This is meant for geeogree and septembern to debate. Feel free to read and follow up on the debate, but don't post in here until the debate round is ended, unless you are either geeogree or septembern. [edit by geeogree] If anyone posts in here before we're done debating I will ban them from this forum until we're done [/edit]

Current Topic: Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.

((You may notice if you are a debater that we are doing the current LD topic ))

Geeogree is for the affirmative. (States ought not possess nuclear weapons)

Septembern is for the negative. (States ought possess nuclear weapons)



geeogree : You start because you are for the affirmative.

Well, I think the first and most obvious argument for states not having nuclear weapons would be the destructive power that each bomb has. Being able to kill 100,000+ people with a single bomb is far too much power for any country to wield. And countries that have these weapons have more than 1 of them which means the destructive power combined heads into the millions of people if they were to be launched.

Second reason why states should not possess nuclear weapons is the idea of mutually assured destruction. I concede that it may have prevented a war or 2 between the United States and the Soviet Union during the cold war, but if the idea were to actually come into play it would result in catastrophic loss of life. While it may prevent full scale war to occur the risk of more than a few nuclear bombs being dropped/launched is too great a risk to the world.

Third, when the Soviet Union dissolved it's nuclear arsenal was divided up among the resulting nations based primarily on silo location. This means that there are now quite a few more countries that possess these weapons than there used to be. These countries have weak governments at best and local conflicts could lead to the use of some in the future.

Fourth, along with the previous argument.... there are suspicions that weapons in these newly formed countries that have gone missing and are now under the control of other governments or rogue terrorist groups. This is a huge threat to the security of people all over the world. These groups are not dissuaded by an idea like mutually assured destruction because they hold no political or social boundaries that can be easily defined.

Fifth, nuclear weapons only destroy. They have no other purpose. They can't be used to build things or create or grow or develop. All they do is ruin and destroy. Why we would want something like that in our society is something I can't understand. The entire world would be better off if these weapons were all destroyed for good and the technology and methods to create more destroyed as well.

septembern - you are up

First I will define my terms, do the rebuttle, then say my points.

First of all, I'll clear up some definitions.
"States ought not possess nuclear weapons"

In this statement ought implies a moral obligation for states not to have nuclear weapons.
For your first point, Yes they would have the power to kill, not only millions, but billions of people. This is so destructive, that having them would keep the two countries fighting to not use the nuclear weapons at all costs. They would only fight with men, because they would not want to be nuked. They would not violate the non-proliferation treaty, These facts can be seen as true, because nuclear bombs have been here nearly 70 years, and they have not been used the last 65 years.

For your second point. What is fallacious with what you said is how it "might" come into play. It will never come into play, because the terrorist groups themselves would take the risk of their extermination by launching a nuclear bomb.

The countries that have weak governments at the moment don't have nuclear weapons. It would take a strong government with much dedication towards the sciences to create nuclear weapons. that's why only nine countries have nuclear weapons so far. All the countries with nuclear weapons have strong government and one of them is even a dictatorship. The chances of any weak governments getting the knowledge of nuclear weapons is nearly none.

There are no fairly new countries with nuclear weapons that were part of the Soviet Union. Russia is the only one with the nuclear weapons. Suspicions do not have enough support to defend your position. If the new countries had nuclear weapons then they'd have used in on 9/11/2001, when U.S. was at it's weakest (They would, because we were against them in the cold war). It's been 20 years and they haven't done anything with the many chances that they could. The longer they wait, the more technologically advanced every other country becomes in their missle defense and it would be silly to wait any longer.

Fifth, yes, nuclear weapons can only destroy, but they do have other purposes which can benefit people and save lives. They can be used to stop not only oil leaks with their power, but they also can be used to save people's lives. In Hiroshima, by using the atomic bomb the U.S saved many people's lives, because the Japanese were planning to have an apocalyptic war and fight till they all were dead.

Now for my points.

As I stated before, nuclear weapons allow smaller countries to be autonomous. Their freedom depends on them having nuclear weapons. Isreal for instance, could not have their freedom today if they did not have nuclear weapons.

Second. Nuclear weapons could possibly help us in the unlikely, but possible invasion of aliens/life forms etc. It may even be used in a dead volcano on Mars to terriform it's surface and make it habitable for people to live on.

Third. If all the strong nations stop having nuclear weapons, then if a country secretly keeps producing them. It could possibly take over the world with the threat of shooting them at each and every country. All countries having nuclear weapons create a balance that stops each individual country from firing a nuclear bomb at each other.

Fourth. Yes, you are right. More countries will develope nuclear bombs in the future, but don't forget. The first atomic bomb was created in the 1940s, soon nuclear bombs could be obsolete in a few years when more countries gets the technology, because scientists will have found a way to destroy them before they even come near the country with satellites and ground systems. And remember. In more than 70 years, only 9 nations have found out the secret behind nuclear weapons. By the time many more come it is sure that they will be obsolete as I stated above.

Fifth. Nuclear Bombs can raise technology. Yes. Nuclear weapons can be studied and technological discoveries can be made through more research. If more technology can be made, then nuclear weapons are actually helping us overall.

I conclude my argument.


geeogree : Your turn

I don't think any country should have nuclear weapons of any sort, this is because if one gets mad because of something they could nuke us and destroy many states (or a country, depending on where you live). If we retaliate, they will retaliate back, and it will become a nuclear apocalypse and it will most likely destroy all life on earth. Now although I like the game Fallout, I don't want to live it, thank you very much.

jmc1097 : Your argument is very weak on the fact that you didn't and can't retaliate on any of the points I said earlier.

If you had read my earlier post you would have seen this.

originally said by septembern

---

For your first point, Yes they would have the power to kill, not only millions, but billions of people. This is so destructive, that having them would keep the two countries fighting to not use the nuclear weapons at all costs. They would only fight with men, because they would not want to be nuked. They would not violate the non-proliferation treaty, These facts can be seen as true, because nuclear bombs have been here nearly 70 years, and they have not been used the last 65 years.

---

All of the info is right there. No country will send a nuclear weapon at another country, because they themselves don't want to be nuked. Ever heard of the deterrence theory? You should, because it comes into play here, because no country wants themselves to be nuked, so they won't take the chance of sending nukes out.

jmc1097 :
geeogree :

One of you is next

the deterrence only works if the country they are attacking has nukes, or if the attacker can be defined by a location.

Do you honestly think if Bin Laden or some other terrorist were to nuke the US that the US would just nuke some place they thought Bin Laden might be?

I'm not saying it's likely that Bin Laden has nukes... but unless you know for sure where the nuke came from then the deterrence isn't there.

Plus, the risk that someone might nuke another part of the world is a big enough reason to get rid of nukes. What's the point in having nukes if all they do is deter the use of nukes? Why not simply get rid of all of them? That would make the world safer than still having nukes.

geeogree-

"Do you honestly think if Bin Laden or some other terrorist were to nuke the US" "I'm not saying it's likely that Bin Laden has nukes... "

Let's stop right there. First of all, Bin Laden or any other terrorist doesn't have any nuclear or even atomic weapons at this point. They probably never will, but that is not the point. All we know at this point is that they have no nuclear weapons. Since they don't have nukes, we don't even need to consider that possibility, it's simply off-topic.

Also, your statement was totally off of the debate. You are debating whether "states" (nations) should have nuclear weapons. Not terrorists. Not cities. Not some guy who wants to rule the world. States. Terrorists do not have total control over any single country, and Bin Laden is just a person, not a country.

"What's the point in having nukes if all they do is deter the use of nukes?"
Aha! That's exactly what I needed you to say. That's the main principle of my whole argument. Nuclear weapons keep smaller nations autonomous. If people were not in the doubt whether Israel had nuclear weapons, then Isreal would probably already be at war. There is already a country that would like it "wiped off the map". Nuclear weapons keep the smaller states safe since they can deter the use of other nukes. If there were no nukes then all the larger countries would invade the smaller ones. That just proves your "That would make the world safer than still having nukes" wrong.

I guess I just proved all your comments wrong

geeogree :
jmc1097 :

whatever.... I'm trashing this now.