Nuclear proliferation: will development of nuclear weapons fuel a third world war?
All people have used to blame someome or something for their own mistakes or failure, and nobody likes to admit their own guilts. So, is the nuclear weapons can really be the cause of War World three, or it is just a balme for the countries for unleashing this.
Yes
Side Score: 18
|
 |
No
Side Score: 20
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly YES it can fuel a third world WAR. Use of nuclear weapons is immoral and highly dangerous. When a nuclear experiment is conducted its after effects remain active till many years. More the number of nuclear weapons made, more are the risks it poses to human life. Maintaining a nuclear bomb is pretty 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. Side: Yes
I believe proliferation and development of nuclear weapons will not trigger Third World War. Once upon a time the United States and the Soviet Union had a large amount of stocks of nuclear weapons in the world. But fortunately third world war did not take place. I present two reasons. The first is that the leaders of two super powers strongly recognized the worst situation. If it would happen, all the countries of the world would be involved in the total war on a global scale and almost all of the people in the world would die and industrial civilization would collapse. The second is that strategic Armes Reduction Treaty was sighned between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. However, after the end of it nuclear weapons have been proliferated into some of the developing countries. In particular North Korea, Iran, and other rogue countries have spent too much on getting, developiong and increasing the amount of nuclear weapons by themselves. Those countries have a hateful feelings toward highly developed industrial countries like North Korea, the U. S. Briton. France and so on. Side: No
It is right that nuclear can be dangerous of the people,s life, if we not control the rules of using it, but we shuold not forget that reasources of our planet is limited and we have to find another alternative sounrce of energy. So, the US is now blaming Iran for using nuclear power and creating nuclear power station, saying that it can use it for the military purposes, and unleasing war against Iran, but Iran is a peaceful country and is saying it wants nuclear power only for economical benefits. If you remember, Us blames Iraq for hiding nuclear weapons and attacked it, but there was nothing found. Do not you think that US can use the samo way for cuptering Iran? Side: No
Two weekends ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said: "Are they trying to develop a nuclear weapon? No. But we know that they're trying to develop a nuclear capability and that's what concerns us and our red line to Iran is: Do not develop a nuclear weapon." And it's not just the US assessment. Israel's liberal newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday that "Iran has not yet decided whether to make a nuclear bomb, according to the intelligence assessment Israeli officials will present later this week to [visiting] Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff." Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak poured cold water on speculation that his country is planning a unilateral attack against Iran. "This entire thing is very far off. I don’t want to provide estimates [but] it’s certainly not urgent," Side: Yes
The United States and the United Nations have been persuading those countries to refrain from buying, developing and holding nuclear weapons. However, they have not accepted their demands so far. They are always reluctant to have an opportunity to talk about reducing the nuclear weapons with super powers of the West. I believe leaders of North Korea, Iran are not interested in waging nuclear war with the rest of the world. It seems that they are eager to exert an enormous influence in the world political stage and threatening the rest of the world by possesing highly developed and sophisticated nuclear weapons. In reality leaders of rough states want to live longer and to maintain the highest and supreme power in society as a political dictator as long as possible. Therefore, I strongly believe that proliferation and development of nuclear weapons will not trigger Third World War in the future. I hope someone challenge this debate and continue our arguments. Side: No
1
point
|
Nuclear weapons are the only thing that prevented a war between the USSR and the USA. Second the two atomic bombs that were dropped on Japan saved millions of lives. third- From the knowledge of radiation and nuclear weapons came several key inventions like nuclear power. fourth- we have a much better understanding know of what a meteor hitting Earth will be like. Side: No
Almost from the moment the first atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico in July 1945, the menacing aura of the nuclear age has inspired hopes for a world free of nuclear weapons. But since the end of the Cold War, the focus of concern has shifted from the vast arsenals of the United States and China to worries about terrorism and the rise of new nuclear states like North Korea, which detonated a nuclear device in 2006. And also in our days IRAN is producing nuclear weapons to protect itself from its oponents. If US will continue to increase the pressure toward IRAN it might be the reason of Third World WAR. Side: Yes
Iran is not usingnuclear for military purposes, but however if it wants to use it for weapons, it will be right, because Iran is a proud country that sits between nuclear Pakistan and India to its east, a nuclear Russia to its north and a nuclear Israel to its west. Adjacent Afghanistan and Iraq are occupied at will by a nuclear America, which backed Saddam Hussein in his 1980 invasion of Iran. How can we say such a country has ‘no right’ to nuclear defence? Side: No
"Yes"- it will seem a right answer if we just skim this issue, but if we look deaply on it we can understand, that nuclear weapons are just an excuse for unleasing the War World three. It means that such countries, like USA and UK are trying to unleash the War, and they are using this excause for attaking ohter contries. Side: No
2
points
I believe that the world is too economically united for another World War to be caused. The climate is changing and resources are vanishing. We can't afford to hate countries on the other side of the world when we actually will soon get many of our resources from them. I do not doubt that certain world leaders are trigger happy and the such, but surely none of the world powers will be stupid enough to cause a nuclear war when the next decade may very well bring twice as much poverty and starvation if they do not focus their attention on eliminating it. Side: No
I do not like any wars and misunderstandings, but it is the fact that our world is on the eve of war, because of unstable political relations between most powerfull countries. The reason of it is not and will not be clear for us, peacefuul people, but i can hereby certify that it will not be because of nuclear weapons, because these weapons are the only factor which prevets the new war.... Side: No
|
