JackSprat (PRO)Nuclear Arsenals Ought To be Eliminated.
Eliminating them is a natural progression of a global society.
Nuclear Weapons are not established to be a necessity in order to accomplish some goal, that could not otherwise be achieved.
binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons,
leading towards their total elimination. https://undocs.org/A/CONF.229/2017/8 120 countries approved the draft text. and as of today, nearly 90 have signed the declaration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Prohibition_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Banning arts of war is not a new concept. An example would be the Chemical Weapons Convention https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention. We also can agree that the international community has voices significant outrage when there has been a use of chemical weapons as seen by this UN Security Council report. on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war. https://undocs.org/S/2016/738
While deterrence is often considered a core factor for the development of nuclear weapons, old fashion prestige may also be a motivator. After almost 75 years, they are still a technological honor badge. You could argue that it is no accident that the permanent five members of the U.N. Security Council are the first five states to develop nuclear weapons.
The death toll and long term effects of nuclear weapons are well known, undisputed facts. What is not known is what reason is there to keep them, that could not be achieved in some other means.
Therein the resolution stands. Nuclear Arsenals Ought to be Eliminated.
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-04-18 10:33:37
| Speak Round: Most of your "speech" says that eliminating arsenals is possible. Do you have any actual offense that I should know about?: In addition, you claim that the nuclear death toll is well known undisputed fact. What is that death toll, and why have we not already seen nuclear fallout?: The topic is Nuclear Arsenals "ought" to be eliminated. No where did I argue about the mechanics of achieving elimination as that was not the point. : With respect to the death toll. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are undisputed locations of nuclear weapons being used, resulting in significant death. If you really need a source to prove they occurred and prove significant deaths resulted I will provide such. although I will be very surprised that such events and death are actually in dispute.: I'll give you Hiroshima and Nagasaki (of course I won: 't deny their existence): But those occured before there were multiple nuclear armed states. Since then, it hasn't happened, and a past event is no reason to eliminate something that is working now. Can you prove that there is a death toll related to nukes in the world of detterence?: What do you mean, the mechanics of elimination aren't in question? That is a huge part of this debate. Do you disagree that, in order to justify elimination, you must justify the method of elimination?: Lastly, the question still stands- do you have any offense?: The mechanics are very important. However they are secondary. When treaties are signed, they are not signed with the mechanisms of HOW, They are signed with the mechanisms of WHAT. You first need to get countries to agree on the what. Then they figure out the how. : Should we cure cancer? Universal answer would arguably be Yes. Does that mean we have to have the cure right now? No. That is the WHAT before the HOW.: Should nuclear arsenals be eliminated Yes. (the WHAT). There is no HOW in the debate. If the argument is that it is impossible to eliminate the arsenals globally, I submit that is a different question. "Is it pragmatically feasible to eliminate all nuclear arsenals globally". Is that your interpretation of this question?: You asked "Can you prove that there is a death toll related to nukes in the world of detterence(sic) ?" That is an assumptive claim that nuclear weapons are a deterrence. I asked you to demonstrate how nuclear arsenals are.a deterrence that cannot be accomplished by other means.Return To Top
Jchintzymetal (CON)Round Forfeited
Return To Top | Posted:
2020-04-24 10:36:01
| Speak Round