Login/Sign Up




Nuclear Weapons
Society

3pointer
May 29, 2008
2 votes
5 debaters
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

2
WE should disarm all of/many of our nukes


postfloyd
May 30, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Perhaps we can't get the rest of the world to follow our lead in aboloshing nukes. We have to at least try to set the example.

 
3pointer
May 30, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
if we got rid of our nukes it would be a start for a better world.

 
3pointer
May 29, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I believe the US should disarm every war head we have stockpiled in our silos of paranoia. There is no need of them.

 
3pointer
May 29, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
We have the distinction of being the first nation to develop nuclear weapons. We at one time had 32,193 war heads in stockpile. Why? who knows. kinda scary. actually more than kinda. Currently, we control 5,535 warheads. A little better, still scary as hell. And have you heard of the accidents in our country concerning these dooms-day makers?

Weapons accidentally dropped by the United States include incidents near Atlantic City, New Jersey (1957), Savannah, Georgia (1958) (see Tybee Bomb), Goldsboro, North Carolina (1961), off the coast of Okinawa (1965), in the sea near Palomares, Spain (1966, see Palomares hydrogen bombs incident), and near Thule, Greenland (1968). In some of these cases (such as Palomares), the explosive system of the fission weapon discharged, but did not trigger a nuclear chain reaction (safety features prevent this from easily happening), but did disperse hazardous nuclear materials across wide areas, necessitating expensive cleanup endeavors. Eleven American nuclear warheads are thought to be lost and unrecovered, primarily in submarine accidents.
The nuclear testing program resulted in a number of cases of fallout dispersion onto populated areas. The most significant of these was the Castle Bravo test, which spread radioactive ash over an area of over one hundred miles, including a number of populated islands. The populations of the islands were evacuated but not before suffering radiation burns. They would later suffer long-term effects, such as birth defects and increased cancer risk. There were also instances during the nuclear testing program in which soldiers were exposed to overly high levels of radiation, which grew into a major scandal in the 1970s and 1980s, as many soldiers later suffered from what were claimed to be diseases caused by their exposures.


 
3pointer
May 29, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

What WMD are you talking about in Iraq? they STILL havent found any. Now Saddam was using nerve gas on the Kurds, but he did not have the technology to make ICBM's.

 
3pointer
May 29, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Now i am talking about OUR country…should the US disarm our OWN weapons.

 
3pointer
May 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
You talk about the "leverage" and be vulnerable to large scale attacks. Ok, well what happened if there was a large scale attack on our soil, i.e. some country nuked Washington D.C. If we still had nukes, what would we do, use them? if the country had many nukes, such as russia, china, or india, then they would surely retaliate. The we would attack them again, and by now other countries may have entered the conflict. Then we all die from radiation. so if we use nukes on anybody, bad things will follow, guaranteed.

 
3pointer
May 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I believe it is very hypocritical for us to tell other nations to destroy all their nukes when we have thousands stockpiled. If we are gonna play nuke police we need to lead by example, not build as many as we can, pull up the ladder and then point and laugh at others.

 
vancam
Jun 01, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation_Treaty

 
3pointer
Jun 01, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I used this in one of my other debates:

Let me use an analogy here. Ok, how about we use
the little game Rock-Paper-Scissors as a metaphor
for life. So, 'life' goes on where you win some
and u lose some and there are 'wars.' But then
some smart-alec kid (the US) comes up with the
idea of using 'Dynamite'(nuke) instead of rock or
paper or scissors. As i am sure you know, the
dynamite beats everything else. So other little
kids (russia, China, India, UK) start to use
dynamite when they play Rock Paper scissors with
other kids. pretty soon, everyone uses dynamite
instead of the generic objects and the game is
totally ruined. After awhile, the original kid
tries to get everyone to stop using dynamite in
the game, even though he still uses it. Of
course, no one listens to him and calls him a
hypocrite. So he then gets the idea to stop using
dynamite and then telling other people to stop.
Now, he may be the subject of the others ridicule,
but other kids respect his position and they
decide to follow his lead. Soon, more and more
follow suit and soon everyone has stopped using
dynamite and the game is returned to the fun it
used to be. And that is why we should disarm our
nukes. :)



 
+ Add Argument

0
of course we are gonna keep them


frankiej4189
May 29, 2008
1 convinced
Rebuttal
1. If you only disarm SOME of them, it kinda defeats the purpose of disarming any of them at all right?

2. It really cant be regulated or more importanly..enforced, without violent consequences ie; Iraq. It sort of worked with the India vs. Pakistan situation but not really.

 
frankiej4189
May 29, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 3pointer Show

No we alone shouldnt. It would be careless and stupid. I get your peace and sunshine aspirations but they really arent realistic.

Imagine the scenario: US destroys all nuclear weapons and weapon building facilities.

We would then lose tremendous military control and leverage and be vulnerable to large scale attacks by enemies.

Not even the US, but if any one country that had enemies simply got rid of their nukes, then they would be targeted and less feared. I'm very much in support of a WORLD WIDE nuke ban, but the ban for one country alone is foolish.

 
frankiej4189
May 29, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 3pointer Show

True, but the big picture is a country being afraid that another country has dangerous weapons and they wanted to rid said country of said weapons. The only way that country was able to rid the other country of those weapons was through war and destruction.

 
frankiej4189
May 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 3pointer Show

Right, which is why it would be pointless for the US and the US alone to get rid of its nuclear weapon program.

1. All countries would need to do it

2. This would never happen in a million years, its impossible

 
xanthippa
May 30, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Yeah, that's right!

Let's all disarm!

You first!

 
xanthippa
May 31, 2008
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: 3pointer Show

Perhaps you might consider taking some psychology classes..... you know, ones that study the psychology of aggression...and how POTENTIAL aggressors perceive unilateral disarmement....

Before you unilaterally disarm, you should check on them there butter-knives (reference to 'Dogbert'...from 'Dilbert' comics)...but true...

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

society Abortion alcohol america Animal animals army art ban BBC black Britain British Capitalism child children Chinese Communism control convinceme council Court crime criminal culture death death penalty Debate Democracy drugs Economy education England english equality ethics EU evil food Frankie Freedom Gay girls good Government Great Britain health House of Lords human illegal Internet Islam Judge Justice language Law lawyer Legal lesbian Liberty life love marijuana marriage men money morals murder music Muslim Obama opinion parenting parents peace people police politics poor Porn pregnancy prison privacy punishment race racism religion Responsibility Rich Rights School science sex slavery smoking social society Students suicide technology terrorism the UK UN United Kingdom united states USA VanCam Video Games violence war weed white women world