CreateDebate


Debate Info

52
74
We should abolish We should not abolish
Debate Score:126
Arguments:57
Total Votes:140
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 We should abolish (27)
 
 We should not abolish (30)

Debate Creator

wazupyo123(12) pic



Should we Abolish Nuclear Weapons

We should abolish

Side Score: 52
VS.

We should not abolish

Side Score: 74

Obviously, one nation abolishing nuclear weapons is useless, but if there was a UN-mandated disarmament, perhaps we could be looking at something positive. I mean, does anyone disagree that nuclear weapons do more harm than good?

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
jessald(1904) Disputed
3 points

If we could somehow enforce a mutual disarmament, that would be great, but I don't see how we could. All it would take is one country building one in secret to ruin it. How could we know for sure no other country was working on one in some hidden underground bunker?

Also, some people do argue that nuclear weapons do more good than harm. This is because if two countries have nuclear weapons, they basically can't go to war without wiping each other out. This is an effective way of enforcing peace. Obviously it's risky, but the presence of nukes is the biggest reason we haven't had any wars between major countries since WWII.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish

Obviously, an idealistic worldwide nuclear disarmament is nearly impossible. But, maybe, one day....

But although your second argument is correct, I absolutely hate it. It signifies no respect for human life, whether it's civilian or military. It makes my skin crawl.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
vanillasmile(57) Disputed
2 points

Regarding your second argument that nuclear weapons are the reason major powers have not gone to war.. don't you think that economic interdependency is enough of a factor for sustaining peace? This would make nuclear weapons unnecessary.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
nagtroll(269) Disputed
1 point

That is very irresponsible don't you think?

If we could somehow enforce that nuclear weapons do more harm because basically wiping each other out is an effective way of peace obviously the nukes is the biggest wars, between WWII.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
ThePyg(6738) Disputed
2 points

Nuclear weapons have never been used because all the major nations have them.

When people like Mahmoud and Saddam are threatening to make nuclear weapons, it's hard to stop them when all we have a pea-shooters. Plus, many nations try to do it secretly. Imagine how fucked we'd all be if a nation created the only nuclear weapon (especially a lunatic like Kim Jong Il).

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
chapulina(151) Disputed
3 points

*correction: nuclear weapons have been used, twice. I've been to both Hiroshima and Nagazaki atomic bomb museums - it's not pretty.

4 years ago | Side: We should educate people
3 points

Nuclear weapons should be abolished due to it's destructive power and the aftermath of it. I think that the only way to enforce it is to have an international agreement where:

1. all existing nuclear powers (eg. US, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom...) be destroyed. No exceptions.

2. Any country resisting to sign or impose such an international law to be completely isolated in every way possible, including diplomatic, trade/economical/financial, military or even foreign aid. That way, citizens of those countries will see for themselves that it will not be tolerated and they themselves will overthrow their own leaders because no one is going to tolerate being isolated from the world.

Some might say that countries such as US, Russia, China, France & United Kingdom should be an exclusion, but that only gives other countries to do the same. Otherwise, it is a double standard. At the same time, it shows will from all the countries that everyone is willing to sacrifice something so that these terrible weapons do not get in the hands of egoistical idiots who will not think twice about pulling the trigger.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
FreeWorld(20) Disputed
2 points

But North Korea is already isolated in the way you state, they are self sufficient and do not care for their population, and they probably have plans to make more nuclear weapons in secret. What if all other nations totally abolished nukes except for them, and maybe some other countries who could have possibly lied about ending their nuclear programs? They could threaten any country they please, and even if we or another country invaded and took over it successfully, their nuclear weapons could have already been launched, wiping out millions of miles of cities, killing countless innocent lives, not to mention the radiation poisoning that would leave the entire areas affected deadly and toxic for hundreds of years. Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil at this point, unfortunately.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
2 points

Why do we need to keep things that hinder the survival of our own species?

All kinds of weapons should be abolished.... there is no moral ground to defend them.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
wolfbite(427) Disputed
1 point

Sometimes we need to kill off parts of our species in order to guarantee that we will be able to pass along our own genes. As a human being I wish to one day pass my genes down, in order to do that I must guarantee that I will be able to live long enough to raise a child. If another nation were to attack my country then there is a good chance that I would have to go fight and risk my life in order to guarantee that one day I will be able to carry out my wish to reproduce. With a nuclear weapon I am able to increase my own chances of survival whereas without one I stand a good chance of dying. So to answer your question, it is a natural instinct to want the species to survive, but if one must kill others in order to guarantee the survival of their own genes then so be it.

To say that all weapons should be abolished is quite a silly thing to say. Without weapons how will we protect ourselves from those species that can kill us easily if they want to? A man with a rifle vs a bear is a match-up in which the man has the advantage. However, if you take away the rifle then there is no question as to who would win. So wouldn't that mean that the man not having a rifle to defend himself hinders the survival of our own species?

Then there is the idea that without weapons how will we possibly survive due to lack of food? Without weapons we cannot hunt and therefor must resort to scavenging or eating only fruit and veggies. That kind of diet might be able to work for a certain amount of time, but in the long run it will cause problems for the body because of lack of proper nutrition. So isn't being able to provide a proper diet for one's family a moral enough arguement for having weapons?

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
chapulina(151) Disputed
4 points

Kill parts of our species in order to pass on our own genes? Your comment has traces of Richard Dawkins's selfish gene theory, where the perpetuation of genes is more important than that of species. I like the theory very much, because it explains much of evolution, but as Dawkins said himself, human beings have transcended our simple natural instincts and now we use our rational brains for more than finding ways to reproduce successfully. We dedicate our lives to various things, such as art, science, entertainment, happiness... If your goal in life is to reproduce, fine, but let me break the news for you: most of us have abandoned the caveman mindset a long time ago. Your argument of assuring the perpetuation of your own genes could be used not only to defend atomic bombs, but also to support a guy who kills another one at a bar because they were both hitting on the same woman. Sorry, we don't live by jungle's rules anymore...

An atomic bomb not only kills "enemies", but it also destroys nature, and the radioactivity stays there for a very long time. Imagine if these things start being used in wars, carelessly! I'm pretty sure your dear genes wouldn't stay here for long. Seriously, why to do this to our planet? We need it!

Also, your argument that weapons are necessary in order to protect us from other species and guarantee food just doesn't make sense in the technological world we have today. Most people have never faced a bear in their lives, and those who live in places where bears are present have found out that prevention is far better than just killing bears as they show up.

We have amazing brains, we should use them! Not only to understand the nature of bears, but also the nature of our so called "enemies". Coexisting in peace is better for everyone.

4 years ago | Side: We should educate people
2 points

Considering the international reaction to the recent events of n.Korea's nuclear testing. These weapons have brought nothing in this world but pain,sorrow, and negativity. Surely, you all can agree that the bombings in japan hurt that nation not physically only, but emotionally as a nation. It made them lose everything, and even their pride as a nation of the pacific. Also, going back onto my point about the current situation. All the weapons do is make the tension between nations alot more dangerous. these weapons could fall into the wrong hands and cause the worst events imaginable. With these weapons in existance, the human race has the firepower and the ability to destroy itself which has never happened in the history of mankind. Therefore, i strongly believe that we need to not only abolish these weapons, but destroy everyone and create an international task force (such as the FBI, etc.) against the use of these weapons.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish

There's no doubt in my mind we should abolish nuclear weapons but one thing comes to mind. We'd need to police th world and if we cannot engage them is nuclear disarmement talks, how will we know what they're using the components of nuclear energy for. This would take a tremendous effort on the world's behalf to assure every country is a clean country!

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
2 points

Yes, if we could convince EVERY country with nukes to abolish them as well. They do too much damage, I believe the radical idea that we should kill as few civillians in war as possible. We would probably destroy half the world's population if we got into another world war now....

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
2 points

In an ideal world, I would agree that nuclear weapons should be abolished, but I feel for jessald's first argument about practicality and his latter argument about using nuclear weapons has a M.A.D.-style security system.

The one thing I would like to have said in this debate is that my fear is not necessarily that states would acquire these weapons, but rather that individuals or proxy powers would. The threat is growing and it is made more dangerous by the fact that many of these individuals are motivated by an ideology that precludes them from the fear of a M.A.D. scenario.

If we did support international disarmament, the consensus nonproliferation goals would be met and the proliferation of nuclear weapons would slow, but the possibility described above could not be avoided, contained, or adequately prevented by pro-disarmament powers.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
2 points

YEs we have to abolish nuclear weapon Bcz we can see the result of n- weapon on japan about 2,50,000 people was died in this.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
2 points

We have plenty of other large bombs that we can use if needed. Nukes only contribute to fear and hysteria for the countries that don't possess them. One day, someone somewhere will possess a nuclear weapon and use it as a bargaining chip. This will most likely lead to another world war and chaos will follow. Just my prediction anyways.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
2 points

I believe that nuclear weapons should be abolished. Nuclear weapons have created fear and terror among Man. Nuclear weapons also causes harm to our Earth that we live in. Earth is our home. We have to protect it. Let's us don't use nuclear weapons and save our Earth from destruction.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
2 points

i think we should. Because, even if we were attacked by a nuclear attack, we would have almost no way of stopping the nukes. If we were attacked, we could only launch off our nukes in return. If one nuke was launched, the rest of the world might get paranoid and launch off there own too. By the end of the day the first nuke was launched the whole human race would be mostly extinct. An system to shoot down nukes would be more effective because having nukes doesnt make people not want to have nukes. Even if we were attacked with a nuke if we had that system we could shoot it down and stop it.

3 years ago | Side: We should abolish
5 points

I'd love it if every nation abolished ALL forms of warfare. But the truth is that nuclear weapons can be a very good way of protecting the free world. Korea and Iran don't use the nuclear weapons the (might) have because they know that is they do, their countries would get annihilated by the hundreds of nukes we have. And even if we were able to abolish them, do you really think North Korea and Iran, for examples, would follow suit? No! They would surely attack us!

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
4 points

Thepyg and Mkiced said everything I was going to say. There was a debate almost just like this a few months back.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
4 points

we cant abolish nuclear weapons. If a super power like America or england abolishes nuclear weapons we would have to abolish nuclear every thing because if someone works at a nuclear plant they could find a way to make a weapon.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
wolfbite(427) Disputed
2 points

Yeah... because people who work at power plants must sit around all day wondering how to make a nuke out of the material they have. In reality, a nuclear bomb and a nuclear power plant are way too different and you would be better off just blowing up the plant to spread the radioactive waste rather than make an entire new bomb. But seeing how ever since Chernobyl nuclear powers have had all sorts of new safety laws added to them it is unlikely that this would happen.

Oh, and good job downgrading every arguement but your own, really shows a lack of class on your part.

4 years ago | Side: We should educate people
nagtroll(269) Disputed
2 points

wondering how to make a nuke?

In a nuclear bomb, blowing up the radioactive waste, But seeing how ever since all sorts to them that this good job really shows a lack of class.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
Darkb456(94) Disputed
1 point

Absolutely any technology can be used to make a weapon, just about everything that was used by a military at any time, was actually created by perverting other technologies, gunpowder was discovered in an effort to find immortality, ships were created for fishing. Why not ban all technology?

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
3 points

we should try to get all nations to agree not to use them eventually but save them in case we need to destroy an asteroid or something we can stockpile them and send them out into space should one come near the earth like in Armegeddon

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
3 points

It is neccesary to have nuclear power bcz if we have not, then we considered as a weak country and by this fact other country will not thinked before war....... bcz he knew that we can't do anything.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
3 points

Should we, as in the United States? No, of course not. If other countries have them we should have a stockpile as well.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
3 points

The only real reason we shouldn't abolish Nuclear Weaponry is because of the possibility of other countries creating them in secret. Imagine if the U.S., Britain, or another country was threatened by a rouge country that created a few nuclear missiles or ICBMs in secret. Assuming the victim country wasn't prepared, they would be at the rouge country's mercy. Also, say a part of the planet is about to be impacted by a giant piece of asteroid, and it would in estimate kill millions of people. Nuclear warheads would be the only thing we have as of today that could ever hope to break up the asteroid into smaller pieces before it hits Earth.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
3 points

There should be a disarmament, but we shouldn't completely abolish nukes. If we abolish them, one group or country could build them in secret, and the rest of the world would be screwed. If the UN kept a small assortment on nuclear missiles, the rogue countries would think twice before attacking anyone with their nukes, because the UN would have more nukes, bigger nukes, and the rogue country would be screwed.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
2 points

Anyone ever heard of North Korea? I say just for that reason alone we need our Nuclear Weapons! But there are so many other reasons we need them too. The further along Obama pushes this country towards becoming a laughing stock to all other nations, the more and more we will need them to defend ourselves.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
ledhead818(628) Disputed
1 point

How is Obama making the country a laughing stock to all other nations? I'm pretty sure that was Bush's job.

4 years ago | Side: We should abolish
altarion(1932) Disputed
2 points

He's saying we need to "lead the way" by disarming our sole defence against upcoming nuclear nations. That's just a load of bull shit!

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
2 points

Well, I think they should, absolutely. BUT!!!! No way in hell would a complete agreement be made to abolish these weapons. If it could somehow be guaranteed that all nuclear weapons be gone it would be great, but even if every country were to agree, there would be someone with a bunch of nukes and they would end up ruling the world because everyone else was being naive.

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
2 points

its not a matter of whether or not we should abolish, i'd love it if all nukes were gotten rid of, but the problem is that not every country would abolish and when all of our nukes are gone and the terrorists have them, what the hell are we going to do?

4 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
2 points

Look, Im all for abolishing and peace and stuff, but we can't.

All it takes is one person with less reason than most, and our fallible human nature will take care of the rest.

3 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
2 points

The only reason we are not fighting WW3 is because every country is scared of been attacked by nuclear weapons. The military brass will think at first,"for the greater good, the lives of some civilians need to be considered expendable". However, they will dismiss that thought as they know they will killing civilains who are protected by the fourth geneva convention, hence, if they loose the war, they will stand for war crimes. We should not abolish nuclear weapons as they are really a means of peace keeping. The Afghan war and the Iraq war could easily have been ended ages ago by using nuclear weapons, however, the US and its allies fear retaliation and so nuclear weapons have not been used. Although nuclear weapons will never be used by any country, it is a good idea for every country to have them. Therefore, we should not abolish nuclear weapons, but promote them. Prehaps the US and Russia could sell some the nuclear weapons left over from the cold war to countries who need them.

3 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
1 point

even you wanted to ban and disarm them how could you collect them all safely with all countries being completely honest? doubt it

3 years ago | Side: We should not abolish
1 point

No, because if we abolish them here in the U.S., how do we know that other countries will not abolish them in their country? Mutually assured destruction doesn't work if only one side has nukes.

1 year ago | Side: We should not abolish
1 point

Firstly, It is unrealistic to except all countries to destroy their weapons.

Secondly, the effects of nuclear weapons are so devastating that no will use them.

Thirdly, No they shouldn't.

Nuclear weapons are the main reason we haven't had a world war 3, and no other major war since 1945. Many people think that nukes will be the end of the world, and it makes sense why they would think that, but if we destroyed our nuclear weapons, do you really think that Afghanistan, and other foreign countries that are itching for power really would? The nuclear weapons should not be abolished as they are a big source of world's peace. All the super powers of the world have nuclear weapons and if they are not using it then its only because they know that others have them too. I mean come on who the hell do not want to be all and all in the whole world. So if someone finds a way today to destroy other countries who won't ??? !!!

112 days ago | Side: We should not abolish


About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons
©2014 TidyLife, Inc. All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Debate Forum | Big shout-outs to The Bloggess and Andy Cohen.