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

Should Chemical Weapons Be Banned?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NotAnAtheist519 has forfeited round #1.
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: 1/31/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 388 times Debate No: 99480
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)




After the cold war, the U.S. and many other countries part of the U.N. signed a treaty stating that they will not store or use chemical weapons. Most of us know however, that some countries that signed that document did not get rid of those weapons completely, the U.S. included. However, I am here to tell you why chemical weapons are necessary to keep fear in our enemies if they do the same to us.

It is important to realize that I believe that chemical weapons or Weapons of Mass destruction are inherently evil. Although, I also believe that they are a necessary evil. It is important to have these weapons in order to establish, "fear of retaliation with equal force," (Otis Kramer). These weapons maintain a temporary order if we point them at each other. They are also important as if we go to another world war, they could cause a surrender, even without the use or firing of a missile or capsule. Are enemies also use this effectively because they understand how this will keep fear in our enemies, "developed weapons of mass death; it has used them against innocent men, women, and children," (George W. Bush). This concept is necessary if we are to understand how modern cold wars work.

Now, not only is this tactic being used, it is being used effectively. The former U.S. president Barack Obama once said "that the use of chemical weapons could change the U.S. response to the Syrian civil war," ( Originally, the United States was going to stay out of the war and supply the armies. What Obama was saying, was that we might send in soldiers to Syria if the use of chemical weapons becomes evident. These weapons were used starting back to the cold war, when the U.S. and Russia as well as several other countries stockpiled and threatened to launch those weapons of mass destruction. This is clearly explained by, "The cold war period saw significant development, manufacture, and stockpiling of chemical weapons," ( Though, right after the cold war, the U.N. signed a treaty to not stockpile or use chemical weapons. Well, not everyone agreed to that. And I agree with not taking away those chemical weapons. That"s what my essay is about.
This round has not been posted yet.
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
No comments have been posted on this debate.
This debate has 4 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.