Login/Sign Up




Should we decommission all of our nuclear warheads?
Politics

lockepeter
Jun 04, 2009
12 votes
5 debaters
9
5


+ Add Argument

4
Yes, nuclear warheads promote violence and submission in weaker countries.


lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
4 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

Which is why terror attacks happened I presumed?

Modern treats do not come from other states, it comes from terrorist organisations, with no international boundaries.

Deterrence is NOT peacekeeping. All it does is force smaller countries to do as you say.

Russia could send the US back to the stone age, as could some of the other nuclear states. It does not mean the US is scared of those countries does it? No, because it is not a deterrence.

Countries spend billion of dollars on nuclear weapons which will never be used. Yet under fund the secret service agencies that combat real threats such as international terrorist organisations.

For such a big country the US is the only country in the world that lives in fear 24/7. You do not find Europe in fear, even though we have been bombed lots of times.

Who is going to nuke the US exactly? No-one.
Who is going to terror attack the US? Pretty much any organisation in the world that has ever been ripped off or pissed on by the US.

It is about time the US pulled itself out of it;s own arse- the world doesn't really gives two hoots about it. And doesn't care less if it is destroyed. So the US has no reason to live in fear. And for God's sake USA- shut up about 9/11 and all that crap already. like the rest of the world hasn't had terror attacks before. And the rest of the world doesn't care!!

 
blackkodiak
Jun 04, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

"Peacekeeping" is using impartial third-party intervention to end conflict in a conflict zone. It has next-to-no relationship to nuclear weapons.

You're referring to maintaining peace, which one could argue (thoughtfully or not), is assisted by the maintenance of a nuclear arsenal.

 
lordhaines
Jun 04, 2009
3 convinced
Rebuttal
Most people go on the basis that if the US didn't have Nuclear weapons then they would automatically be attacked, what rubbish.

Do other non nuclear countries that are neither allies nor enemies with the US get attacked? Of course not.

It is stupid to assume that because you do not have nuclear weapons you will be attacked.

Besides, if someone is mad enough to nuclear attack another nation then it would be no use in having them anyway- as half of America would be destroyed, and the other country would be not be of any value anyway.

 
lordhaines
Jun 08, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

So they only don't do it because you have weapons too?

You argument is cancelled out by itself. I say I should have a personal tank, because my neighbour has one and I fear he may use it against me. Not very good reasoning.

If nuclear warheads were stripped down, to a bare minimum size. One per country, then the fear would disappear. With only one nuke, the worse that could happen in a war would be the destruction of the capitals of each country.

 
lordhaines
Jun 13, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

And the only thing I fear from Russia is bears and energy cut off.

Half of Russia's nuclear arsenal is stuck in old soviet neighbours, and most of them are beyond function unless dropped out of a plane. Russia hasn't spent enough money on it's arsenal over the last two decades to be able to compete with other nuclear nations.

It is a rusty giant.

I'd fear China more, they pour billions into their weaponry. Plus, you launch a few nukes at them, they will still have a half a billion in population to carry on. Unlike the US or Russia.

Then again Britains Royal Navy is just as advanced as the US navy, and is second most powerful in the world. So with our nuclear subs rolling around we are not to be messed with either.
Nor are the French.

India and Pakistan have a formidable arsenal too, but neither of them care about using it on anyone else apart from each other lol

Who would Russia beat up exactly? The nations that surround it are non-nuclear anyway, so your point is useless. If Russia tried to take out France or Britain it would be destroyed.

Did you even see the weaponry they invaded Georgia with recently? It hadn't changed much since the 1980s! It would be slaughtered in a war, and it knows this.

 
lordhaines
Jul 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

I think you will find you never had a point.

There is no fear of nuclear weapons these days, and those smaller countries that try and get nuclear weapons does not give us an excuse to have thousands of them becuase they would never use them anyway.

I still stand by the point that a country only needs one nuclear weapon. And that is becuase it is safer to control, watch, and means the world can act freely, without fear of being nuked hundreds of times over.

 
lordhaines
Jul 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lockepeter Show

Your opening argument was that if we decommsiion all our nuclear weapons then we would be under threat from attack. From who exactly?

Countries that currently do not have nuclear weapons are not attacked all the time are they? Your argument is apthetically weak and doesn't hold a shred of evidence.

The USA is the master of making it's population live in fear. First the Cold War, where Communism would kill all their babies and what not, and now Terrorism where Islamic extremeists will destroy their entire nation. It is pathetic.

A large chunk of Americans chose not to believe media hype and make assessments based on facts. You are obviously not one of them.

Argentina attacked British soil in the 80's, even though Britain was a nuclear power. Australia is NOT a nuclear power, yet no1 attacks them. So either side of your argument is completely wrong.

 
+ Add Argument

8
No, nuclear warheads are the best tools for peacekeeping we have today.


blackkodiak
Jun 04, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
These are some rather extreme views. I'm not sure what nuclear warheads have to do with "peacekeeping" (perhaps you're thinking of deterrence, which is not peacekeeping?).

Caveats are missing too. Are we to assume other nations haev decommissioned theirs, because I imagine that's an important, hell, THE most important criteria.

There is a WEALTH of material available to make a case on the subject, for arms control wonks out there who would like to discuss this, but I'd propose rephrasing it as one of the following questions --

"Is a fissile material cut off treaty possible and worth pursuing?"

"Should the United States make nuclear disarmament overtures to Russia and other NWS?"

"What role should nuclear weapons have in the United States defense policy?"

 
lockepeter
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If we dismantled our nuclear armaments we would lose the best deterrent from a large scale attack that we have. Not only would America be at risk, but all of our allies as well, such as Canada, Germany, and Polland.

 
lockepeter
Jun 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Deterrence IS peacekeeping, it keeps people from launching missiles at you and your allies because they're all scared shirtless of getting nuked back to the stone age.

 
scifi
Jun 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
A world without weapons sounds great, sadly we have an imperfect nature that would allow those with power to still exploit the weak. Like the saying goes, if everyone was blue biggots would make fun of your size.

 
scifi
Jun 06, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
A world without weapons sounds great, sadly we have an imperfect nature that would allow those with power to still exploit the weak. Like the saying goes, if everyone was blue biggots would make fun of your size.

 
lockepeter
Jun 09, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

The way I see it, there are two major world powers: the US and Russia, because they both have substantially more robust military power than everybody else. this means that both of these countries have to:
A: Respect Each other (not likely)
or
B: Fear attacking the other guy because he has a big stick too

Option B is more likely and more sustainable, seeing as by extension the two countries will fear attacking each others allies, and their allies, and so on.

The problem with each country only having one nuke is that the big countries that wouldn't be crippled by a nuclear assault (Russia) would star beating up on the smaller countries, this would immediately trigger a WWIII, and would be worse than nuclear war.

 
lockepeter
Jun 15, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

OK, my point is still alive, you've just told me that the points I have made apply to china too. Wow.

 
lockepeter
Jul 14, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: lordhaines Show

Your argument is self contradictory on the face of it.

 
melonchollylife
Sep 24, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I don't think we should unless we have TOTAL and complete proof that everyone else has.
Even then, there is always the ability to make them.
So if EVERYONE decommissions theirs, and EVERYONE trashes their technology to create them, then yeah, it might work out.
Until someone comes along and creates something more destructive. Not to be a pessimist.

 


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