The Instigator
DrunkHoboSniper
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
Anonymous
Tied
0 Points

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  
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: 12/29/2018 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 879 times Debate No: 119644
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance

Con

No it is not good.

Introduction
The original purpose of this paper was to assess the systemic effects of a limited nuclear war and offer some thoughts regarding the potential health care complications that might result. As work progressed, It became increasingly apparent that research into the direct and immediate impact of war has been, And continues to be, The subject of considerable effort. However, A review of the literature on the consequences of nuclear war revealed few references to social science research. The citations that were uncovered appeared to be confined almost entirely to the application of economic theory to problems of reconstruction. Much of the work was performed in the mid-1960s to mid-1970s and is therefore dated. To our knowledge, Little has been done on such subjects as social response to a warning of nuclear attack; willingness of health care organizations to administer aid under postattack conditions; ability of a moneyless economy to rebuild without the aid of other nations and without a heavy reliance on fuel oils. There is, On the other hand, No shortage of assumptions regarding the nation's institutions, Individual behavior, And the likelihood of social change, None of which have been seriously questioned. As a result, Published projections that implicitly adopt current economic and social arrangements should be questioned as well.

In such a short paper, We cannot pretend to cover the subject of socioeconomic consequences in any depth. However, We do not apologize for raising a wide variety of issues that may frustrate even the most patient reader. We view this as an opportunity to question, Speculate, And entertain possibilities that may not have been previously considered.

Go to:
Warnings Of War
Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is founded on the condition that each side's offensive weaponry surpasses the defensive capability of the other. Deterrence is thought by some to be stable so long as populations and industry remain vulnerable to the destructive capacity of the other side. If one subscribes to MAD, Then it must follow that any movement to reduce vulnerability or enhance offensive capacity heightens the risk of war. Accordingly civil defense could play a dual role. Under ideal circumstances it might reduce casualties, But if thought to be too effective it could also destabilize the arms race, And under certain conditions heighten the potential for misinterpreting intentions.

It is well known that the Soviet Union has invested considerable effort to develop an effective civil defense system. The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) notes that there is sufficient blast-resistant shelter space for the Soviet leadership at all levels (Weinstein, 1981). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) assumes that the Soviet Union would not launch a preemptive strike without first protecting its own citizens (or at least reducing the number of anticipated casualties to tolerable levels), By evacuating the larger cities and population centers proximate to major industrial plants. It is estimated that it would take from 3 to 5 days to complete the process. Such large-scale population movements would be readily detected by U. S. Intelligence sources interpreted as a warning of an impending nuclear strike. One response to this message, Albeit an unlikely one, Would be for the U. S. To launch a first strike directed at the highly vulnerable evacuees. A second, Which was favored for some time by FEMA, Would take advantage of the lead time afforded by the observed movements to relocate 145 million of our own citizens.

This so-called crisis relocation strategy has been roundly criticized for its lack of realism and the fact that only meager resources were devoted to its preplanning. Despite the apparent lack of support at the federal level for crisis relocation, Unplanned evacuations may still be an important factor in determining the number and types of casualties that might be sustained as a direct result of war or indirectly as a product of the evacuation itself. It is interesting to note that the debate over crisis relocation presumes that evacuations are orchestrated primarily by FEMA. However, A spontaneous flight from areas thought to be targeted cannot be precluded, In the event of a sudden escalation in tension between the world's superpowers. It is highly unlikely, For example, That Soviet population movements, Of the scale indicated above, Would escape the attention of the news media. The question which then must be answered is how will U. S. Citizens react? This is an area where lessons learned as a result of studying societal response to natural hazards and warnings, Particularly earthquake prediction, May provide insights.

How people in general and people with disaster response roles respond to information about impending catastrophe has been the target of research for three decades. The findings have been summarized (cf. Mileti, 1975; Williams, 1964) and suggest several principles that would affect the vulnerability of medical and health care systems to nuclear war.

People respond to situations of impending danger on the basis of their situationally defined perceptions of risk, And what they then believe to be appropriate response to those perceptions. Even without official government evacuation plans or sanctioned warnings of an impending nuclear exchange, News regarding related events could lead some people to perceive risk and evacuate to areas thought to be safe. Persons who are responsible for providing postimpact aid, Such as health care professionals, Might be motivated to evacuate personnel and supporting materiel in order to preserve their ability to provide assistance after the attack (cf. Mileti et al. , 1981). Given Abrams' (1984) estimates of medical requirements, It is doubtful whether such behavior would alter the outcome.

Go to:
The Direct And Immediate Impact Of War
The immediate effects of nuclear war, The completeness of the devastation it brings, And the detailed accounting of the expected human suffering have all been the subject of numerous studies. We begin with a war scenario which provides the basis for estimating the demands placed on the medical system, And sets the parameters for determining the direct and indirect economic impacts. The results are then reexamined in the context of what is known about organizational behavior and transformation.

Damage To Cities
Other papers in this volume have touched on many of the direct effects of a limited nuclear war. In order to avoid repetition we will briefly describe the scenario which is used as a point of departure for the issues raised in this paper. The following calculations are based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency's CRP-2B scenario which assumes that the United States is exposed to 6, 559 megatons (Mt) of nuclear explosives targeted primarily at military installations and 250 centers of population exceeding 50, 000.

In the absence of warning and any subsequent evacuation, About 125 million people would be caught within the 2-psi circles (geographic areas which sustain a blast overpressure of 2 pounds per square inch); nearly 58 million would be inside the 15-psi region (Haaland et al. , 1976; p. 20). In preparing the scenario, Defense planners anticipated the delivery of 843 1-Mt warheads. It is estimated that each ground burst would leave a crater 1, 000 feet (about 305 m) in diameter and 200 feet (about 61 m) deep. All structures from the point of detonation to a distance of 0. 6 miles (about 1 km) would be leveled. Within the band between 1. 7 and 2. 7 miles (about 2. 7 and 4. 3 km) (5 psi) only skeletal remains of commercial and residential multistory structures would be observed. The 2-psi circle, Characterized by moderately damaged structures (cracked load-bearing walls, Windowless, Contents blown into the streets), Would reach 4. 7 miles (about 7. 6 km) (Office of Technology Assessment, 1979; pp. 27-31).

Damage to Electronic Systems: Effects of Electromagnetic Pulse
In contrast to the effects of blast and fire, The electromagnetic pulses (EMP), Generated as a result of airbursts, Leave no visible signs. Nonetheless, In theory such pulses could be highly damaging to microcircuitry. Because of the partial test ban treaty (1963) and the highly sensitive nature of EMP to national security, There is little hard evidence to conclude just how much damage might be incurred. However, Recent military interest in new communications technology, Such as the $10 billion MILSTAR project, To protect against the effects of EMP suggests how serious the problem may prove to be. Although much of what is known about EMP either is classified as secret information or is highly speculative, The danger the phenomenon poses is very real. Telecommunications networks, Information processing equipment, And highly sophisticated medical technology would be vulnerable and could be irreparably harmed by such a blast. 1 The problems this pulse poses for electronic equipment are twofold. Electrical power grids would pick up the EMP and transmit a transient spike in voltage to equipment drawing power at the time of the detonation. The rapid rise in voltage would damage microprocessors in a way similar to that resulting from lightning strikes. However, The rise in voltage would be typically 100 times faster, Thereby rendering common surge protectors ineffective. Second, The electronic component itself could pick up the pulse and generate internally induced currents. The result could produce physical damage to the equipment.
Debate Round No. 1
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Round 1 was for acceptance but that"s fine we can just start now

A. Glen Barry writes in 2015 that Biosphere collapse is inevitable " 3 warrants- resource depletion/overpopulation/inequality

http://www. Scoop. Co. Nz/stories/WO1507/S00150/biosphere-collapse-the-biggest-economic-bubble-ever. Htm
The global ecological system is collapsing The biosphere" is 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. .

B. Nuke War solves

Dr. Joseph Caldwell writes in 2010 that poverty, Resource scarcity and overpopulation are mounting pressures that will soon cause a global nuclear war the faster that happens the greater hope to avoid biosphere extinction
Posted at Internet web site http://www. Foundationwebsite. Org

It would appear that global nuclear war will happen very soon, For two main reasons, . First, Human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. . 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.

C. Newshub, Writes in 20018 that life would survive this war
https://www. Newshub. Co. Nz/home/new-zealand/2018/06/what-happens-to-nz-if-global-nuclear-war-breaks-out. Html

Where does New Zealand fit into all this we would likely be spared the worst consequences of all this. Experts say that we'd have little to fear from radiation drifting our way. The most harmful isotopes would decay before reaching our shores, And even fallout drifting over from a potential attack on Australia would likely be blown eastward, Where it would be rained out. It's a similar story when it comes to surface temperature. According to the study, The scenario it's based on would produce a drop of around somewhere between 1 and 1. 5 degrees - nothing to sneeze at, But substantially less than the 5-7 degrees below normal predicted in the centres of North America and in New Zealand, You can still be growing crops

D. Dr. Joseph Caldwell writes in 2018 that when we survive, We will pick up the pieces, Start anew with a new mindset
Posted at Internet web site http://www. Foundationwebsite. Org

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

To address their argument about the unknown socioeconomic effects of a nuclear war the last piece of Caldwell evidence does an amazing job here. It specifically talks about how when the survivors see what is left of the world after the nuclear war that they will change how they do things, So when the Con says things like how it could be the end of economics Caldwell and I both would conclude that that is indeed a good thing.

Next the Con makes an argument about how MAD theory is a thing. That"s fine it doesn"t really matter. MAD theory doesn"t talk about a nuclear war being good or bad it rather discusses why a nuclear war won"t happen. The debate is about if a nuclear war were to happen that it would in fact be good. Not whether or not a nuclear will happen. Im more than happy to have that debate and I will take the stance that nuclear war is inevitable. However even if the Con wins that MAD theory is a thing it is not a reason why the Con wins

Next the Con says that EMP"s would cause damage to electronics and that the nukes themselves would damage cities"". . GOOD the more that are gone the better
All of the Con"s evidence that states how a nuclear war would be destructive goes to the Pro and further proves how a nuclear war would stop the Biosphere from collapsing
Also hold the Con accountable they never claimed extinction in the first round so hold them too that

Con

sorry for not accepting i just went on ahead and started right off the bat my apologies

A. No
B. No
war should not happen
C. No
New Zealand should make a new testimony to no war zones
D. No
wa
Debate Round No. 2
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Im going to do a quick overview then I will break my argument of how Global Nuclear war is good down into four parts
Biosphere collapse debate
Nuclear war solvency debate
Survivability debate
Mindset shift debate
Then I will do a quick underview

Overview.

Biosphere collapse is inevitable " our species continues to pillage the planet and one way or the other 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 to have a minimal regret strategy- to have a nuclear war.
The only way we have a chance of surviving is to start an all our nuclear war! This is my Caldwell 10 evidence that calls for an all our 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 war to end all wars. This will create not only a world we respect ourselves and other like us but the environment and other species that we live with as well.
I only need to win four things. 1. In the world of the Con we are all dead from 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.

Look this debate is a very simple one. The biosphere is going to collapse because of overpopulation, Resource depletion and inequality. A nuclear war would solve these things and that in fact a nuclear would not be the end of the world because life would survive the nuclear war and that their then would be a mindset shift that takes place in the minds of the survivors. Lets break the debate down

Biosphere Collapse Debate:

Look the argument here is that because of overpopulation, Resource depletion and inequality that the biosphere is going to collapse. The Con just says the words no that this won't happen but this isn"t good enough to answer the warrants of the Barry evidence. This means that your going to preferring the Barry evidence since the Con does not provide any evidence as to why those three thing will not cause biosphere collapse.
They haven"t done any work here and until they do I am winning the Collapse debate if they bring up new evidence it justifies new evidence by me as well as arguments such as time frame of the collapse but until that happen I have done enough work to Win the Collapse debate

Solvency Debate:

The argument here is that a nuclear war would solve overpopulation, Inequality and, Resource depletion. They would do this by taking out the industrialized parts of the world I don"t need any evidence to back up my claims here because they Con read this evidence for me in their first round when they said that the nukes would take the cities out and the fact that it would also take out electronics. When the industrialized parts of the world are taken out there are not any factories left to make things that consume resources this means that it solved the collapse. Don"t let them make the argument that there are already enough cars and tech that is already made to trigger the collapse their own evidence has already answered this back because they claimed in the first round that a nuclear war would take out our current tech base.

The Con here again just says the word no. This is not going to be good enough on this question when they literally said that nukes would take out cities and our tech base last round. This means that I am winning the collapse debate
They also say that war should not happen. But if we don"t nuke we will all be dead from the collapse and not just humans will be killed in the collapse it will kill all living things on Earth, We must nuke now to save the planet. I will get to more on the mindset shift question but this war will be the war to end all wars meaning that when the Con says that war is bad and we should not have it the only way to end all current wars and prevent future ones is to vote Pro

Survivability:

They argument here is the fact that a nuclear war will not cause the extinction of life and that there will be life after the nuclear war. The evidence here is extremely good and cites a study that was done that points out that nuclear winter will not affect New Zealand nor radiation even if Australia were to take a direct hit.
They Con just says the word No again but does not give any specifics as to how nuclear war will cause extinction which means that you"re going to be preferring the Pro on this question because I cite studies that prove that we would indeed survive the nuclear war

They also say that New Zealand should make a new testimony to no war zones this is literally unresponsive to the question of whether or not nuclear war is good or bad and does nothing to resolve the question of biosphere collapse. In fact if anything it makes it harder for a nuclear war to occur ensuring the death of all life on earth because of the collapse.

Mindset shift:

Look the argument here is that after the war people will see the error of their ways which means the nuclear war stops error replication and to address their question of war being bad"

Dr. Caldwell writes in 2003 that nuclear war will be the war to end all wars as well as ending poverty.
On the foundation website

In the synarchic minimal-regret population, There is no global poverty and no global war. There is no global disease: the risk of a planetary epidemic is minimized, There is no global famine. The scourges of civilization " plague, Famine, And war " are eliminated.
(the Minimal regret population is the survivors of the nuclear war)

They Con just says no but this is not good enough they didn"t provide a reason as to why the nuclear war wouldn"t cause a mindset shift

Underview:

Biodiversity collapse is the largest impact in the debate. In a world of extinction no other impact matters. Life is a pre-requisite to other impacts and the focus of stopping bio d collapse is the only impact that matters.

Caldwell writes in 2014 Nukes first, Ethics and morals later. Nukes must preclude.
From the book 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.

The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations Caldwell writes in his book Can America Survive the following

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

In the End you should vote for the Side the extends life for future generations and not steal it away for short term gratification Caldwell writes in his book Can America survive

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.

Con

sorry can you repeat that
Debate Round No. 3
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

NOTE: IMPORTANT STUFF IN BRAKETS

[To save my self time I'll just copy and paste but the Con concedes literally everything They concede biosphere collapse so I win that They concede nuke war solved the collapse so I win that They concede that we would survive so I win that They concede mindset shift so I win that Those were the four things that I said I needed to win in order to win the debate and I just won all four you should be voting pro. That being said the Con asks me to repeat so]

Im going to do a quick overview then I will break my argument of how Global Nuclear war is good down into four parts
Biosphere collapse debate
Nuclear war solvency debate
Survivability debate
Mindset shift debate
Then I will do a quick underview

Overview.

Biosphere collapse is inevitable " our species continues to pillage the planet and one way or the other 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 to have a minimal regret strategy- to have a nuclear war.
The only way we have a chance of surviving is to start an all our nuclear war! This is my Caldwell 10 evidence that calls for an all our 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 war to end all wars. This will create not only a world we respect ourselves and other like us but the environment and other species that we live with as well.
I only need to win four things. 1. In the world of the Con we are all dead from 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.

Look this debate is a very simple one. The biosphere is going to collapse because of overpopulation, Resource depletion and inequality. A nuclear war would solve these things and that in fact a nuclear would not be the end of the world because life would survive the nuclear war and that their then would be a mindset shift that takes place in the minds of the survivors. Lets break the debate down

Biosphere Collapse Debate:

Look the argument here is that because of overpopulation, Resource depletion and inequality that the biosphere is going to collapse. The Con just says the words no that this won't happen but this isn"t good enough to answer the warrants of the Barry evidence. This means that your going to preferring the Barry evidence since the Con does not provide any evidence as to why those three thing will not cause biosphere collapse.
They haven"t done any work here and until they do I am winning the Collapse debate if they bring up new evidence it justifies new evidence by me as well as arguments such as time frame of the collapse but until that happen I have done enough work to Win the Collapse debate

Solvency Debate:

The argument here is that a nuclear war would solve overpopulation, Inequality and, Resource depletion. They would do this by taking out the industrialized parts of the world I don"t need any evidence to back up my claims here because they Con read this evidence for me in their first round when they said that the nukes would take the cities out and the fact that it would also take out electronics. When the industrialized parts of the world are taken out there are not any factories left to make things that consume resources this means that it solved the collapse. Don"t let them make the argument that there are already enough cars and tech that is already made to trigger the collapse their own evidence has already answered this back because they claimed in the first round that a nuclear war would take out our current tech base.

The Con here again just says the word no. This is not going to be good enough on this question when they literally said that nukes would take out cities and our tech base last round. This means that I am winning the collapse debate
They also say that war should not happen. But if we don"t nuke we will all be dead from the collapse and not just humans will be killed in the collapse it will kill all living things on Earth, We must nuke now to save the planet. I will get to more on the mindset shift question but this war will be the war to end all wars meaning that when the Con says that war is bad and we should not have it the only way to end all current wars and prevent future ones is to vote Pro

Survivability:

They argument here is the fact that a nuclear war will not cause the extinction of life and that there will be life after the nuclear war. The evidence here is extremely good and cites a study that was done that points out that nuclear winter will not affect New Zealand nor radiation even if Australia were to take a direct hit.
They Con just says the word No again but does not give any specifics as to how nuclear war will cause extinction which means that you"re going to be preferring the Pro on this question because I cite studies that prove that we would indeed survive the nuclear war

They also say that New Zealand should make a new testimony to no war zones this is literally unresponsive to the question of whether or not nuclear war is good or bad and does nothing to resolve the question of biosphere collapse. In fact if anything it makes it harder for a nuclear war to occur ensuring the death of all life on earth because of the collapse.

Mindset shift:

Look the argument here is that after the war people will see the error of their ways which means the nuclear war stops error replication and to address their question of war being bad"

Dr. Caldwell writes in 2003 that nuclear war will be the war to end all wars as well as ending poverty.
On the foundation website

In the synarchic minimal-regret population, There is no global poverty and no global war. There is no global disease: the risk of a planetary epidemic is minimized, There is no global famine. The scourges of civilization " plague, Famine, And war " are eliminated.
(the Minimal regret population is the survivors of the nuclear war)

They Con just says no but this is not good enough they didn"t provide a reason as to why the nuclear war wouldn"t cause a mindset shift

Underview:

Biodiversity collapse is the largest impact in the debate. In a world of extinction no other impact matters. Life is a pre-requisite to other impacts and the focus of stopping bio d collapse is the only impact that matters.

Caldwell writes in 2014 Nukes first, Ethics and morals later. Nukes must preclude.
From the book 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.

The Pro is the only side that guarantees future generations Caldwell writes in his book Can America Survive the following

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

In the End you should vote for the Side the extends life for future generations and not steal it away for short term gratification Caldwell writes in his book Can America survive

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.

Con

too lazy to read all of that dude ;o
Debate Round No. 4
DrunkHoboSniper

Pro

Look the Con concedes. Don't let then bring up new arguments I don't get another round to answer them.
I won all four things I said I would have too.

This debate is a single one. In the world of the con we are all dead from the biosphere collapse and in the world of the Pro a nuclear war will stop the biosphere from collapsing even though it might kill billions of people it is still a better option. Every one who dies in the nuclear war would have died when the biosphere collapses. You should vote for the side the allows for more life to continue longer and that is the Pro
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
valganis
A Nuclear War; this will result in. . .
1. Global Anarchy
2. Nuclear Fallout
3. Irreversible planetary-level destruction.
4. Deadly nuclear winds saturating the globe.
5. Inevitable human extinction.
Posted by Anonymous 3 years ago
DrunkHoboSniper
Sorry this debate is a simple one*
Not a single one
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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