Login/Sign Up




Every country with nuclear weapons is a terrorist state
Books

notreallysure
Aug 03, 2009
12 votes
13 debaters
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

5
Agree


accipiter
Aug 03, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

The last count I saw on nuclear weapons was that the USA had approximately 6,500 deliverable nukes. Let us be very generous and say it’s less than half that. There are only 200 countries in the world. So you have 3 nukes for every country in the world. How can you possibly assume there is no intimidation?
The United States, Russia, China, UK, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea are countries that are known to have nuclear weapons. Each of them in their own way have also claimed the moral high ground on the issue and have each stated that nuclear weapons are necessary to their self defense.
Each of these countries is also vehemently opposed to any other country acquiring them. Who would you say has the most honorable intentions?
Using the ridiculous premise that no nuclear power has been attacked by another nuclear power, it would stand to reason that every country on the planet should have them.
According to the Brookings Institute report in 2005, there are approximately 10,905 deliverable nuclear weapons in the possession of the above noted countries. I hope that makes everyone feel safer.
If, as you claim, nuclear weapons will necessitate the only country to possess them will seek to dominate the world. The world requires every country to own them.
The possession of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction serve only a single purpose; the threat of their use.
Terrorism is defined by the actual or implied threat of violence to achieve its goals. Therefore, any country having weaponry in any amount that exceeds its need for self defense would have to be considered a terrorist nation. Those exceeding self defense needs by the greatest margin would have to be considered the most dangerous terrorist states.


 
thoughtprocess
Aug 04, 2009
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

"Nuclear warfare is now something for the movie screen IMHO and any fears people may have of the US or Russia using these weapons on them is atleast a little bit irrational."

I think you have a very different view of the .... efficiency or rationality of government as a whole than I do. When it comes to governments and the unfathomable power they wield they are only a few steps away, at all times, from demolishing people's preconceived notions of their capabilities. I could bring up all of the atrocities that the U.S. government has committed but people don't like to believe bad things can be done by their government. So, I would bring up the Holocaust as an example.

Who would have ever imagined that a nation would institute a policy of systematic extermination of Jews, the mentally impaired, homosexuals, gypsies and others that were deemed "impure"? Or what about Unit 731, the Japanese human experimentation program, where people were dissected while alive and subjected to countless unimaginable tortures?

Because of the existence of nuclear weapons, and the nature of humankind, the world is, in my opinion, always on the verge of major catastrophe. All it takes is some unforeseen events to plunge much of the world into a state of war and chaos, and if things got bad enough then nuclear weapons might be used; and not necessarily by the U.S. or the other major powers.

 
notreallysure
Aug 03, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Since the US and Russia have the most nuclear weapons they are the biggest terrorist states. All of the countries who have them try to prevent anyone else from getting them. Bully's always need the upper hand so nobody sees what cowards they really are

 
like2talk
Aug 03, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
If terror is defined as an 'intense overpowering fear' and the average member of an average population finds the mere idea of nuclear weapons aka 'weapons of mass destruction' terrifying then they exsit for a large proportion of the world as terror inducing items.

 
tonk
Aug 10, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rodmcfeely Show

if nuclear weapons do not provoke fear and terror, why all this hooha about Iran wanting nuclear power?

 
tonk
Aug 10, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

I agree, we don't fear our government directly, they just subtly instigate, divert, and use fear for their own means...
The war in Iraq, for instance.

It's not moral values that prevent torture, it's pure logic - you apply any form of torture to me (or most anyone for that matter), I'll tell you anything, just to stop the pain.
Mass elimination, hmmm, Richard Mayberry is right, let's nuke everyone!!!

Your statement "Other nations trust our country", should be changed to "Other western and/or non oil-possessing nations trust our country".
But, you've pretty much stated that with the rest of your paragraph anyway.

I have to agree with frankiej though, simply possessing nuclear weapons does not make a nation a terrorist one, a country's actions define whether it is, or is not a terrorist nation.
I would class bullying countries into doing what you want them to do, for your own benefit, as terrorism; fear is used as a tactic.

 
vancam
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

I'm not sure that it is nonesense. Surely the threat that nuclear weapons pose is as real as the threat of suicide bombs, airplane hijacks etc.

The question is one of confidence in the individuals that have control over that threat and my confidence in my own government and the two mentioned above (US and Russia) is at a very low eb.

I believe they intend to control people through fear and consequently I find myself on this side of the fence.

 
+ Add Argument

7
Disagree


frankiej4189
Aug 03, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: notreallysure Show

Nonsense. Under that logic, any nation with a military...hell, any person with a gun and bullets can be considered a terrorist.

Simply having the means to do something is virtually meaningless, the will to act and the actual actions that nations/people have are what can define them as terrorists.

As far as i can tell, and please correct me if i'm wrong, the only nation to use a nuclear weapon was the United States and that was 60 years ago. Terrorism is more than just a word or idea, it is a specific set of actions that lead to a specific set of results.

 
rebirth
Aug 03, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: notreallysure Show

I think you misunderstand.

The United States, Russia (not Soviet Union), and Europe (the main possessors of nuclear weapons which you call all of them "terrorist states") have NEVER threatened to use nuclear weapons on innocent people. They have only threatened to use them against aggressors. It is self defense, not "bullying".

There is a reason we do not want countries such as North Korea and Iran to possess nuclear weapons. They do not have free elections, they suppress freedom of speech, and they oppose equal rights.

And what exactly do you propose as a solution to what you call a problem. Would you suggest that the U.S. and Europe should discard all of their nuclear weapons and not be allowed to create more, while terrorist organizations are still able to create them?

 
frankiej4189
Aug 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thoughtprocess Show

I rest my case. I'll admit TP, you've made me a lot more critical of my government than i was before your arrival here so our views on the efficienc and/or rationality of the government probably isn't too different.

I'm sorry but i cannot realistically believe that either Russia or the US would use Nuclear Weapons in a "willy-nilly" way. I still think that any use of these weapons (speaking for the US)would only be done in retalliation for someone else using them on the US. The Holocaust was genocide, however, atrocities like that happen every day in all parts of the world. This is NUCLEAR WAR we're talking about here! That means the consequences would affect a hell of a lot more people which means it is something taken extremely seriously by those who have them.

 
thevenerablerob
Aug 05, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

Again, I shall point out that it is NOT the possession of the mass destruction weapon so much as the volatility of the country that makes it a terrorist state. IF a country is volatile and likely to use its nuclear weapon to instigate a fight, PERhaps it could be considered a terrorist state.

The Encyclopedia Britannica Online defines terrorism generally as "the systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective," and adds that terrorism has been practiced by "state institutions such as armies, intelligence services, and police." In other words, a terrorist state must instill fear into its own people before spreading fear unto others. The people of US, UK and France aren’t afraid of their Governments. In fact, we ridicule and scorn many of their movements, depending on our views. In fact, it seems that, according to us, a Government can NEVER make a right move. So, if we’re this bold, how can out country have instilled fear into us? It doesn’t. quite the opposite. You feel protected by the police and army, don’t you? You see our men in that army. Our friends, relatives, people with morals and just standards. In fact, I was just reading a book called ‘The 1,000 Year War’ by Richard Mayberry. A good read, though a little outdated. Anyhow, he wrote that Guerilla warfare succeeds against us because our morals and values often prevent torture, mass elimination or other methods of weeding out the guerillas. We TRUST the men in our army to fight for our safety, freedom and way of life. We trust our police to uphold the law.

Other nations trust our country. You will find that Terrorist states, if there are such things, are trusted by no other country. However, The US and UK are close friends, as is Canada to both. Canada largely depends upon the US to protect its artic and borders. France and much of Europe trust these nations. Free trade agreements have broken out. I think you’ll find that a terrorist state would never have good enough relations for free trade.


 
frankiej4189
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: vancam Show

Unfortuanatley i cant look at my government through the eyes of someone who doesn't live in America so i cant honestly say i know what the rest of the world thinks of America having Nuclear Weapons and to what extent these weapons can control people through fear.

I brought up the point about the US being the only nation ever to use the atomic bomb (60 years ago) for a reason. It was to inspire confidence in the people who share your thoughts that the US and Russia would for some reason use their nuclear weaponry irresponsibly.

I dont think its unfair or without reason to say that the nations that currently have nuclear weapons (have, not are trying to obtain) understand the extreme seriousness and finality of the consequences of actually using them. As far as i can tell, neither the US nor Russia has made any threats of using their Nukes on other nations. Nuclear warfare is now something for the movie screen IMHO and any fears people may have of the US or Russia using these weapons on them is atleast a little bit irrational.

 
rodmcfeely
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
The idea that possessing nuclear weapons provokes fear or terror (and is as such defined as terrorism) is an interesting question. I think the answer is no because the nuclear genie is long out of the bottle. Many nations poses nuclear weapons and in an odd way (I'll open another debate on this topic cause im sure your going to hate this next part and you can tear me a new one elsewhere) nuclear weapons have made the world a safer place. It's like two people fighting and they both pull out guns. Suddenly things calm down a little cause there's no good outcome; I shoot he shoots we're both dead so lets stop and think this through a little. I think old Machievelli ideas of nations constantly fighting each other are outdated and useless. Governments (except for the very few) get along and work together. There will probably never be a war between two nuclear possessing nations.

The new wars are fought between factions within nations, small groups not nations fighting. The real danger is from those groups. I dont just mean Islamic extremists mind you, any group with any cause can instigate violence; imagine if the KKK got hold of a bomb, good bye White House. You get the idea. And in the effort to combat factions nuclear weapons are useless. You can't nuke Al Queda.

So, no, nuclear weapons don't automatically qualify a nation as a terrorist state.

 
thevenerablerob
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
"Since the US and Russia have the most nuclear weapons they are the biggest terrorist states. All of the countries who have them try to prevent anyone else from getting them. Bully's always need the upper hand so nobody sees what cowards they really are"


What exactly is a terrorist state? If you define one as having just the possession of a weapon of fear, as others have said, we may as well all be shaking in our boots. Tanks, Attack Helicopters, Missiles, 1,000 ton bombs, bazookas and a whole lot more are weapons of destruction and, potentially, fear. However, a terrorist state is not a stable territory that maintains a semblance of peace and defense. Russia is a broken country, if it can even be called that. Yes, it has managed to hold its nuclear technology, but some of it has been lost, stolen or destroyed. It is places such as China, England, Israel and the United States that we may consider to have more nuclear power, now. Yet, so far, China’s maintained outward peace (possibly internal conflict), the US deigns from using its nuclear weapons because of the public’s potential reaction and its own fear on what would happen if it opened up a nuclear war. This same fear was what stalemated the US and USSR during all those years of the Cold War.

Now, a terrorist state is one that wishes to spread fear intentionally to gain its own, often deadly, intents. The terrorists would not fear to launch a nuclear missile if they could get ahold of it. They’d be more than happy to disintegrate a city just to spread terror and enact revenge for whatever they believe they’ve been wronged for (even if it dates back to the Crusades). Terrorists will stop at nothing to kill others brutally, even if its their own. A terrorist state, although I wouldn’t really believe there is such a thing would thus use its nuclear weapons to destroy others that may be stronger than it. So far, no country has deigned to try this.

Also, destroying nuclear weapons is not the answer because some country will not, and that country will then try to dominate the world.


 
soulpiper
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I strongly disagree. Every nation with nuclear weapons cannot be considers as a terrorist state.
But its highly probable that these nations provoke other countries into terrorism..


 
rodmcfeely
Aug 11, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: tonk Show

Oh dont worry about that, thats just the neocons . They want the upper hand over over Iran and dont want anything that will level the playing field.

 
ricardo
Feb 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I strongly disagree i mean look at America i mean as a terrirost state it would be firing nuclear bombs everyday but it is not a terrirost coutry soo that's the The U.S doesn't want some middle eastern country to get Weapons of mass destruction because they would fire it on America agree?

 
Kevin Jin
Oct 08, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
In my country,civilians are not allowed to own or carry a gun,if every nation which carry nuclear weapons is terrorism country,then every police in my country is a criminal. does it make sence?

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

9/11 america BBC bible black book books britain british bush Christian Christianity comics corruption debate Democracy Election fantasy frankie global warming god government gun Harry Potter history internet Is it good that people can download music for free? Islam kindle lies literature LOTR love Marvel media money Obama politics power racism recession religion republicans school sex Terrorism terrorist twilight uk us VanCam violence war world WUC