Login/Sign Up




Does any country have the right to develop Nuclear Arms?
Politics

silverfire
May 03, 2007
12 votes
10 debaters
5
2
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

7
Yes, If they follow certain guidelines all countries should be able to protect themselves and their


supremebeing
May 04, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
I think NO country should be allowed to have or use nuclear weapons. Why should some countries have WMD’s and others have none? Who would decide who gets to have them??? The U.S…LOL they invade countries based on fictitious reasons…they can’t be trusted.

 
gogopoet
May 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Countries have the right to do whatever they please, so long as they have the military capacity to overpower any dissenters.

 
nullpacket
May 03, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Any sovereign nation has the right to do as it wishes on its own soil.

 
gogopoet
May 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Please note that the debate was framed around the issue of nation's rights, not what nations should or shouldn't do. Until such time as we have an effective world government, all nations remain fully autonomous to the extent that they have not entered into agreements with other nations that have the ability to enforce the treaty terms.

 
gogopoet
May 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: harukio Show

This debate isn't about what they should or shouldn't do. It's about what they have a right to do.

 
silverfire
May 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I vote on this side only because I do firmly believe that unless any and all nations have the right to support nuclear programs and develop nuclear arsenals, then none should be able to.

It's unjust for a few elite nations to control nuclear arms suboordinating all other countries in the world to their will.

It's true that some people/nations could be dangerous if they had possession of nuclear arms, but what right do we have to decide who?

The U.S. is the only nation in the world to actually use nuclear weapos, and that was before they developed the Hydrogen Bomb. Does that mean they are the dangerous ones?

Or maybe Iran... Who's currently trying to develop 'nuclear energy' and many nations feel they should be stopped since they represent a 'threat'

Honestly, no man should have the right to push a button and kill millions of people. I don't think that is ANYONE'S descision to make.

 
chispa60
May 04, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: henthorn Show

Yes henthorn, the purpose of nuclear weapons is pretty much mass destruction and devastation, but to go as far as to declare such a WMD not useful in defense, I disagree.

It pretty much boils down to the phrase "Mutually Assured Destruction" or M.A.D. as they referred to it back during the Cold War.

Yes it is absolutely a waste of time and money but the threat of its use and the genocide of all of humanity is a pretty good defense why tactical nukes are used more often.

Thus by having nukes, a country can protect its interests by means of a proxy that if a countering nation gets to aggressive nukes start flying, people start dying, and the remaining fragments of humanity will have to deal with nuclear winter and radiation poisoning.

The offshoot to producing so many nukes is that it also spurs development into the defense of said nukes (e.g., the Star Wars project, the Anti-Ballistic Missile defense) which unfortunately tips the MAD principle so that either a) other countries develop their own similar defenses or b) launch a first strike to prevent said defense from being operational.

Now the real danger is that if irresponsible (or state willing) countries start losing nukes... that's a real problem. Most nations have a level of self-preservation that stops them from using a nuke on a whim, but if a rogue state (as in a political party) obtains a nuke they are less inclined to be so mindful. After all, if it's just some random group of folks, how in the world are you suppose to retaliate towards them? It's not like you can launch a nuke back at them since the country where they reside might have had nothing to do with their actions.

Personally, I think the level of MAD should really be taken a step further. Hold the world hostage and sue for peace on earth or the sun goes supernova. It's like a peace treaty forced down the throats of those who would rather wage war but don't like the prospect of dying before their enemy is first defeated.

 
ghosto
May 08, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
to all--
Anyone who has studied a modicum of anthropology/human history must realize that the history of man has always included a constant search for better weapons. Man has ever attempted to defend is home and territoy, which obviates a need for the best weapons. It has been a never-ending conquest for superiority of WEAPONS!! Nothing else would make the slightest sense. Given this ingrained trait in man it merely makes sense that he will forever maintain it, be it bows and arrows or nuclear weapons. Nothing could be more natural.
Having said that, I think defensive weapons are ultimately the best and most viable in the weapons climate of today. Anyone may now come into possession of a nuclear weapon of whatever size, so the ability to neutralize these weapons is of paramount importance. Let us hope that all basically good and benevolent nations will spend their energies on defending against the unstable constituents who may get their hands on these weapons.
In summary, if you are not willing to develop the latest weaponry of offensive or defensive nature, then you should plan on being ruled by some other country in the future. A country without viable weapons is defensless.


 
+ Add Argument

5
No, Only an elite few countries should be in charge of all the Nuclear Arms in the world.


harukio
May 03, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
No, nuclear arms should not be developed nor held by ANY country.

 
henthorn
May 04, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: nullpacket Show

Great, do you condone mass genocide and murder of your own citizens (Iraq), starvation of your population so you can pay for your palace (Romania) or persecution and extermination of an entire race for no particular reason (Nazi Germany, Hungary during the first world war, Rwanada, ect. ect ect...)?

The problem with nuclear weapons is that thier purpose is not entirely homeland based. Nor is it really defence.

Well, unless you see 'annialation ot a large chunk of targeted country and giving most of the survivors cancer' a defence strategy. The only reason it's called 'defence' is beacuse saying 'the attack budget' or 'the minister for attack' sounds sort of strange.

 
henthorn
May 05, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: chispa60 Show

"the genocide of all of humanity is a pretty good defense"

Why? It's a big suicide note, end. For everyone. Ever. That's not defence at all, that's lunacy.

"it also spurs development into the defense of said nukes"

Now you're not talking about M.A.D at all - this all goes back to the second policy of the arms race, known as Nuclear Utilisation Targeting Strategy, or NUTS. No longer is it simply a case of 'we can hit you harder', the focus changes to _stopping_ somone else hitting you. In the modern world it's no longer based purely on taking out enemy launching sites and has moved on to 'bullet-with-a-bullet' ABMs or the Star Wars project, the principal is the same - defence _against_ nuclear missiles, not with them.

I'm not even sure I understand your last bit - you say that we cannot hope to use Nukes against rouge organisations, since there is no specific target that represents them or would make reatliation viable, which I completely agree with. But then you say that MAD should be taken further; how will that help? If we can't target them with the nuclear missles stockpiled already, how will having more be any more of a defence?

"Hold the world hostage and sue for peace on earth"

Would you recomend a totallitarian government that supresses its population with fear of death? Spot the difference.

The truth is that nuclear missiles are a redundant weapon for most of the world - powerful countries like the US and the UK will probably never use them again because the enemies this century will not be nations, they will be (and already are) rouge terrorist organisations. Less poweful states will have little luck attacking powerful ones if the anti-nuclear defenses are as good as you seem to think. the only likely use this century is of one less-powerful country against another. But even then, will the goliaths with huge nuclear stockpiles be any defense of threat against them?

The US will not have a nuclear wepon fired at it. It's a redundant form of attack. It's already been proved that if you want to make large areas of a major world city Radioactive, you just need a plastic bag, a British Airways flight and a booking at a Sushi resteraunt.

I move that nobody should be allowed to own nucelar wepons at all. Whilst it is unlikely it could be enforced in the current internation climate, it is the clear logical step - outlaw weapons with huge destructive powers but encourage the development of systems to protect a nation against them.

If MAD really worked then areas with high gun ownership would not have higher rates of shootings than those without. The simple fact is that the more weapons there are, the more dangerous the world becomes.

 
vancam
May 03, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Every country in the world should disarm weapons that have the capability to end life.

Wars should be settled by playing football otherwise known as soccer or The Beautiful Game.



 

May 05, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Nuclear energy is fully justified as it is an economic necessity for development, but nuclear arms are only destructive and should never fall into the arms of militant rogue organizations.

 
henthorn
May 09, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: ghosto Show

"Nothing could be more natural."

I don't know about you, but I'm sure I'm not the only man who feels sexual desire for women with whom it would be innapropriate to commit such acts.
But that's natural.
If you get angry, I'm sure you feel like you want to hit someone/something, and take revenge on people who have hurt you.
But that's natural.
I'm sure most people have been tempted to steal things, to commit crimes, to cheat, to do anything to be better.
But that's natural.

Thing is, there are very few governments spending billions of dollars a year on letting these urges live. In fact, there is a lot of money and social force _against_ the above described things. Why should the urge to build bigger and more destructive weapons be treated any differently?

The greatest human act is to try to be above our animal instincts.

In short, the animal desire to be better than the person standing next to you should not be allowed to translate to weapons capable to killing millions of innocent people. That most certainly is not natural.



 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

britain death government politics uk 2008 2009 9/11 abortion Afghanistan america Arizona AU bad Baha BBC bias Biden boycott Britain bush canada capitalism Censorship cheney children China Christianity church cia Clinton Cold War commonwealth communism Communist congress conservative conservatives conspiracy Constitution Corruption country crime death debate defeat Democracy democrat Democrats detention discrimination drugs economics economy education election elections Ethics EU Europe Euthanasia evil Fascism feminism Fight France Frankie freedom Freedom of speech freedoms french gay Gaza george bush Georgia global global warming goverment government Great Britain Guantanamo Bay guns Health Health Care Healthcare Hillary hillary clinton History Hitler homosexual human rights illegal illegal immigration immigration india iran Iranian presidential election iraq islam Israel japan Jewish juggernaut justice Karl law laws legal legislation liberal lies marijuana marriage mccain media Medicine mexico middle east military monarchy money moral morals Mugabe Muslim Muslims news North Korea nuclear nukes Obama objective Oil opression Osama pakistan Palestine Palin Panda paradox parliament peace petition philosophy policy politicians Politics polygamy power president Prime Minister prisoners protest Public Affairs punishment queen race racism religion republican Republicans revolution right rights Rove russia Saddam Sarkozy Security sex socialism Society South Korea sovereignty Supreme court tax taxes terror terrorism terrorist terrorists Tibet torture Troop U.S. uk un united nations united states us usa vancam vote Votes voting war washington weapons wmd women world wrong