Nuclear Weapons-Get rid of them!!

Rivalry Side A | World | Politics

Nuclear Weapons-A Necessary Evil

Rivalry Side B | World | Politics

Of all that man has accomplished with nuclear science what do we have to show for? Less dependence on oil? Sustainable energy? NO. Mankind's crowning achievement... ...the ability to destroy it!


Posted by in World / Politics on 5/18/10
Debate Leaders
  1. LIBERAL (1 votes)

Side A fans: (3)

Neutral Fans: (0)

Side B Comment

mama kaz - 6/10/10 @ 5:21 PM:
What are you so angry about Rick? We're all just trying to have a discussion here. I think we all agree that a world with no nuclear weapons would be our ideal. Most of us just believe that we can't trust other countries to comply with any agreement to ban nuclear weapons.This is one area where we cannot afford to be the shining example and destroy our nuclear program. I think we're all afraid of what could happen but just don't see any solution to the problem because we're not dealing with rational people.
LIBERAL - 6/10/10 @ 5:37 PM: Ally | Side B
Mama Kaz I am not angry. I don't know what makes you think I am. You don't honestly know me well enough to make that assertion, but I will say this. I have no problem with opinions so long as they are level headed and don't make guess work of common sense. With the exception of your first sentence everything you stated made sense. Even though I totally disagree. I believe we can rid the world of nuclear weapons, but your general argument makes sense. This is the kind of argument that although I could never agree with, I can still respect for the common sense involved.

Side B Comment

markei - 6/10/10 @ 9:03 AM:
@Rick - in your response to mama_kaz, you destroy your own argument completely. It is the only thing I think most other people believe and are saying also, and I quote you here: "Do you honestly believe I'm worried about nations like Russia or China launching nuclear weapons on the United States? No. I am not. The reason? Because they understand the consequences of such an attack. We would then launch a counter-attack. None of us really have to worry about another country launching their weapons on the United States."
Sooo, you are saying that if the US did NOT have nuclear weapons, there would be NO threat of any retaliation response, therefore making them aa absolute necessary evil to have. That is all anyone else is saying. It lookks like we agree. :D
LIBERAL - 6/10/10 @ 2:04 PM: Ally | Side B
markei I was demonstrating the fact that I'm not worried about another nation attacking us, but instead using one of those nations in order to acquire nuclear weapons with which to attack us. Please read all of the argument and not just the parts that catch your fancy. If we rid the world of the entirety of nuclear weapons then NO ONE will have access to them. That is my argument, and if you had actually taken the time to read and understand what my response was in reference to you'd have known that. We DO NOT agree. Massive FAIL. Try again.

Side B Comment

mama kaz - 6/9/10 @ 11:59 AM:
Very well said Olivia!

Side B Comment

Olivia Newton - 6/2/10 @ 9:40 PM:
Theordore Roosevelt said: "Walk softly and carry a big stick." 'Our stick' needs to be bigger than 'their stick.' I wish it weren't so, but it is.
LIBERAL - 6/9/10 @ 4:15 PM: Ally | Side B
War is war Olivia, and in the course of war it is always expected of a soldier or sailor that they may never come back, but they defend our nation with the greatest of honors and many times with the expectation that they may in fact give their life in order for the rest of us to remain free from the tyranny of men like Hitler, Hussein, and Kim Jong Il. Many wars have been fought without the technology of weapons of mass destruction, and yet we not only prevailed in most of them the clear victor, but without the use of a nuclear warhead. The death of just one innocent civilian is without doubt inexcusable. My grandfather served in the United States Air Force during World War II in the Pacific. He was stationed at Pearl Harbor only two years after the bombing. He and I never agree on much as he is a staunch conservative, but we both agree on this particular matter. I remember him telling me after he had heard about the first bombing he’d have rather stormed the beaches of Japan and killed thousands of Japanese soldiers than for one innocent civilian to have been killed. He used to say that he understood the sacrifice he was willing to make, those poor people never stood a chance. It was like shooting an unarmed man in the back. I always admired him as a grandfather and a soldier for such bravery and honesty. I have to agree with him. It was an act of barbarism on our part, and God willing, we will never choose such a cowardly way again.

Side B Comment

mama kaz - 5/25/10 @ 7:13 PM:
I would love to see a world with no nuclear weapons but it's unrealistic. The best protection against a nuclear attack is to make it known we have something bigger and badder ready to go. That is the sad reality we live in.
LIBERAL - 5/29/10 @ 2:31 PM: Ally | Side B
I cannot believe the naiveté displayed by people. Do you honestly believe I'm worried about nations like Russia or China launching nuclear weapons on the United States? No. I am not. The reason? Because they understand the consequences of such an attack. We would then launch a counter-attack. None of us really have to worry about another country launching their weapons on the United States.

What I am very afraid of are the terrorists. They desire only one thing. To kill as many Americans as possible. They now realize that they cannot kill as many as they would like by flying planes into buildings. The only way to kill as many as possible is with one or several nuclear devices. So long as rogue nations like North Korea have weapons of mass destruction they may eventually end up on the black market or simply go “missing”. Then where will we be? On the wrong end of a 10kt nuclear warhead is where we will be. The only way to prevent this is the complete dismantling of all nuclear warheads by all nations. This is absolutely practical. What is not practical is waiting around for the inevitable. The really sad reality we live in is the one where people believe they are helpless to do what is right. So you settle for the hope that nothing bad happens. Well reality has a way of biting you in the backside before you realize your mistake. Let's hope more people aren't so ready as you to lay down and just take it because it's the easier way to deal with something as important as our own security.

Side B Comment

The Boss - 5/18/10 @ 7:06 PM:
While I’m far from what I would call Pro-Nuclear because I’m not a fan of the destruction and I pray the day never comes again that we use a nuclear weapon but they are absolutely necessary.

There are some out there that think there’s a possibility for a wonderful utopia where tyrants, dangerous dictators, and rogue states would cease to exist if we somehow disposed of our entire nuclear arsenal or at least would suddenly love us if led by example of peace and Complete equality. This is a farce and is not realistic.

This doesn’t mean we should continue development of stronger, more destructive weapons. It also doesn’t mean we need 10k nuclear weapons either. Can we dispose of a majority of these weapons? Sure. Unless we plan on destroying the entire world with a unilateral attack with our entire arsenal what in the hell do we need that many weapons for? I can’t think of a single reason to possess that many nukes.

Let’s use a unsophisticated analogy here. I live in a neighborhood where there is a lot of crime. I’ve been able to avoid being robbed because EVERYONE knows I have an arsenal of weapons waiting for them if they decide to trespass on my property.

Now, because I’ve felt a change of heart I’ve decided to get rid of all of my weapons and want to let everyone know about so I print a flyer and put it in the mailbox of everyone in my neighborhood and surrounding neighborhoods. Am I more likely to get robbed or less likely? It’s really common sense. There will always be robbers/criminals or more to the point dangerous nations/leaders that threaten freedom.

How would everyone feel about this if a terrorist successfully detonated a nuke here in the US? Let me guess, if we didn’t have any nukes the terrorist wouldn’t be able to get ahold of them? That’s the same flawed premise to goes with gun ownership. Criminals don’t abide by local, federal, or international law. If they want it, they will acquire it; eventually.

LIBERAL - 5/18/10 @ 11:21 PM: Ally | Side B
I'm sorry Kaz, but your argument is not sound. There is such a profound difference between a Glock and a thermonuclear warhead that any analogy is simply preposterous. If you drop a handgun in the middle of Moscow does it kill 300,000 instantly? Does it destroy half the city’s infrastructure and irradiate the landscape for years to come? No, it does not. I have never been one for our country policing the world, but eventually one has to step back and say “enough is enough”. Many wars and battles have been fought and justly won without the benefit of a nuclear weapon.

On August 6th and 9th of the year 1945 Harry S. Truman authorized the murder of thousands of innocent civilian lives. Now some would say that the Japanese had had it coming because of the attack on Pearl Harbor in which an aerial attack bombed and destroyed much of our Pacific fleet, but that was just it. They attacked only the military and the military bases. They did not bomb the surrounding city or kill thousands of innocent American lives. There is no justification for the taking of innocent civilian lives. None. The fact that they were citizens of a country that we were at war with does not make them “fair game” either, but that’s exactly what happened in August of 1945. The United States military, with approval from the President of the United States, condemned hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children to death who had never taken up arms against this country. There are no arguments to justify this action. It was nothing short of murder. Some might argue that Nagasaki was the site of the Imperial Japanese Navy base, but where the bomb was dropped caused far more devastation to civilian sites, and barely any to the Navy base. Hiroshima, the first to be struck, was nothing more than a supply base and had no real military significance. With that being the case why didn’t Truman just warn the Japanese that we had the capability and would use it if necessary. It wasn’t as if the Japanese had been able to get out of the laboratory phase with their program. We clearly had the upper hand, but instead of using diplomacy we used plutonium tipped warheads to annihilate over 150,000 people instantly, and allowed well over another 100,000 to suffer from various third degree burns and radiation exposure for days and weeks on end until the inevitable agonizing last breath. This is the benefit of nuclear weapons.

Now, I know you like hypothetical situations. So let’s try this one.

Sarah is a twenty-something year old female enrolled at Harvard University. She is second in her class in the study of law. Nearing her graduation she has received several job offers from various law firms across the country. To celebrate she has gone to Boston with several friends for a night on the town. They are making their way to a nearby pub when suddenly there is a great flash of light. The initial blast throws her and her friends several feet away. An 18kt uranium tipped nuclear warhead has been detonated over the city of Boston, Massachusetts. It kills over 75,000 people instantly and destroys a third of the city’s infrastructure in less than 2 seconds. The young woman is found thirty minutes later and taken to the closest hospital for treatment. With extreme damage to the hospital itself they are unable to alleviate the young woman’s pain. For seventeen days she lays in bed with third degree burns over 60 percent of her body. Hair has fallen out and she has gone blind from the intense radiation due to her proximity to the blast. Finally, she dies. Previously it is revealed that the bomb was dropped by North Korea. In response to the attack the United States declares war on North Korea and proceeds to fire two Inter-continental ballistic missiles which destroy the cities of Pyongyang and Wonsan killing over 250,000 people. Sarah is laid to rest on the morning after the last bomb is dropped. Sarah. It’s a beautiful name, and that’s exactly what you thought when you gave it to her on the day of her birth. There is no comfort in retaliation, and it does not bring back the dead. All that is left is regret. War begets war. Death begets death. It seems a harsh scenario, but reality is harsh, and so it was for the many left behind in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. So it will be for those when this scenario becomes reality for them.

There is only one true answer. Total nuclear proliferation. As I said before I am not much in keeping with the idea of policing the world, but eventually one must face the harsh reality that as one of the few responsible nations left in this world we must do what is necessary. If you take away the means to produce such a weapon and the current stockpile then you are left with nothing. I am no doubt certain that many will find other ways to wage war, but at the least, it will not be a nuclear war. And that it is an achievement to be proud of passing down to our children, grandchildren, and theirs as well.

Side B Comment

LIBERAL - 5/18/10 @ 1:29 PM:
We've come a long way baby! From sticks and stones, bows and arrows, swords and daggers, firearms and cannons, to the crowning achievement of man's scientific prowess. The thermonuclear warhead. With the capability to destroy a city the size of Paris, France in less than a second, and kill every living thing near the blast radius in less than a nanosecond. We've come a long way. God should be so proud of all that we've accomplished. He gave us life, and we finally figured out how to stamp it out entirely. War after war, genocide after genocide, all man can contemplate is how to make it bigger, faster, and deadlier. When will we ever learn?

As of December 31, 2005 # of Nuclear Warheads held by the following Countries

United States-9,552
North Korea-2

These figures are simply an approximation and are not entirely accurate, but are very close. These figures do not take into account smaller weapons such as nuclear artillery shells, depth charges, and anti-ballistic missiles. The frightening thing about these types of weapons is that because of their size they are much more easily stolen than other larger weapons of mass destruction.

Please write to your congressmen and congresswomen, your president, and if possible other nation’s politicians to say “No more!” It is time to take a stand against these horrific tools of destruction and make this world a safer place for generations to come.

Add new comment:

You must either login or register before you can comment.

Side B fans: (8)

You need to be logged in to do that!
Login with Your Facebook Account:
Already have a JealousBrother account? Login
Register for a JealousBrother Account! Register