Login/Sign Up




•The United States should eliminate its own weapons of mass destruction - do you agree or disagree?
Technology

deathwolf
Mar 18, 2011
19 votes
11 debaters
2
2
2
1
1


+ Add Argument

10
They should.


theenemyisprofit
Mar 18, 2011
2 convinced
Rebuttal
We are one of the most belligerent countries with weapons and we have weapons of mass destruction.* Other countries need first strike capabilities in the event of nuclear war. They need to keep us in check



*The one that needs to be deterred the most is the one that is the most likely to use them. The only country that has used weapons of mass destruction is this country.

 
christine
Mar 18, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: skiingfool435 Show

Every country has enemies and competitors and they all have their own rules. Would you accept a fully armed enemy and not arm yourself? This is what Americans are asking of every other country to do.

 
christine
Mar 18, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hologram Show

If you are not an American then you have no say? If your national sovereinty is something you hold so near and dear and think it is something that must be protected at all costs then why are Americans so upset with North Korea's nuclear weapons.
Either you believe the internal workings of a country is only their business or you don't.
You should see if Accipiter is still around someplace and see if he will accept a battle challenge from you on this one.

 
christine
Mar 18, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hologram Show

Following your logic nobody but the citizens of Iran and North Korea should have a say in how they defend themselves

 
christine
Mar 18, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: skiingfool435 Show

I am familiar with the non proliferation treaty. I am also aware that all the signatories can opt out on 2 years notice. I am also familiar with the SALT treaties both I and II. The one thing you still don't answer is the simple question of whether or not the US would be prepared to accept the same terms on the rest of the world. We have the weapons and you are not allowed to have them.
The weapons the US have are so numerous as to make the argument of a deterrent is absurd. How many times do you need to destroy the planet. Since you can't put the genie back in the bottle, there as to be some very serious steps made toward disarming. The US has had its run as leader of the planet long enough and it is crumbling. My primary concern now is that if they do not find a way to get rid of the weapons in a safe manner now we will be facing another situation as with the dismantling of the USSR. By the last estimates they still cannot account for over 100 of their nukes. While the number is small in relation to the number the had originally they are still unaccounted for.
The Cuban missle crisis was a clear indicaton of the level of threat the US is prepared to accept yet they insist that the rest of the world accept the threat they impose.

 
wolfhaines
Mar 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: hologram Show

How is America more safe with them? Last time I checked nuclear weapons weren't used to shoot down incoming missles, but used to retaliate. If somebody is nutty enough to nuke another country, then you will get nuked, regardless of how many nukes you have yourself. Once a nuclear weapon is launched it is pretty much guaranteed to hit it's target and wipe out millions of people. The fact you have the capability to do the same to the other country once you have been attacked doesn't save the millions already dead. Your argument is extremely flawed, BUT I do agree with your conclusion, as it is insane to trust everybody to not rebuild nukes, so keep the status quo. One day the world will be nuke free, but not when it is as unstable as it is now.

 
+ Add Argument

9
They Shouldn't


skiingfool435
Mar 18, 2011
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: christine Show

Well, one would be that North Korea (and Iran) have both violated the UN sanctioned nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

Nuclear weapons are most effective when used as defensive weapons. Any initiating nuclear strike would be responded to by a large share of the international community. Nuclear weapons do allow nations to operate within a certain zone of safety--it is unlikely that Iran would launch a nuclear weapon against Israel (despite statements to the contrary) because such an act would win Iran worldwide condemnation and retaliation. Instead, having a nuclear weapon would allow Iran to more boldly fund the terror groups (Hamas, Hezbollah, etc.) fighting the Israelis.

Perhaps in the ideal world, every nation could disarm. This is naive. The US does have enemies and competitors, some of whom play by a very different set of rules.

 
hologram
Mar 18, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
There will always be countries with weapons and we need to have weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. We need first strike capabilities in the event of nuclear war. We need to keep north korea in check

 
enzod1022
Mar 18, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theenemyisprofit Show

Yeah we were the first and only...to end a world war. Who were the aggressors in that one? We were only trying to end a bloody war that we tried avoiding in the first place. America isn't known for its popularity among some of the nuclear-weapon-holding nations of the world. If we lost our ability to counter-strike or at least deter a possible nuclear attack, there is a very good chance we'll be hit hard. C'mon. Think about it. Do you really think the United States will actually launch an offensive nuclear missile?

 
hologram
Mar 18, 2011
1 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: theenemyisprofit Show

America is more safe with them, than without. That is a fact. I am american and that is what i care about. If you are american you should care about your safety, my safety, your friends and families safety more than the rest of the world.

If you are not an american than you have no say on whether or not we should destroy OUR weapons.

 
humpdebump
Mar 18, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
As stated before, the best solution would be for all countries to disarm their weapons of mass destruction. But this is likely to never happen, these weapons give too much power to these countries. But for America to disarm would be illogical and dangerous to national security.

 
hologram
Mar 18, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: christine Show

I personally am worried that north korea has nuclear capabilities because kim jong ill hates america, and is extremely unstable...its like giving the kkk power to destroy harlem

This is a matter of our national defense. Nobody besides our citizens should have a say on how we defend our country...How could that even make sense to you?

 
skiingfool435
Mar 18, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: christine Show

Are you familiar with the non proliferation treaty? What the US is asking is that nations not spread the technology should they be provided commercial nuclear electricity by an existing nuclear power. But at best, this might argue that the US should give this technology to every nation, not to expunge the technology from itself. And again, as has been mentioned, the only nuclear attack ever made was during WWII. President OBama has now made a proactive commitment to never use nuclear force unless in retaliation, so your scenario would better read, "would you accept a fully armed enemy in a strait jacket...''

 
hologram
Mar 19, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: christine Show

Of course they korea should be able to protect themselves...i never said take away their weapons...but i am fearful, and would prefer them not to have nuclear capabilities....i'm aware i'm not in a position to decide for them and my opinion shouldn't count on their national scale. However i think we all know that crazy ass kim jong il should not have nukes Taking in to account that north korea is a rouge nation and technology is out there to make an ICBM that could hit us, we need protection and a deterrent for him attacking us.

 
mooneythunderpaws
Mar 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
They shouldn't, first of all having no weapons of destruction leads to a weak country with no protection. If your saying America should destroy ours, why not tell other countries like North Korea who is already investing and has nuclear weapons. Either way, there is no way a country can have "no destructive weapons." Everyone need these in emergencies, or for war. And like I said before, other countries have weapons of mass destruction, shouldn't we be taking focus on those countries? Corrupted governments? Tyrannical leaders holding weapons OF mass destruction?

 
joryrferrell
Mar 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I never said we SHOULD eliminate our weapons. I just said Obama should not be given a reward for peace when we still have the Intercontinental-f**k-you-up-tubes ourselves.

 
hologram
Mar 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: wolfhaines Show

The way nukes make america safer is by using them as a deterrent...someone with nuclear weapons will not attack us for fear of retaliation.

Am i right?



Also it ended world war 2...saved american lives at the expense of Japanese....i'm okay with this, if i was the rest of the world, i could understand not being okay with it...but my countrys safety is much more important than any other....selfish i know...but at least i'm honest

 
boyd
Mar 24, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
If the United States was to eliminate its WMD's. It would be world chaos.

Being a superpower, the U.S. keeps other countries, in say, check. One of the main things preventing countries these days from way, is the threat of Nuclear annihilation. With the U.S. without them, how are we to retaliate against a WWIII.

The fact of the matter is, its been discovered, so somebody's gonna be an asshole and use them, even if there was an agreement to get rid of it.
Remember, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Why do you think we bombed Japan?
To prevent American casualties. I'm sure if we will do it,
someone else will.

 
boyd
Mar 24, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: christine Show

If the U.S. eliminated its Nukes, do you expect everyone else to? Now were not armed.

Its been discovered. Theres nothing we can do. Countries arent gonna give up that power because the U.S. dose.

 
anon7
Sep 21, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: wolfhaines Show

But they were and could be again

Google these

Sprint Missile

Spartan missile

Thor Missile

In fact it would be easy to retofit the W54 warhead into almost any present "hit to kill" system

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

technology apple BBC british Browser cell cell phone censorship CMM CMMI community computer computers Convince convinceme debate design digg education Facebook Firefox Frankie google ie Internet internet censorhip iPhone ISO15504 it java linux Mac Maturity Models Me microsoft military myspace Online Opera osx PC programming science search social space SPICE tech technology twitter uk VANCAM vista web website Wikipedia Windows world