Login/Sign Up




Is nuclear warfare acceptable?
Weapons

blackout
Sep 13, 2011
10 votes
7 debaters
2


+ Add Argument

5
It is acceptable


sorahb
Sep 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
I think it is acceptable, what blackout has said is totally untrue, evidence is the the two cities in japan that have been nuked. If you look at the cities now they are flourishing and are doing extremely well, I believe nukes should be used only if absolutely necessary as it was used in wwii to end the war.

 
individualeleven
Oct 19, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: blackout Show

First of all, not only has America tested many nuclear weapons, but so has other countries. So one nuclear weapon effecting the ENTIRE world is very far fetched. And yes we have tested even our newest most powerful ones as well. Currently Nuclear weapons is used as a deterrent and prevents a real war, not like this current war on terrorism.

Would the world be better off without any on both sides? Well that is for experts to decide.

 
individualeleven
Oct 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: matt1989 Show

No I am not re-asking the original question. Whether something is acceptable or not and whether something is better for all man-kind is two different questions. However the reason why I am in favor, regardless if my hometown is threatened or not, is because regardless of whether we decide it is not favorable, our enemies will not care and if the balance of power is shifted to them, then we would be done.

And an idea for a bomb is different then what is actually in use. All types that are in use and have been cancelled, have been tested. Therefore my original statement still stands. One detonation has not corrupted the entire world. Also our home town is always threatened by nuclear attack, we have more stockpile in our country alone to destroy the world seven times over, plus each country that has nuclear power, has there own stockpile as well.

 
Ben Warwick
Dec 26, 2012
0 convinced
Rebuttal
This argument is highly subjective. Take for example a war between Germany and France (I know it's cliche but humour me). France has nuclear weapons, Germany does not. And say in this war Germany begins to win a occupy parts of France. To French citizens nuclear warfare would seem an acceptable means as there would be no fear of retaliation and it would stop the occupation of their country. This in turn shows how nuclear warfare is acceptable, because as long as one country has them another doesn't they are an acceptable means of stopping an onslaught of a country that doesn't have nukes on a country that does.

 
+ Add Argument

5
It is not acceptable


denverdannydee
Sep 14, 2011
2 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sorahb Show

you must be crazy, those nuclear blasts dropped in Japan were a fraction of the force nuclear bombs are today plus a nuclear war will destroy the globe so it wouldn't matter if it is acceptable or not because there will not be anyone around to argue it

 
blackout
Sep 13, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Nuclear warfare is not acceptable because of many reasons, one being world pollution. One nuclear bomb can contaminate the whole world by air, water, and animals. A "nuke" is a horribly disastrous weapon and should only be used if the world is "ending'. Also, wherever you bomb will be devestated for hundreds of years. This means no food, no water, no anything.

 
blackout
Sep 14, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: sorahb Show

Why dont you read this. It proves my point of nuclear radiation is horible for the whole world even if it used in small amounts or on a small town or country.

Use of nuclear weapons is immoral. We should try to prevent their growth. More the number of nuclear weapons made, more are the risks it poses to human life. Maintaining a nuclear bomb is very expensive. It takes a large share of the country's defense budget. Countries are more likely to have a civil war in which they can use nuclear bombs against each other and the nuclear radiation could prove disastrous to the entire globe. Possession of nuclear weapons doesn't mean that the country is a developed economy, countries like Germany, Spain and Australia don't have any nuclear weapons, but are still popular and advanced as the US and UK.

Info from: http://www.buzzle.com/articles/nuclear-weapons-pros-and-cons.html


 
matt1989
Oct 20, 2011
0 convinced
Rebuttal
Rebuttal to: individualeleven Show

First of all, are you actually asking whether or not us, (the debaters) accept nuclear warfare?

I bet if your hometown was threatened with nuclear force you`re opinion would rapidly change from, `` I think it is acceptable...evidence is the the two cities in japan that have been nuked. If you look at the cities now they are
flourishing and are doing extremely well``, to oh my god why are they doing to me.

Don`t worry though, according to your statement above your town will be fine in a few years, with or without you.

Also, waaaaay back when, (early 1900`s) a scientist named Leó Szilárd came up with this IDEA for a nuclear bomb so powerful it could destroy the entire human population.

While a little bit farfetched this bomb didn`t eliminate humans by force but by radiation. By using the radioactive isotope Cobalt-60, the bomb would coat the earth in a fine deadly powder that would emit enough gamma rays to outlast, (practically) any human beings.

Cobalt 60 emits gamma rays and has a half life of roughly 5 years. The stuff if potent enough that Szilárd said if you spread a gram of it on every square mile on earth it would render us extinct. So the bomb goes off, Cobalt-60 is all over the place and everyone goes underground. 5 entire years later half the Cobalt is still emitting gamma rays! Could you imagine packing enough supplies for 10 years of life underground?

Drawback is that it would be ridiculously expensive and un-favourable to build such a bomb because it would a.) kill everyone or b.) render the land it lands on completely un-inhabitable for decades so so far nobody has built one such bomb.





 
Dhruv Gupta
May 13, 2015
0 convinced
Rebuttal
NOPE THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO WIPE OUT HUMAN LIFE IF ALL COUNTRIES LAUNCH ON ALL COUNTRIES. I need to live, so this is not acceptable. Furthermore, war should be confined to political parties, not unknowing civilians.

 


Use these tags to find similiar debates

Afghanistan America army Crime Frankie Guns Iran Iraq Military Nuclear Obama War Weapons