The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Global Nuclear War is Good

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AKMath has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 116327
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




1.Biosphere collapse inevitable " 3 warrants- resource depletion/overpopulation/inequality
Barry 15 [Glen, Glen Barry is a reporter for Scoop Independent News "Biosphere Collapse: The Biggest Economic Bubble Ever" July 19, 2015
The global ecological system is collapsing The biosphere having its constituent ecosystems liquidated for resources. Inequitable overconsumption has achieved such momentum that key ecological planetary boundaries have been surpassed as human numbers went from one to seven billion in a century " can fairly be characterized as willful ecocide.

2.Nuke War solves
Caldwell, 2010 [Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, 2010 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web site .

It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, the pressure for war mounts as the population explodes. Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity with each passing year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels. A third factor motivating global war involves timing. If anyone is motivated to wage global nuclear war and has the means to do so, sooner is very likely better than later. If delayed too long, there may be nothing left to gain. With each passing year, the planet's biodiversity decreases, another two percent of the planet's remaining petroleum reserves are consumed, and the risk of biospheric extinction increases. Once gone, these resources are gone forever. Extinct species will never return, and the planet's fossil fuel reserves, once exhausted, are gone forever. Human industrial activity will consume all of the remaining petroleum reserves and destroy millions of species more, including the larger animal species. For those tempted to wage war, the time to strike is now -- in fifty years there will be nothing left to win.

3.We would survive
Coughlan 13 [Sean, BBC News Education Correspondent, "How are humans going to become extinct?"
Humanity would survive. Nuclear war might cause appalling destruction, but enough individuals could survive to allow the species to continue

4.When we survive, we will pick up the pieces, start anew with a new mindset
Caldwell 2010 (Joseph George Caldwell, PhD, 2010 Joseph George Caldwell. All rights reserved. Posted at Internet web site .

As much as the US government and many environmentalist movements would lead you to believe, nuclear war will not be the end of the world. , it well be the salvation of the world. . After a nuclear war mankind will simply "pick up the pieces" and start to all over again. Unlike previous history, it is likely that economics wouldn"t continue to be the "driver" of man"s progress. A minimal-regret strategy offers a way to do things differently.


Sorry bud but...

I don"t want this whole planet destroyed and in ruins. I don"t want us to be back at square one, with no medicine, technology, diplomacy, etc.

History repeats itself and if this happens, it would happen like the Roman Empire. When it was sacked and captured, the whole empire fell. This pit the whole continent in disarray. There was constant fighting, and they forgot previous known knowledge. Like how to make pottery and glass, how to make medicine and cure diseases, and how to have diplomacy with your enemies. I don"t want humans to be EXCTINCT. The majority of people on Earth don"t have a nuclear bomb shelter. And they"ll DIE. Also what you didn"t think about is that the few that survive the actual bombs, will get ARS within the next 24hrs.
Debate Round No. 1


Biosphere collapse is inevitable our species continues to pillage the planet and one way or another we are going to destroy it. My Barry in 15 evidence is very specific to this. The only way that we can attempt to get rid of our current mindset in relation to the environment and war is ti have a minimal regret strategy to have a nuclear war. The only way we have a chance of surviving is to start an all-out nuclear war! This was my Caldwell in 10 evidence that calls for an all-out nuclear war because it is the only way we can ever shift our consciousness. This Shift in consciousness will "create a world beyond the dichotomy of war" meaning that this will indeed be the ear to end all wars, This will create not only a world where we respect ourselves and other like us but also the environment and other species the we live with. I only need to win four things. 1. In the world of the Con we are all dead form the impending biosphere collapse. 2. The nuclear war stops the biosphere from collapsing. 3. Some form of life will continue to exist on earth. 4. That life will have a peaceful mindset which stops error replication.
Utilitarianism is the only moral framework and is what this debate must be viewed through
Nye, 86 (Joseph S. 1986; Phd Political Science Harvard. University; Served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs; "Nuclear Ethics" pg. 18-19)
an army captain is about to order his men to shoot two peasants lined up against a wall. and tells you that if you will shoot one peasant, he will free the other.. Will you shoot one person with the consequences of saving one, or will you allow both to die but preserve your moral integrity by refusing to play his dirty game? The point is to show the value and limits of both traditions. Integrity is clearly an important value, and many of us would refuse to shoot. But at what point does the principle of not taking an innocent life collapse before the consequentialist burden?
This just means that you should be framing the debate though a lens of Utilitarianism.
Collapse debate
The Con drops that the biosphere will collapse which means that you should be voting Pro now because we must do something to try and prevent the biosphere from collapsing and you also have to grant that there is a 100% chance that the biosphere will collapse, which means we are all dead in the world of the Con. Now the question is that of the Timeframe of Biosphere collapsing which I will get too later.
1.A 7 percent increase of industrialization means we are past the tipping point. Old studies fail, means bio d death assured.
San Francisco University 2012
,The odds are very high that the next global state change will be extremely disruptive to our civilizations., we went from being hunter-gatherers to being moon-walkers during one of the most stable and benign periods in all of Earth"s history. "Once a threshold-induced planetary state shift occurs, there"s no going back. it won"t revert back to the old system. The planet doesn"t have any memory of the old state." These projections contradict the popularly held belief that the extent to which human-induced pressures, are destroying our planet is still debatable, and any collapse would be both gradual and centuries away. we better not exceed the 50 per cent mark of wholesale transformation of Earth"s surface or we won"t be able to delay, never mind avert, a planetary collapse. We"ve already reached the 43 per cent mark through our conversion of landscapes into agricultural and urban areas, , humans have not done anything to stave off the worst

2.Time Frame Magnifier- We must act with quickness " past 2020 all actions are irrelevant and every day past 2015 is playing with fire. We are on the Brink!
Meadows, 14 [Dennis, Dennis Meadows is a co-author of The Limits to Growth. In 1972, was on a team of 66 scientists doing research about the Earth "Peak Energy & Resources, Climate Change, and the Preservation of Knowledge"

Once the peaks occur (between 2015 and 2020) all bets are off: past that point, the predictive ability is not to be relied on because the assumptions on which it relies will no longer be valid." in 1972 we had reached about 85% of Earth"s carrying capacity and today we are about 125%, and every month we delay in getting back within limits erodes Earth"s further ability to tolerate us. ". We have fundamentally altered the nitrogen, carbon and potassium cycles of the planet. It may never go back to an ecosystem in which bipedal mammals with bicameral brains were possible. Or, not for millions of years".

The con also makes a few points that says that they dont want to see the world in such away, however it does not matter what they want as the world will end in 2 years unless there is a global nuclear war. They also say that this would pit the continent in dissary however the continent of north america will be gone thats the point.
They also say that humans will die..... GOOD THATS THE POINT.

Solvency debate

The Con didn"t do any work here other than making a claim that nukes aren"t the best way, but doing that they concede that a nuclear war solves for the biosphere collapsing. So I won"t spend much time here.

1.Spark solves biosphere collapse takes out industrialization a key internal to collapse.
Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014
The candidate minimal-regret population puts an immediate halt to large-scale Industrial activity. It restores the planet"s biosphere as close as possible to the way it was prior to the massive changes brought about by agriculture and industrialization. It raises the likelihood of mankind"s survival back to what it has been for hundreds of thousands of years. It saves the planet for future generations. It restores to all other species the freedom and ability to continue to exist
2.A quick nuclear war is key " actions past 2020 are irrelevant Cross Apply Meadows in 14 from the Collapse Debate

Survivability debate
1.Only .000001% chance of extinction from 150 teragrams of black carbon nuclear winter
Shulman, 12 [Carl, Writer for Overcoming "Nuclear Winter and Human Extinction: Q&A with Luke Oman (Luke Oman was a scientist who studied climate change in the world of a nuclear war in 2007) November 5 2012
The probability I would estimate for the global human population of zero resulting from the 150 Tg of black carbon scenario in our 2007 paper would be in the range of 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 100,000.(.00001% chance of extinction) Biggest population impacts would likely be Northern Hemisphere interior continental regions with relatively smaller impacts possible over Southern Hemisphere island nations like New Zealand.
2.The WHO and Harvard agree " nuclear radiation has no effect on children of survivors
Dallas, 15 [Cham, Professor and director at the Institute for Disaster Management at University of Georgia "How to Survive a Nuclear War" August 16 2015
long-term investigations have concluded there are no statistically significant increases in birth defects resulting in atomic bomb survivors.. A WHO study concluded that there were no differences in rates of mental retardation and emotional problems in Chernobyl radiation-exposed children compared to children in control groups. A Harvard review concluded that there was no substantive proof regarding radiation-induced effects on embryos or fetuses from the accident.
They say ADS but my Dallas in 15 answered that back
Also people in third world countries would be shielded from the majority of the bombs

Mindset shift debate
The Con doesn"t do any work here so grant that there will be a mindset shift after the nukes. I won"t spend much time here either.
CALDWELL 2003 [Joseph George Caldwell, Handbook of Planetary Management,

One of the fascinating aspects of the minimal-regret is the fact that it allows for and promotes both a high-technology society and low-technology societies on the planet. In a minimal-regret-population world, both cultures exist in harmony. Both exist on the same planet in a symbiotic relationship preventing the rise of mass (global) industrialization. and dramatically reduces the likelihood of human-species extinction from catastrophic incident

Look nukes are they best way to do this, they kill indiscriminately and for the most part the people that are hit wont even know what happened.


It's still immoral. And people won't just willingly submit to their government and accept they're going to die by nuclear war.
Debate Round No. 2


The Con continues to not understand this argument at all by arguing that people wont accept it.
But 1. It doesn"t matter if they do or do not accept it, it really doesn"t it needs to happen anyway.
And 2. People accepting it has nothing to do whether or not it is net good.

Then the Con tries to say it is immoral to nuke but the exact opposite is true.

It is morally wrong NOT to Nuke
Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014)//EM

Why is no one nation or group or individual willing to kill to save the environment? That they would probably be defeated is not the answer, because terrorist groups operate every day in support of other causes It"s not because no one believes that the environment is being damaged by human activity " many people do.
But few people are willing to do so for
other reasons, even if they believe that their actions might save the lives of billions in the future.
Ultimately, the choice between saving the tigers and not saving the tigers is the same
choice whether a three-year-old Bangladeshi child lives or dies.


What about all the tons of radiation released into the atmosphere? What about the mass destruction? There would be no life left to make this world great again. What about that. If you nuke everything there won't be anything left to rebuild.
Debate Round No. 3


JUDGES and Con :
If you are in anyway confused by this debate read this overview and then go back and read the debate
This argument is a simple one that I will break down into four parts that I have called 1. The Biosphere Collapse debate 2. The solvency Debate 3. The survivability debate 4. The Mindset Shift debate

So first the Biosphere Collapse debate is simple I am just making the claim that the Biosphere will collapse and every living thing will be extinct in 2020 unless we rapidly deindustrialize. You may personally think that this idea is crazy or I am crazy but that doesn"t matter because the Con doesn"t make those arguments so please don"t make them for the Con and don"t listen to any new arguments they make here in the last round because I do not have another round to respond to them.

The second part is the Solvency Debate. All that is happening here is that I am making the Claim that a global nuclear war is the fairest and quickest way to rapidly deindustrialize. Again you can think I am crazy but that doesn"t matter when the Con never makes any arguments here that says a nuclear war will not solve the collapse. Again please don"t listen to any new arguments the Con makes here either, I don"t get another round to respond to them.

The Third part of the debate is the Survivability debate. Here I make the claim that as long as there is some form of life after the spark then the nukes where good because we did not all die in the collapse that we were going too without the nukes. You can think im crazy but the Con doesn"t make anymore arguments that says we wont survive so don"t make them for the Con. Again please do not let the Con make any new arguments here as I do not get another round to respond to them.

The fourth part of the debate is the simplest and it"s the mindset shift debate. When I was learning this argument it was described to me as this. We know drinking and driving is bad. But we do it anyway just as we know that hurting the biosphere is bad but we do it anyway. Some people may stop when they learn how bad it is but others don"t we still drink and drive and until we get the slap in the face of the kid we just hit die in arms we dong get the message to stop. Will the nukes are just that. A slap in the face that says lets never get to the point where we have to do this again. The Con doesn"t make any arguments here so don"t let them make new when I don"t get another round to do so.

The Con says that nuclear radiation will kill us all but forgets that I already answered this in the second round, that was Dallas in 15. Next they just claim that there will be no life left because of the destruction brought by the nukes however, these are just that claims with no evidence to support it. Now lets break the debate down.
Lets start with the Biosphere collapse debate
1.The Biosphere is going to collapse in 2 years this argument has been all but conceded by the Con meaning you must weigh it as such when judging this debate. You judge may not think it will but that does not matter when the Con does not make that argument.
2.So with the impending collapse of the Biosphere we must do something to curb this or we are all dead.
With that lets move to the Solvency debate
1.This spark or nuclear war will stop the Biosphere from collapsing even if you judge think that is a crazy idea or will not happen it does not matter because the Con never claims that and it is far to late for them to claim it now when I do not get another speech to defend myself.
2.Since this nuclear saves some for of life from the impending collapse that is why nuclear war is good and the Con in their last round did not argue this back so here judges is your easy way out. You should be voting Pro right here The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations, outweighs the Con
Caldwell 2014 (Joseph George. He holds a BS degree in Mathematics from Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and a PhD degree in Statistics from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Can America Survive Published 2014)

Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill almost six billion people, that must
be balanced against the very real possibility that not having such a war may not only
result in the deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of mankind and the
extinction of all other species on the planet
If the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people will
have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the solar system is
expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people indefinitely, that represents
forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that amount of human life inconsequential
compared to the lives of the mere six billion that occupy the planet today?
Next if we go to the Survivability
1.Again the Con makes no arguments that life will not continue post the nuclear war. Which means that even if you judge think I am wrong and that all life would end ( your as crazy as chalko) it doesn"t matter because the Con never makes those arguments
2.Since there is some life after the nukes that means that I have proven that nuclear war is good because without it in 2020 we are all dead

Lastly if we go the mindset shift debate
1.The Con did no work here and drops that there will be a mindset shift post nukes
2.Since there is some form of a mindset shift post nukes that means I have proven that nuclear war is good.

You are voting pro because of four reasons
1.I have proven the four things that I said in my second speech I would have too in order to win
2.The Con drops the Collapse debate which means that even if one germ survives the nukes and longer than two years than the nuclear war was net good when the alternative was to die in 2020
3.The Con drops everything their only argument coming out of the last round is just that radiation might kill us but again I have already answered this in my second speech. The Judge Your easiest way out in the debate is that the Con concedes the collapse and that nuclear war will stop the collapse. So as long as some form of life continues post spark then I have won.

Lastly Do not let the Con make new arguments I don"t get another round to respond to them.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.