EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

That nuclear weapons should be globally decommissioned

0 points
0 points
Priest of SwagPriest of Swag (PRO)
There is a lot of fear behind decommissioning nuclear weapons. The primary fear being that without a means to deter aggression from other nuclear hosting groups and nations, we would be vulnerable to total annihilation.  I understand this concern fully, and it is a legitimate one. 

Fear though, should not dictate our lives. A world in which we all point WMD's at each other, is not a world in which I want to live. Maybe decommissioning all nuclear weapons is an unrealistic goal, but it is one I would like to pursue, even if it means I could potentially lose everything. 

Because that is what life is about; taking risks to secure a better tomorrow. What can happen, will happen, and the status quo is just a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. Maybe by trying to prevent the catastrophe from ever happening, we will inadvertently  shorten the time until detonation, but what have we got to lose from trying? 

From my count, a madman is going to get his hands on a nuclear weapon eventually. We might as well try and do something productive, instead of waiting for the inevitable to happen. Taking some action and failing at least comes with some pride. All we get from cowering in fear is an overwhelming sense of shame. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-28 19:23:50
| Speak Round
annas188annas188 (CON)
I thank my opponent for his opening arguments. Fear is, indeed, a legitimate factor in this issue. It is not, however, unfounded. I oppose the resolution for two main reasons; they are as follows:

1. Decommissioning all nuclear weapons is unrealistic and idealistic, and as such places people in danger
2. The proposed action would not deter countries from engaging in war, rather, would promote the development of new and potentially more destructive technologies

Firstly, preparedness is not the same thing as living in fear. I believe the safety and livelihood of citizens of the world transcends our feelings of fear, shame, pride, and the like. I absolutely agree that sooner or later, some madman will get his hands on a nuclear WMD, and chaos will ensue. That's not something we want to be unprepared for. Imagine a world in which the only nation with access to nuclear weapons was North Korea, or some nation with an equally psychotic ruler. That's  what I would call living in fear. In that light, it's also crucial to note that universal compliance would never be reached; there would always be nations who refuse to give up their nuclear arms and put the rest of the world, then defenseless, in danger. Even if we do hold onto our nuclear arms without using them, they serve as a strong deterrent to anyone who would wage war. In that sense, they are useful even in disuse. We cannot afford to be idealistic; rather, we must survey the world around us and prepare for every situation, including nuclear war, however distasteful the prospect may be. It isn't an act of fear to keep our arms; it's common sense in the world we live in. By decommissioning nuclear weapons in an attempt to prevent people from living in fear, we would inadvertently force that very fate upon the world.

Secondly, the natural progression of warfare throughout the course of human history has been nothing but escalations in destructiveness and the continued development of methods of warfare which become only more grisly as we progress as a species. It is tragically naive for us to think that by ridding ourselves of nuclear WMDs, the destructiveness of war will deescalate. Throughout the history of mankind at war, each advance in enemy technology has been met with even greater retaliation; from this, we have seen the quick development of increasingly deadly and horrendous methods of warfare. From swords came handguns, from handguns came heavy artillery, from artillery came trench warfare, from trenches came tanks and gas attacks, and the progression continues. Removal of nukes will only force the creation of other weapons of mass destruction; each worse than the next. The problem is not nuclear weaponry. It is mankind's natural state of war, which cannot be mended by merely taking away one toy in a chest of many more.

Nuclear war is a horrendous prospect, however, it is an event for which we must be prepared. By decommissioning nuclear weapons in an attempt to create a more peaceful world, we would inadvertently achieve the opposite goal. 

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-05-29 06:52:50
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

There are no judgements yet on this debate.

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 2 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • Reply speeches
  • Uses cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 5 days
  • Time to vote: 1 month
  • Time to prepare: None
This is a random challenge. See the general rules for random challenges at http://www.edeb8.com/resources/General+rules+for+random+debates+%28version+2%29