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

Resolved:States ought not possess nuclear weapons

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,851 times Debate No: 13337
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




Intro- "Ridding the world of nuclear weapons, like ridding the world of war, is an impossible task, And even if possible, it would be a fool's errand. Nuclear weapons are here to stay and the world is a safer place as a result."
Because I agree with Stephen Chapman, (Columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune) I negate the Resolution: Resolved States ought not to posses nuclear weapons.


States- an organize political community governing a territory. In this case nation.

Ought not- means have the desire or morality to

Possess- have as property or to own

Nuclear Weapons-An explosive device whose destruction potential thrives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting/combining of an atom.

The Value I will be upholding is Safety. A military's first duty is to use forces, usually weapons to protect its country if harmed or perceived threaten. My Criterion is National Security. National and International security is best achieved under the specter of nuclear arms because the threat of annihilation forces all countries to act cautiously. The United States is safer with a nuclear weapon than without it.

1. My first contention is Nuclear Weapons make the world Safe.
A.A nuclear disarmament would threaten US security
I.The Proposal to disarm nuclear weapons is impossible and dangerous. The knowledge required to build nuclear weapons exist and will always exist. Even if countries that now possess were to disarm, other countries would use existing knowledge to develop nuclear capabilities &because though we take away the product we can't the knowledge of knowing how to construct a nuclear weapon. To disarm and fight a war with no nuclear arsenal would be catastrophic for the US.
B.Atomic Bombs are a source of a peace not war according to Chicago political scientist John Mearsheimer because of their deterrent effect.
i. Nuclear weapons are so unimaginably fearsome that no one wants to take the risk of precipitating their use—which makes for peace and stability.
ii.General Butler who was also over the release of Nuclear Weapons says Nuclear weapons are far more effective deterrent to war than all the convention arms on earth could ever be.
2.My Second Contention Is Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to attack
A.The U.S. relies on its nuclear retaliatory capability as a deterrent to attack. (Define)The US know that because we can strike back with Nuclear countries will be discourage to start conflict.
i.Without Nuclear weapons the US would be prone to more conventional war or a war with no nuclear, chemical, or biological weaponry. (This was proved by 2 world wars to be very devastating with World War 1 causing over 11 million deaths including military and civilians and World War 2 causing over 60 million deaths.)
ii.Also abolishing nuclear weapons would not abolish human conflicts. Truth is told humans have always lived under threat of war since the beginning. Nuclear Weapons have merely provoked the anxiety.
B.Nuclear Weapons helps us ensure peace among other nations. As Many other nations acquire ballistic and nuclear technology, the need for nuclear weapons only increases.
i.Groups such as Al Qada who have already claimed they will use Bio and Chemical weapons on the US are sum of the Prime reasons we need our Nuclear Weapons.
ii.Country's Such as Iran who have declared themselves as nuclear states and may pose threat to the US is the reason we need nuclear weapons.
C.To maintain a deterrent the U.S. must not only possess but regularly rebuild weapons due to aging, rubber rot, plastic becoming brittle, material decomposition (High Explosive) decay (tritium) and the glue that holds them together to separate cracks.
3.My final Contention is Nuclear Weapon safety is Improving
A.Through the use of modern computers and nuclear testing, the safety of nuclear weapons is constantly improving.
i.The excellent safety record with nuclear weapons has led scholars, policy-makers, and the public alike to believe that nuclear arsenals can serve as a secure deterrent for the foreseeable future
B.Such improvements are incorporated in New Weapon systems, including better ways to prevent nuclear or non-nuclear explosions caused by accidents or unauthorized tampering.
C.To prevent unauthorized use of nuclear weapons, coded lock, called permissive actions links, are build into each new U.S. nuclear weapon. These Safeguards have become more effective with modern electronics.
4.Margret Thatcher (ExPrime Minister of the UK) said "A world with out nuclear weapons would be highly unstable and more dangerous for all of us"

Quote.What do you mean by have no practical Miltary Use.
First contention. What proof do u you have that states wll be tempted to use them? Heroshima and Nagasaki wasn't and intimidation yet a retaliatio

Second contention:

With this how does this go back to your value of safety if only Russian and USA are in the treaty.

My opponent said there are many other ways to win a war.


I thank my opponent for posting this topic, and I affirm the resolution that Resolved: States ought not to Possess Nuclear Weapons.

Contention 1: Money. Between 1940-1996, the US spent 5.5 trillion dollars on the nuclear weapons program. In addition, 20 million dollars were spent to cover the toxic/radioactive wastes that were produced by the nuclear weapons. This figure does not include the 320 billion dollars that are proposed for future year costs. Of the $5.8 trillion, just seven percent ($409 billion) was spent on developing, testing, and building the actual bombs and warheads. To make those weapons usable by deploying them aboard aircraft, missiles, submarines, and a variety of other delivery systems consumed 56 percent of the total ($3.2 trillion). Another $831 billion (14 percent) was spent on command, control, communications, and intelligence systems dedicated to nuclear weapons. The United States also spent $937 billion (16 percent) on various means of defending against nuclear attack, principally air defense, missile defense, antisubmarine warfare, and civil defense. The amount of money spent on the entire program was obviously extravagant, and the cost of developing nuclear weapons will amount to a large sum of money. The United States is just one example, but as you can see, the cost of developing nuclear weapons is costly, and states should not waste money because the results of using the nuclear weapons will be catastrophic.
Contention 2: Environmental damage. Initial nuclear radiation is defined as the radiation that arrives during the first minute after an explosion, and is mostly gamma radiation and neutron radiation. The level of initial nuclear radiation decreases rapidly with distance from the fireball to where less than one roentgen may be received five miles from ground zero. In addition, initial radiation lasts only as long as nuclear fission occurs in the fireball. Initial nuclear radiation represents about 3 percent of the total energy in a nuclear explosion.Though people close to ground zero may receive lethal doses of radiation, they are concurrently being killed by the blast wave and thermal pulse. In typical nuclear weapons, only a relatively small proportion of deaths and injuries result just from initial radiation. From the explosion itself, millions of lives will be lost.
Debate Round No. 1


lilshaunzy forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the round, therefore I strongly urge a vote for the affirmative.
Debate Round No. 2


lilshaunzy forfeited this round.


My opponent has once again, forfeited the round, so I strongly urge a vote for the affirmative.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by jump 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by starvard 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07