CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Necessary to safeguard the western ideals of classical liberalism and the enlightenment.
Reason, science, democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, free press, a secular state, private property, free enterprise, and so on.
These values that we hold near and gave rise to the industrial revolution and subsequently the greatest civilization on earth are being threatened by fascists, particularly of the political Islam strain whom have stated many times in clear and unequivocal terms, they want to extend Sharia throughout the world, they want to destroy Israel.
With them, the question is not "Would they use the bomb?" the question is, "How close are they to getting the bomb?"
Hence, if you value the aforementioned western values, then it will need to be defended by virtuous men and women in uniform and superior firepower. There exists the very real probability that a bomb of such magnitude will eventually find it's way into the hands of those that see it as their divine duty to detonate it.
That is unfortunate, but it's also reality.
Even a meager 10 Kiloton bomb in the back of a van driven through times square or Whitehall would kill thousands. When the world knows peace, then we can disarm. Peace has an easy solution and is inevitable, but we're not there yet. Peace is quite simply allowing people to be free, politically and economically.
Democracies do not make war on each other, democracies find diplomatic resolutions. Dictatorships have a hard time maintaining alliances and ultimately stand alone in the world, despised by their populations and distrusted by other nations.
But peace is coming, by all objective criterion, the world is much more democratic than it was decades ago and the trend continues.
Reason, science, democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, free press, a secular state, private property, free enterprise, and so on.
.
pish-posh.
.
those things were never in any danger when we first used a nuclear weapon, nor were they under any threat from the "scourge" of communism which drove the cold war.
.
what you are espousing are the rationale from the military industrial complex to justify it's continued existence.
.
our founders deplored the idea of a standing army and our favorite gen/potus warned us all of the risks associated with allowing the machinery of war making to continue to exist well after the threat was gone.
Maybe you should move to Iran and tell them that nukes are not good before they get hold of or build some and do what they say they intend to do with them. Or maybe you should move to Russia or China and tell them that nukes are not good before they try to do what those commies have always said they intend to do in order to rule the world. Maybe you should move to the moon.
First of all, your choices make no sense based on the question: "Are they good or bad?" "YES THEY ARE!" See? No sense.
I mean the best scenario is for no one to have them, but the worst is for your enemy and not you to have them. So I mean if the question is whether they are good or bad in general, the answer is clear. But obviously of both have them, there will exist a kind of deterrant.
War is harm full for each sides even if it is going according to your own interests. How come you cant see this, thence you conceive that is fare, if it is for the opponent. Where do you think the bombs will be produced? And don't forget about the trials of those bombs. The country usıng nuclear bombs, will try them within its boundaries. After WW2 the Test Ban Treaty has been made probably you didn't know.
The moment when nuclear bomb explodes, the released radiation is harm full for animals and plants too, not only for people. Radiation kills livings also spoils the Terra, spoiling Terra means spoiling your own planet. Nuclear weapons are about personal ambitions spoiling our planet, accordingly keep supporting this if you want to see planet dying. In the end don't forget everything has a consequence. What goes around, comes around.
Are you saying it's better to bend over for your enemies and let them do what they want to do to you so they will be your friends and you can live happily under their rule forever?
This is not about bending over your enemy. I am talking about the harm that each sides taking. There are other weapons in this world that wont spoil the earth for our future generations. If war is a must, it should be made in the least harm full way for earth, animals and other innocent people.
Namely, are you trying to say, you would even kill yourself to kill your enemy? But his debate is about nuclear weapons not about wars or enemies. I said my point why nuclear weapons are bad, and your respond is not a rebuttal.
Why not just have everybody sit down for a game of Yahtzee at Burger King?....or better yet, for the green goodness of the Earth, instead of shooting each other they can have a picnic and just forget all their problems.
No they are not good because when we set off a nuclear bomb, we are destroying mass amounts of people and land. Well that's the point...right? Yes that is the point, but in doing thus we kill innocent people that live there or are held hostage or just happen to be there. Also this destroys civilizations, meaning that all the people that evacuated, or live near have no where to go because everything around them has been destroyed. Mass destruction may be a positive for the army, but not for the innocent people around the area they are bombing.
War is harm full for each sides even if it is going according to your own interests. How come you cant see this, thence you conceive that is fare, if it is for the opponent. Where do you think the bombs will be produced? And don't forget about the trials of those bombs. The country usıng nuclear bombs, will try them within its boundaries. After WW2 the Test Ban Treaty has been made probably you didn't know.
The moment when nuclear bomb explodes, the released radiation is harm full for animals and plants too, not only for people. Radiation kills livings also spoils the Terra, spoiling Terra means spoiling your own planet. Nuclear weapons are about personal ambitions spoiling our planet, accordingly keep supporting this if you want to see planet dying. In the end don't forget everything has a consequence. What goes around, comes around.
Nuclear weapons are not good, but are a necessary evil in a world where the haves and the have nots and those who are trying to get them can use them as pawns in playing a game of tag in the dynamic balance of military power on this planet.
If it wasn't for nukes many more Japanese and Americans would have died in a project that they were planning if they couldn't take out the Japs with nukes.
Did you pass History? You would have learnt that only the U.S had the nuke but Russia knew that the U.S had this secret weapon but didn't know how to make it.
I'm sorry, I'm in eighth grade and am 13 and haven't learned that yet. I just know that we had the Manhattan project occur and had two nukes to nuke Japan with. Also you don't know geography because I wasn't Russia then, It was the USSR if we are gonna play dirty like that.
Oh how pitiful that sounds, rulers want power through having the nicest military. How do we get them to surrender when it's the better choice Nukes (Look up the Japanese Nuke vs Japanese Invasion)
That is bull, We did not nuke Japan for 'real life testing' we nuked them to end the war. If we had not nuked Japan we would have had to invade Japan which would have had costed millions more on both sides.
that WAS the official story... but not necessarily the truth.
.
"Scientists at Los Alamos were not entirely confident in the in the plutonium bomb design"
.
and
.
"The bomb's gun-barrel shape was believed to be unquestionably reliable and had never been tested. In fact, testing was out of the question since producing Little Boy had used all of the purified U235 produced to date; therefore, no other bomb like it has ever been built."
Because whatever country we nuke them or another country will nuke us right back. Which instead of saving millions would likely cause the end of the world.
First, down voting every who disagrees with you is very immature. Second, the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction is the entire basis of nuclear related politics. When one country attacks another, retaliation always occurs when possible. The same would apply for nukes.
It's the whole point of the voting system otherwise it wouldn't exist. Now, indeed you are correct about the retaliation thing but not all of us have the same technology, not all of us have nukes yet and not all of us can fire a nuke from one country and have it land in another.
Don't you find it weird, then, that you are the only one here who is down voting every comment that you disagree with?
Now, indeed you are correct about the retaliation thing but not all of us have the same technology, not all of us have nukes yet and not all of us can fire a nuke from one country and have it land in another.
Can you think of any nation that does not have nukes but would have any risk of being nuked, or be in any conflict that would go nuclear?
No it doesn't you asked for what nation doesn't have nukes, only nine nations have them. And quit being a hypocrite. Your doing the exact same thing to others.
Because we could shoot down a plane before it even reaches our territory. We can explode a ship before it enters our territory, and we can make sure nobody is carrying a nuke on them (For whenever they make extremely small nukes :P)
No it doesn't you asked for what nation doesn't have nukes, only nine nations have them.
No, what I asked you was: "Can you think of any nation that does not have nukes but would have any risk of being nuked, or be in any conflict that would go nuclear?"
And quit being a hypocrite. Your doing the exact same thing to others.
What am I doing to others? Insulting them? If so, who?
Because we could shoot down a plane before it even reaches our territory.
Which country do you believe still employs non-stealth bombers to deploy nuclear ordinance?
We can explode a ship before it enters our territory, and we can make sure nobody is carrying a nuke on them
Or non-stealth submarines carrying nuclear ordinance, for that matter?
