Login/Sign Up




Is it just for the U.S. to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat?
Politics

thethinker
Aug 13, 2007
10 votes
8 debaters
3


+ Add Argument

6
Yes


vancam
Aug 13, 2007
2 convinced
Rebuttal
If the damage they cause to stop the prolifferation of nuclear weapons is within acceptable internationally recognized ethical and legal boundaries then yes.

Stopping nuclear prolifferation should be something the whole world takes part in and supports.

 
vancam
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The USA shouldn't (and doesn't) have to work against nuclear proliferation alone.

 
thewhitedwarf
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
this couldn't possibly be a potential ld topic, could it?

In short, it depends. As I have argued elsewhere on this form,
unipolar hegemony is better than multipolar hegemony. But, the
extent of that hegemony and the projection of soft power
(influence, etc.) would necessarily make an important factor in
deciding that.

 
donmega
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

Mutually Assured Destruction left with the Cold War.

 
vancam
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Yes this is why more countries have to join the effort of non proliferation. The matter of "force" must be within UN guidlines (i.e. after the inspectors have tried their best) and with UN agrement.

The current US admin and policy choices are not a good example of how it should be done. But with the right administration (neither a Rep or Dem one) the USA could actually do a lot of good.

Unfortunately they keep electing the same people. The two party system is seriously undermining their ability to make good moral choices against profitable unethical ones.

 
vancam
Aug 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

Not more countries sorry, I should have said all countries... it is the UN right!?!?

 
vancam
Aug 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

I think that it would be the only way to start a devolution of nuclear weapons. So stop production and start dismantling.

 
vancam
Aug 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thales Show

It comes down to this. I don't think the US should use force but I don't think they should get slammed for trying to decrease the number of nuclear weapons that other countries have.

The problem is they are doing it for hegemony and not because they want to start the proccess of nuclear devolution.

So that is why I stated that they can't use force within the confines of ewither of their political parties at present (dems and reps) because they wouldn't be doing it for the right reasons.

But if another party (green party for instance) came to power and used force to get rid of all nuclear weapons including their own then I would be all for it.

Obviously that's not going to happen. So the only other way is to have a unified agreement that all countries will devolve their nuclear weapons proccess to nothing and any nations failing to submit to that should be forcfully made to.

 
booyakasha
Aug 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

Other countries can't have nukes because they are untrustworthy!!! We invented the bomb, it's an American device whether you like it or not. That's why Germany doesn't have the Bomb - they're untrustworthy peoples. You cannot let people like Kim have the bomb. He's out of his mind!! And Iran is way too iffy. Iran works much like Medieval Europe. Can you imagine what countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt would do if Iran got a nuke? So in your idiotic mind do you think that since America has the bomb, every single country in the world should??? I'm sorry, but that is an unrealistic, naive and just plain stupid train of thought.

 
booyakasha
Aug 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

No American president would use nukes unless the US was nuked. Could you imagine the backlash the US would suffer if it nuked Tehran? And I don't believe that Bush is trustworthy, but I know he's at least smart enough to avoid preemptive nuclear war. And at least the US, as oppose to Iran, has a democracy as well as checks and balances. I guarantee any US president that uses unprovocted nuclear force would be in serious trouble. He or she would most likely face war crimes. And the thing about the US is that we don't even need to use nukes. Our military is so far ahead of any other armed force on earth that all we need are cruise missles. If we wanted to wage war on Iran, we would crush their infrastructure with "precision" bombs. And the US doesn't support terrorism like Iran does. What if Iran supplied Hezbollah with a nuke?

 
booyakasha
Aug 16, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

I don't think one country should have nukes, but I think there are some countries that can be trusted with nukes and others that cannot. The US directly supplied three countries with nukes - France, Israel and GB. When was the last time a leader of those three countries made remarks infering genocide on a race? Iran's president wants the Jews destroyed. Like I said, if Iran acquired nukes, the other Muslim countries, especially the Sunni ones, would be dead-set on acquiring them.

 
shypanda
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thethinker Show

I think that "Nuclear Hegemony" went out the window the second that the following nations got the bomb...
Soviet Union
People's Republic of China
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea)
Israel
Pakistan
India

And to an arguably lesser extent.
Great Britain
France

Seeing as how three of those top nations were considered enemies of the United States at one point (declared or perceived) the argument for a nuclear hegemony when right out the window.

The problems lie in the intentions and the strategic theory that each nation uses. When you have no real way to truly know your opponents strategic theory then it is often times too dangerous to sit idly by.

 
shypanda
Feb 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Thank God huh? Awesome how something bad (nuke) can be used to fight something else bad (war) to produce something good (peace)... and something else awesome (American global dominance)

That last one was for you Van. ;-P

 
shypanda
Feb 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Oh come on, that was Ricky Gervais... though you Brits all liked him.

 
+ Add Argument

4
No


vancam
Aug 15, 2007
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

HAHAHAHAHA, So you think Bush is "trustworthy people"?



 
thethinker
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
This is nuclear hegemony! Why is it that America can have nukes when others can't, when they are not even at war? Military threat is mutual, so why is it that when other nations try to attack the US we call it unjust, and when we attack others for having nuclear weapon we call it just?

 
thethinker
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
People die more when there is war, and there hasn't been a large-scale war ie world war (political leaders were smart enough to keep it from happening) after nuclear weapons were invented. Aquisition actually prevents war rather than promote it, and to attack is selfish and obviously hegemonic.

 
thethinker
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: donmega Show

Yup. MAD is good though, because w/o it Pakistan and India would have gone to bigger wars and probably more often

 
thethinker
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thewhitedwarf Show

This is a possible LD topic, yes. And very likely.
I am not arguing for multilateral hegemony. I argue that hegemony is bad. And the prevention of the big-brother-will-kill-you-if-you-don't-obey-me-world comes from a balanced power (ok guys is this annoying?) and therefore it is unjust to prevent it.

 
thethinker
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Look at America, the biggest nuke power.

 
thales
Aug 13, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I have to say no, just based on the question construction. It suggests that it's cool for our friends to have nukes, but no one else.

Either we're serious about stopping nuclear proliferation, or we're running a popularity contest.

 
thales
Aug 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

And you think that bringing more countries in would make it LESS of a popularity contest? Are you arguing that if enough other countries think that a given one shouldn't get nuclear weapons, they'll be right?

 
thales
Aug 14, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

It is, but I'm guessing you're not actually trying to suggest that ALL countries should practice military intervention to prevent some (presumably extraterrestrial?) country from developing nuclear weapons... And I don't think you'll get "all" of anyone on board with the "Stop production" part as long as some countries already have them and some don't.

 
thethinker
Aug 15, 2007
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

So only one coutry should have it... that is definitely unjust because that would establish hegemony, which means slavery and oppression on a global scale, and it doesn't matter if it's practical, the debate is about whther or not it is just.

 
demontheses
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In the defense of a Hegemony it does not always lead to global suppression. Although I do agree on the point that one country cannot create a hegemony through fear of a means to destroy any opposition.

 
shypanda
Feb 26, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

"The US directly supplied three countries with nukes - France, Israel and GB."

Technically we don't KNOW that Israel has nukes, we all just assume... but it does.

 
vancam
Feb 27, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

"No American president would use nukes unless the US was nuked."

Apart from that one time...



















.... oh, and that other one time....























.... the only two times nuclear weapons have EVER been used in the history of warfare.

 
shypanda
Feb 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: booyakasha Show

Van kinda has you on this one... sorry.

 
vancam
Feb 28, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: shypanda Show

A smile...


:)


...but no convince for you today.

 


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