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

Global Nuclear War is Good

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 516 times Debate No: 116331
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
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.


Your whole point is that humanity needs to be reset. While I agree that we are on the verge of collapse, and that we are destroying the environment due to a need of the masses, nuclear war is NOT the way to do it. The effects of nuclear winter would be terrible.
Nuclear radiation would also have terrible effects on the environment. There are better ways we can lower the amount of resources used and protect the planet, and even lower the human population without blowing each other back to the stone age. For example, we could and are working on finding alternative energy resources that would allow for people to harm the environment less. As for overpopulation, which is a problem, we already allow people to have abortions and birth control. That and the will to have less kids nowadays means that humanity has likely reached its peak in population. But think about it, even a new plague would be better than mass destruction. We should find reasonable solutions to these problems, because mass destruction will not fix them, it will just cause more. Sadly, nuclear war may happen soon, and what you want to happen may come true, but that doesn't make me anymore for it.
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
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 says that abortions are good enough for population control however the article I used was from 2015 which means it assumes Roe Vs. Wade and took abortions into account which means that even with abortion and less kids overpopulation is still leading to the collapse of the biosphere
Next the Con says that we can just find alternative energy, but this isn"t good enough for a few reasons, 1. Cross apply meadows here we are all dead by 2020 so we would have to find it by then.
2. There were three reasons that the biosphere will collapse not one so even if alternative energy solves for resource depletion even though it can"t quick enough the biosphere will collapse because of inequality and over population.

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 nuclear radiation but my Dallas in 15 answered that back
They say Nuclear winter but my Shulman in 12 answered that back

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


Nuclear war won't just kill humans. It will damage entire ecosystems and harm lots of other living things. Yes, we will survive, but what is the environmental cost? I understand that you want the world to reset, and for people's mindset on resources and the environment to change, but there are other ways to solve these problems that don't require nuclear weapons. These aren't just regular bombs. These will have a lasting effect on the world. Think about it; if a new deadly virus started killing people off, it would still do less damage to the environment than a nuke. I'm not pro-plague, but the point is simply that there are other solutions to these problems, and even a plague would be a better solution than nukes.

1. Education
By teaching people to appreciate these resources, and give up a few unnecessary resources, we will use less. We could also teach them about the benefits of renewable energy, and how it is the future for both humanity and the environment.

2. A More Careful Use Of Resources
We could simply figure out how to use the resources we have more efficiently.

3. Population Decline(Without the Incineration Of The Masses)
By continuing to allow birth control, and with the urge to have kids being lowered, humanity's population is slowly going down.

4: Recycling
Reusing resources we have already taken.

All of these are ways that we have been trying to improve the planet and continue to improve the planet we live on without mass destruction. Sadly, not all of these methods are perfect, but they still work pretty well, and are much less violent than say the nukes you are talking about. Perhaps improving them could help even more, but they still do work.
Debate Round No. 2


Lets go to the framing debate first.
The Con drops that util should be the lens that this debate is looked at and judged through. So extend my Nye in 86.

Now lets move to the Biosphere Collapse debate.
The Con makes the biggest mistake of the debate here. They drop Meadows in 14, all of the Cons other solutions don"t mean a thing when we are all dead from the impending collapse in 2 years.

They also say abortions again but both meadows in 14 and Barry in 15 assume abortions and still conclude that the biosphere will collapse.

Next if we move to the Solvency of the debate the Con makes a few claims
That a plague would be better, but gives no warranted evidence as to why or even if it would be better.
So extend the Caldwell in 14 that stakes that nukes will solve for the biosphere collapsing

Next on the survivability
They drop both of their claims so extend Dallas in 15 and Shulman in 12 we would survive this nuclear war.

Now on mind setshift
Extend Calwell in 3 only after the nukes can we have harmony

The Con also brings up that nukes have long lasting effects, good that"s the point to scare the survivors into not repeating the actions that brought them here in the first place


Why plague would be better:
Less Direct Destruction To Environment
Increase The Need For Science And Medicine

No apocalypse is good, but I'm just saying, a plague would not have as much destruction, and encourage knowledge in the scientific field for survival. We would survive the war, but what about other organisms we share the planet with? Heavy casualties to them too. We dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but we don't see America, Japan or even other countries worried about the consequences of nukes. So, within about 100 years after or earlier of the disaster, humanity would just go back to killing each other due to our aggressive nature. Nuclear war would reset the world, but it would just be stalling. Society and humanity overall is succeeding in this age, and we simply need to work on more ways to support the environment. Besides, scientists of all kinds are constantly predicting the end of the world due to climate change. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's not as bad as the article says it is. Climate change has always been exaggerated for political reasons, and it is still an issue, just not as much as the pro is saying. I say think long-term and slowly try to improve the environment and the way we treat it. Pro says there will be no long-term because one article says we're all screwed.
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 makes some claims that don"t mean anything in this debate but I will address them anyway.
The first is that I only have once source that the collapse will happen in two years, that"s not true I have many more but I didn"t need to use them when the Con never disputes this claim. Don"t let them dispute it now. I don"t get another round to defend any new args they make.

Next they say a plague is better and give reasons but
1.Less destruction is worse
2.By allowing for science to survive we are still industrialized which is the entire reasons for the spark in the first place

Now in case the Con tries to bring up morals I will preempt them here
Spark first, ethics and morals later. Spark must preclude.
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 adopted approach does not preclude those higher goals, but it
does address the fact that if the planet is destroyed, then the achievement of those higher goals may be impossible. The adopted approach are necessary for) the achievement of higher goals.

A.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?

B.The judge should choose the vision for the world that extends opportunity for future generations, not steal it away for short term gratification.
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)

In the long run, as Keynes noted, we are all dead. In the long run, our sun runs out
of fuel and the biological life of our solar system dies.
In the short run, however, things
do matter. Life is not without meaning and purpose, but you must define the meaning
and purpose. Your life will be defined by the stands that you take.
This planet can
support human society and nature for a few more years, or it can support human society
and nature for several billion years more. The choice is ours.

C.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)

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.

Remember my second round in which I said I had to win four things to prove that nuclear war is good
1.We are all dead from the impending collapse of the biosphere ( I did that the Con never argued different)
2.Nuclear war will stop the biosphere from collapsing ( I did that the Con never argued different)
3.Some form of life will continue after the nukes ( I did that the Con never argues different)
4. That life will have a peaceful mindset towards the plant ( I did that the Con never argues different)

When ever I say they have not argued different they may have done so in the first few rounds but I either
1.Answered it back and they left it there
2.They did not extend it to the next round

You will be voting Pro for four reasons

1.I won all four things I said were needed to win to prove nukes are good
2.The Con"s only argument coming out of the last round is that plagues are better but
a.I proved they are not
b.Even if they are that does not prove that nuclear war is bad. Plagues can be better than nukes and nukes can be good. Both can be true at the same time
3.I am winning the Timeframe debate which means if life is to continue we must try something
4.You have a moral obligation to try save future lives.

See, people always try to claim that we are "Doomed Right Now!" People always want to predict the end of life and humanity. But it is not going to happen as soon as they claim. The Earth is slowly deteriorating due to humans, yes, and that is terrible, but it is not the end of the world just yet. We still have time, and we don't need to bomb ourselves back in time to fix it. When I say a plague would be better, I mean it would cause less destruction. Basically, nuking will do nothing except stall humanity a little and severely damage both the environment and people in the process. By simply working on more environmentally-friendly solutions to problems, and allowing for more birth control, although forced birth control would be terrible, we can save the earth one step at a time. It is what people have been doing recently with more environmental movements, and it is what we shall continue to do in the future. The world is not doomed yet, and nuclear war, although possible, will not solve much. Also, you say we have a moral obligation to try to save future lives. Aren't the lives of actual people who exist now more important than the lives of potential people in the future. You want to kill living people now to save "future" people later. I understand saving future generations, and we can do that without incinerating people in nuclear explosions. What about the survivors. Yes, many would survive, but what would happen to them? They would just restart and continue to waste resources and not care about the environment, probably eventually nuking each other again. Japan lost two cities to nuclear bombs. That doesn't stop them from toying with nuclear energy, which has caused radiation spills in the past. The sheer amount of destruction and consequences of nukes has not stopped people from continuing to keep them loaded and ready to fire if "necessary." Basically, humans will not learn their lesson. They never have, and never will for the most part, even if a few smart cookies realize it. Climate change is sad, and the world sucks in many ways. But it could be a lot worse, and many are working to improve it still. Nukes are not the answer.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Frost_troll 3 years ago
Nye 86 is such a meme card
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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