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

Should we have nuclear weapons

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 8/10/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,012 times Debate No: 36549
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)




The threat is always there. But if someone was to fire a nuclear weapon at America I would fire one back. An eye for an eye. I love this country and I will protect it at all cost. with growing threats from Iran,North Korea, and China. I feel much safer knowing we have nuclear weapons to fire back.(not as an attack weapon)


I accept your challenge. I'll try to convince you that we don't need nuclear weapons at all.
Debate Round No. 1


Nuclear Weapons are necessary because if the U.S gets rid of them, we will be attacked by North Korea, China, or Iran. nuclear weapons should only be a last resort and not as an attack weapon.


Here are my arguments why we should not have nuclear weapons at all :

Nuclear winter
Studies show that a global nuclear war, which would follow if you would start firing nukes as a counter-active measure, would cause a global catastrophic climate change. Not only the countries that are firing the missiles would suffer, but the whole planet would enter a period of low temperature and with almost no chance of actually seeing the sun.

Reference : "The Atmosphere After a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon"

An eye for an eye - the whole world is blind
Killing other countries civilians will not bring our own back to life. Hasn't the past two WW thought us anything, if we continue to use this policy soon the whole planet will be just one big nuclear crater. We only have nuclear weapons for around 5 decades and already look at what immense damage they caused. Look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how many innocent people died and these locations are still inhabitable, because of radioactivity. Mere civilians are not at fault for aggression, leaders of those countries are.

No nuclear weapons - no threat
You have mentioned that we need nuclear weapons to be 'safe', but if we didn't have them at all then we wouldn't need them to use as counter-active measure. Also in past there were instances, when the system recorded fake nuclear alert and Russians where ready to 'fire-back', only by chance one man noticed the alert wasn't real and halted the upcoming nuclear war.

Reference: "The Nuclear War that Almost Happened in 1983" (article)
Debate Round No. 2


I am aganst nuclear warfare. but if the U.S gets rid of the weapons countries like north korea will see this as a weakness and attack.


Thanks for replying again.

The point I'm making is that if we wouldn't have nuclear weapons at all and I mean not U.S. only, I mean globally, there wouldn't be a threat of getting bombed.

Let's try to take a look from the other perspective : U.S. has unfriendly policies against countries like North Korea, while having the bigest army in the world and one of the biggest reserves of nuclear weapons. If you were the leader of a country like North Korea, wouldn't you be afraid that the U.S. could decide one day to make it one country less in the world ? With so many nuclear weapons it wouldn't be hard for the U.S. That's why if we wouldn't have nukes at all, there would no longer be this circle of being afraid of an attack and getting more and more weapons, which in the end would lead to M.A.D. (Mutual assured destruction)
Debate Round No. 3


A world without nuclear weapons would be nice, but sadly the whole world will never get rid of nuclear weapons because we all have different views.


I think we came to an agreement that nuclear weapons are not necessary and a world without them would be much brighter. Sadly as you have said it's unlikely that we'll ever get rid of them, but that should not stop us from trying.

Thank you for the debate and thanks to everyone who's reading this.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by orangemayhem 5 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was so calm and peaceful, it was beautifully refreshing. Kinda ironic in a debate about nuclear weapons... anyhow, Pro didn't really try to refute Con's arguments and kinda just repeated himself a lot, whereas Con had more arguments and tried to refute Pro. Conduct tied. Con takes sources for actually having some. Both sides had somewhat dodgy S/G.
Vote Placed by Chapule 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: both sides of this were weak. i vote as a tie