Login/Sign Up




Have nuclear weapons made the world a safer place?
Society

rodmcfeely
Aug 03, 2009
9 votes
9 debaters
1
1
1
1


+ Add Argument

4
Yes


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

No offense, but I have no idea who would give you a convince point for that. Your a complete sexist.

Hypothetical: We have a President Hillary Clinton, we're at war with, oh lets say, Russia. It's escalating to a fevered pitch and we're losing (fighting two wars with two different countries has left us weak and vulnerable). Our only hope is a nuclear strike. Does she push the button? No, because she's a woman.

Is there something biological that makes woman unable to fire nuclear weapons? Some hormone perhaps? Maybe a gland somewhere?

No that doesnt make sense. Maybe it's just that woman are more wise and nurturing. Wait, thats a sexist generalization. Sexism is defined by making a generalization based on sex, but doesnt neccisarly have to be good or bad. Women are bad drivers. Thats sexist. Women are better suited for the home. Thats sexist. Woman are nurturing and therefore better world leaders. Thats sexist.

I've known some very kind and "nurturing" men who would harm a fly. I've met some phyco b*tch women who I would trust with a butter knife. So lets put them in office and see who presses the button first, the nice guy or the b*tch woman. Your argument is that simply by being a woman she is less likely to push the button.

Dont be such a bigot.

 
rodmcfeely
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Because so many nations possess nuclear weapons a stalemate has been created which forces the use of diplomacy over the use of force.

 
thevenerablerob
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
“Because so many nations possess nuclear weapons a stalemate has been created which forces the use of diplomacy over the use of force.”

That’s a good thought. Also, those who possess nuclear weapons also possess nuclear power, which can be used for immense good. Nuclear power is used in a variety of beneficial ways, such as Nuclear power plants, which generate electricity for whole cities. Humongous ships are often powered by nuclear fission, including faster cargo ships. This means that oil isn’t being wasted by these ships and polluting the oceans.

Besides, dangerous weapons aren’t new to the world. From the beginning of time, men were warring with spears and clubs. Then came along bows’n arrows, cavalry, cannon, howitzers, gattling guns, mortars, machine guns, destroyers, auto-cannons and now nuclear weapons. They maybe make the world a tad more volatile in the fact that if anybody ever bursts out with its nuclear weapons, we will all be blown sky high, but they generally promote a kind of uneasy peace and stabilization.


 
rebirth
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
From the day nuclear weapons were used on Japan to now there has been much less war, much less war-caused deaths, and much less conquering land than before.

Using nuclear weapons as deterrents has been effective, is effective, and will always be effective in maintaining world peace.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: apathetic Show

Hmmm, not safer, but not more dangerous...i like it.

 
frankiej4189
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: teachme Show

What difference would it make if a man or woman pushed the button?

 
rodmcfeely
Aug 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: buttchew Show

Wow thats not true. Lets look at a historic case: the history of humanity. There were no nuclear weapons before WWII and did we ever have a stalemate? No we just kept building bigger and bigger weapons.

And now we have the biggest weapon there is; one whos use could simply destroy the world. Nobody would dare use it. Your in a war, do you use nukes? No because a retaliation would destroy the world (you cant win a war if your dead). Your in conflict with a country, do you let it escalate to war? No because a war will bring about the possibility of one side using nukes (especially if they're losing the war) and now the whole world is destroyed. We better figure out something else instead (diplomacy). Stalemate.

 
rodmcfeely
Aug 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: accipiter Show

Any country without of nuclear weapons is at the complete mercy of any country that does have nuclear weapons. How safe would you feel if you lived in one of the only countries in the world without nukes?

 
+ Add Argument

5
No


teachme
Aug 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
All the fuss about who has them built...then more fuss about where they have them hidden...followed by building even more, to keep up with the unknown competition...then finally, the demands that they be "gotten rid of."

Noooo...how could I ever feel insecure by this insane way of thinking!? All's I can say is...what a sorry attempt at "ruling" the world...and pitiful response in "diplomacy."

This is going to get me into trouble but...if the button was ever pushed...by whom would it be...a man or a woman?

I'd venture to say "a man"...and that's called "protection"?!

 
apathetic
Aug 04, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Not really more dangerous either. I mean, for the most part we are dealling with the same problems today that we were dealing with between the two world wars. Economic collapse and economically downtrodened ideologists who want to unify and destroy the western powers.

 
buttchew
Aug 07, 2009
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: thevenerablerob Show

Id like you to imagine a battle between a few men with bows and arrows(even auto-cannons) and then imagine one between a few men with nuclear weapons. Which one do you think would be safer for the world? Also you can possess nuclear power without the weapons.

 
accipiter
Aug 03, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
This is a partial copy and paste from the other debate on countries with nuclear weapons and terrorist states.

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.


 
accipiter
Aug 04, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rebirth Show

From where did you gleen such information? Any reading of the news does not conclude we live in a safter world. Are you talking about military deaths or the deaths of civilians.
You really will have to support your claims on this one.

 
teachme
Aug 05, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: frankiej4189 Show

Just that men have been responsible for building them, and really can't be trusted not to use them at any time.

 
buttchew
Aug 07, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rodmcfeely Show

If there were no nuclear weapons there would also be the same stalemate so no it has not made us any safer.

 
teachme
Aug 10, 2009
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: rodmcfeely Show

I enjoyed reading your response, actually...just because it's so rare hearing a man having to defend himself against sexism.

Don't worry...I'm not a bigot...I can rarely be heard making a sexist remark, but I'm glad you caught me on it! :)

I just get a little frustrated by the fact that men often deal with their issues by puffing up their chest and shoving their weight around...instead of using their intelligence, tact, diplomacy, and dare I say...humility, when neccessary. The question is...does anything ever get solved this way...and why put the whole human race in jeopardy?

Note: Am I saying that no men possess tact, diplomacy, intelligence, and humility? ...NO!

I am saying that men are wholly responsible for creating nuclear weapons...and nuclear weapons have the potential to jeopardize the fate of humankind, as a whole. This should have never happened! Things should not have gotten this far!

 
ricardo
Feb 10, 2010
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If no countries have nuclear weapons no countries would be scared and it will be safer i mean the bomb dropped on Nagasaki some ugly stuff

 


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