations that have their own nuclear weapons. Don't forget that without nuclear weapons, there wouldn't have been as much science that went into nuclear energy, which is a very good source of clean energy that can power larger cities, as it does with 80% of Illinois.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:40:28 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 4:07:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 9:47:57 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

I tweeted about this last night. Nuclear weapons are useless, dangerous and a waste of time and resources. I say it's time to ban the bomb.
Just watch this bit from John Oliver



John Oliver is the least respectable talk show host there is after that South African on the Daily Show.

Nuclear weapons are needed currently as it is used as a deterrent against nations that have a larger standing army than our own as well as nations that have their own nuclear weapons. Don't forget that without nuclear weapons, there wouldn't have been as much science that went into nuclear energy, which is a very good source of clean energy that can power larger cities, as it does with 80% of Illinois.

1) Acording to Ward Wilson, Senior Fellow at the centre for non-Proliferation studies and expert on nuclear weapons, "the annals of history are filled with evidence that neither the use nor the threat of nuclear weapons have deterred war, induced surrender, or guaranteed victory to any side."
2) I am personally not a huge fan of nuclear energy, mostly because of the waste issue. Regardless, why do we need nuclear weapons to develop peaceful nuclear technology if you need a nuclear reactor in the first place to develop a nuclear bomb? And why would past peaceful technological developments made in part because of nuclear weapons research be any reason to keep nuclear weapons around? If we already have peaceful nuclear technology, and the science already exists, who is to say it won't be discovered by peaceful means?
3) thank you for making a more respectful response on this one. Instead spouting ad hominems and straw an arguments.
BrendanD19
Posts: 2,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:41:52 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/27/2016 5:55:42 AM, Vox_Veritas wrote:
I think they should be kept, but further nuclear proliferation should be prevented. North Korea and Iran certainly should not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

Well Iran doesn't have them, and doesn't want them and cannot get them (Iran nuke deal), but I the DPRK has already got them, so I think we've got a problem there.
bballcrook21
Posts: 4,468
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 4:47:50 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/28/2016 4:40:28 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/28/2016 4:07:53 AM, bballcrook21 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 9:47:57 PM, BrendanD19 wrote:
At 5/27/2016 4:31:19 AM, PetersSmith wrote:
So, what is your position on the nuclear weapon debate? Should we have full disarmament? Partial disarmament? Should there be less restrictions on nuclear weapons? If nukes were disarmed, would something even more deadly replace them? Should every country agree to disarm at once or should one lead by example? Could the world's nuclear stockpile destroy the world 10X over or is this estimate actually exaggerated? Discuss.

I tweeted about this last night. Nuclear weapons are useless, dangerous and a waste of time and resources. I say it's time to ban the bomb.
Just watch this bit from John Oliver



John Oliver is the least respectable talk show host there is after that South African on the Daily Show.

Nuclear weapons are needed currently as it is used as a deterrent against nations that have a larger standing army than our own as well as nations that have their own nuclear weapons. Don't forget that without nuclear weapons, there wouldn't have been as much science that went into nuclear energy, which is a very good source of clean energy that can power larger cities, as it does with 80% of Illinois.

1) Acording to Ward Wilson, Senior Fellow at the centre for non-Proliferation studies and expert on nuclear weapons, "the annals of history are filled with evidence that neither the use nor the threat of nuclear weapons have deterred war, induced surrender, or guaranteed victory to any side."

I would assume that someone that studies non-proliferation would not be very attuned towards supporting nuclear weapons or energy, therefore I wouldn't count this as a good argument. Nevertheless, it was mutually assured destruction that halted the vast amount of death that could and would have occurred over the past half century had one of the sides not had a significant nuclear arsenal.

2) I am personally not a huge fan of nuclear energy, mostly because of the waste issue. Regardless, why do we need nuclear weapons to develop peaceful nuclear technology if you need a nuclear reactor in the first place to develop a nuclear bomb? And why would past peaceful technological developments made in part because of nuclear weapons research be any reason to keep nuclear weapons around? If we already have peaceful nuclear technology, and the science already exists, who is to say it won't be discovered by peaceful means?

The nuclear reactor wasn't built for sustained energy, it was built to create a bomb that could devastate entire cities and win wars in one fell swoop. After its creation, we've started to use nuclear capabilities for more peaceful things, such as nuclear power.

Also, this idea that all energy must be green and environmentally friendly is a losing battle. Coal energy is heavily polluting but also very efficient, while nuclear energy doesn't release any form of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and the only waste it produces happens to be nuclear waste, which can be easily be put into safely kept facilities. Nonetheless, you cannot power large cities with solar, wind, and hydroelectric, and especially not the whole world, as we do not have the space nor the funds to do such. (Also, solar panels are not environmentally friendly, and neither are wind farms. They kill birds and happen to be very toxic to the environment for the silicon that is used to create solar panels, as well as wind farms being extremely inefficient and loud.

3) thank you for making a more respectful response on this one. Instead spouting ad hominems and straw an arguments.
If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.
ken1122
Posts: 464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2016 2:38:15 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
I don"t understand the fear of Nuclear weapons; yeah we have enough Nukes to destroy the entire world, but we have enough conventional weapons to do that as well! Nukes do the same thing conventional weapons do; they kill people.

Everybody talks about Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WW-2 because a Nuclear bomb was used and killed lots of people, but nobody talks about what the conventional bombs did in Tokyo during that same war,

The fire bombing of Tokyo killed more people than the Nuclear bombs of both Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Yeah it require a thousand bombs to destroy Tokyo and only one Nuclear bomb to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so Nukes just make it easier; but if (for example) 1 Nuclear bomb equaled a thousand conventional bombs in explosive power, and we replaced each Nuclear bomb we got rid of with a thousand conventional bombs, would anyone feel any safer if we got rid of all Nuclear bombs and replaced their explosive power with conventional bombs?

Ken