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

Nuclear Weapons have benefited humanity

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
Jakarta has forfeited round #2.
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: 1/5/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 385 times Debate No: 106404
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




When the first nuclear bombs were used in warfare it lead to the surrender of Japan in less than one month and since we have had a unprecedented period of peace with no war between the top economies of the world for seventy years due mostly in part to the existence of Nuclear Weapons and MAD, or Mutually Assured Destruction. One of the most tense standoffs between in history, The Cold War would have surely escalated to warfare if not for MAD.


nuclear WMDs are horrible they have simply led to the ever-present fear that a spiteful authoritarian regime will simply decide to destroy the world. yes, you are correct it did lead to the surrender of Japan in world war 2 but today many people live in fear that they will simply be blown away by the blast that can be caused by a push of a button. but the problem can be solved we can lead more peaceful and less fearful lives all we need is total de-proliferation and complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, though it would need all of them to be destroyed, and for all countries to sign a treaty that they face complete eradication if they were to take any steps to make or research nuclear weapons. of, course there are some caveats to the most perfect of plans, this only has a few: of course, lets take the example of Iran the united states has a treaty with them and it requires nuclear inspectors to confirm destruction of nuclear weapons, of course, this does take several years, and this does take commitment on both parts; then there is the fact that they may hide income evavisly secretive but that would simply be solved by the oversight of inspectors and dedicated administrators; then there is the fact that well " they won't be able to enforce it if they don't have nuclear weapons" well the fact is simple we can't that's why it would take global effort and commitment. now many of you might be saying well it does help keep a stable world but the world will be more stable and safe if this is achieved. also, there are other ways to end wars: simply using other bombs; diplomatic pressure; military intervention; invasion; simple negotiations. yes, mutually assured destruction is very real and present today so to keep the world safer for the future we must bring an end to the nuclear weapons. we can't mutually assure destruction if there are no nukes to destroy with. now it may seem that it's impossible and it's really close but if we work together, if we work for the future we can get total disarmament and stop the spread of militarization.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nd2400 3 years ago
Until someone lunch one, Then who benefits?
This debate has 2 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.