CreateDebate


Debate Info

39
38
Yes. No.
Debate Score:77
Arguments:35
Total Votes:107
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes. (16)
 
 No. (19)

Debate Creator

Bradf0rd(1428) pic



Should we abolish nuclear weapons?

It's not *can* we, it's *should* we.

Yes.

Side Score: 39
VS.

No.

Side Score: 38
4 points

If we're not gonna ever use them, why have them?

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has stated that we need “to accelerate disarmament amongst possessor states, to prevent proliferation to new states, and to ultimately achieve a world that is free from nuclear weapons.”

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has stated that "“India is fully committed to nuclear disarmament that is global, universal, and nondiscriminatory in nature.”

These leaders want to eliminate, which means according to Merriam Webster to put an end to or get rid of, nuclear weapons. These leaders became leaders because of their strong opinion, and because of their intellect. Why not listen to them, and follow their opinon?

Side: Yes.
3 points

Absolutely. There is no reason anyone should ever use a nuclear weapon again. The nuclear deterant argument is completely stupid, and only acts as an aggressor towards countries without nuclear power. The only reason countries such as Iran want nukes is because Isreal has them, and the US, and the UK. Why can we have them, but no one else? Seems a little bit hypocritical. Why keep them if you plan on never using them? The best nuclear deterant is to get rid of them.

Side: Yes.
3 points

Nuclear weapons aren't deterrents for very long, especially if plans are leaked.

Supporting Evidence: Nuclear Warhead Blueprints On Smugglers' Computers (it.slashdot.org)
Side: Yes.
-1 points

The reason Iran should not have them is because they want to wipe Israel off the map and because they support terrorism. Imagine them giving a dirty bomb to some terrorist group.

Side: No.
xaeon(1093) Disputed
4 points

The US has the largest supply of nuclear weapons in the world, and is also one of the biggest supporters of terrorism around the world. Guess who funded and armed Saddam Hussein? The US. Guess who was funding militant Islam terrorist in Afghanistan pre-1979. The US. Who was funding and arming Osama Bin Laden pre-2001? The US. So, using your argument, why should the US (the UK, etc) be able to fund terrorism around the globe and still be allowed to have nukes?

And the reason the situation in the middle east in regards to Isreal has gotten so out of hand is due to the US and UK's unrelenting support for Isreal.

Regardless, the point is that NO ONE should have them. Not us, not them. I'd rather see the £18billion sidelined for replacement of the Trident system spent on the NHS, fixing our public transport, providing free care for the elderly, reducing tax, etc. THAT's what people want, not a load of weapons that should never ever be used under any circumstances.

Side: Yes.
2 points

There are a couple of reasons why you are wrong:

1. Iran knows that it will be wiped off the face of the earth should it take out Israel; either directly or through a clandestine attack. We would find out, and even if we only suspected we'd probably nuke them anyways.

2. Giving terrorists a dirty or other sort of nuclear weapon is something the Iranians would probably never do (on purpose).

It is very likely that they will give it to a cell that would use it to overthrow them and install a rival theocratic sect (or a sect that believes its government to be corrupt).

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and other Islamic, fundamentalist nations are finding themselves at the wrong end of radical Islamic terrorists. None of these governments really believe in Islam, they are just in it for the power, money, and privilege. The people, and the terrorists, know this well enough.

None of these governments is likely to give an extremely dangerous weapon to a group they do not directly control and which is likely to turn on them whenever they get the chance.

Side: No.
2 points

The risks of terrorists getting nuclear weapons, or of nuclear accidents is too great. yes Nuclear weapons were a deterrent and probably prevented any considered conflict between nations that had nuclear stockpiles but those nations had people they were expected to protect. they knew that using such weapons would mean the ultimate suffering or annihilation of their people and or country. but we have seen that terrorists don't care and it isn't like one can really retaliate with nuclear weapons against terrorists since they live in countries with innocent people who mean no harm. a nuclear weapon gives a religious zealot of any religion a method to do great harm, why should we give them the opportunity? It will probably be a long time before nations such as America, Israel, Russia, India, or Pakistan agree to abolishing nuclear weapons and if that day comes it might be too late, but we should actively work to reduce the number that we have. The greater threat now is terrorism not invasions from other countries. What moral reason does any nation have to keep weapons of such ultimate destruction?

Nukes might have made war hungry people like Bush not able to seriously consider invading Russia, or any other nuclear power but would bush have been able, would the American people bean that brainwashed to accept such an idea? would the world accept such an action? I agree that there are a lot of people who want war but we need to work to stop them. We need to be able to accept different forms of government if they don't do true harm to their people. just because not every nation was capitalist doesn't mean it's bad, just because a nation isn't Jewish or Christian doesn't mean it is evil.

If America does continue to make its "star wars" missile defense or missile shield, and it is reliable, then won't it make the policy of Mutually Assured Destruction void? If this is the case than retaining nuclear stockpiles will not prevent nations from attacking. there are people who want war in many countries but it is those in America or allied with america that have the greatest potential to unleash a terrible war and we shouldn't give them that option.

Side: Yes.
2 points

i think we should abolish nuclear weapons. There are other means to win wars. When we attack an enemy county with a nuclear weapon we are not only hurting thier military we are also attacking their people who do not want the war and they are civilians who just want to be left alone. That nuclear weapen will not just kill people and then enemies militaty but also tear families apart and cripple many people. The land that was attacked by a nuclear weapon will not be safe to live because of the radiation and can reside there.

Side: Yes.
2 points

Has anyone ever heard of this small thing called money? BY abolishing nuclear weapons worldwide, there would be so much more money, and our economic crisis would be lessening in severity. We could just recycle all the plutonium used for nuclear weapons by giving it to nuclear power plants, therefore providing us with a heck of a lot more energy. Correct me if I'm wrong, but abolishing nuclear weapons will not only give us more money, but also more energy

Side: Yes.
mackle64(9) Disputed
1 point

The problem with your statement is that these nuclear weapons have already been made. Most countries (Like the US and Russia) are not making any new weapons. There are treaties for nuclear disarmament. At its peak, the United States had approximately 30,000 nuclear weapons, and they have reduced that to about 8,000 total. The money has already been spent on building these weapons, it can't be taken back. Building more nuclear power plants is not free either, they are quite expensive. Regardless of whether or not nuclear weapons should be abolished, this is not a good argument for abolishing these weapons.

Side: No.
2 points

I am completely against nuclear weapons. Can you even fathom the thought of being wiped off the face of this earth without first seeing your attacker? And if there is one thing in the world that scares me to death, its being destroyed by a nuclear weapon.

Side: Yes.

A quich google search shows:

. Cost of the Manhattan Project (through August 1945): $20,000,000,000

SOURCES: Richard G. Hewlett and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr., The New World: A History of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, Volume 1, 1939/1946 (Oak Ridge, Tennessee: U.S. AEC Technical Information Center, 1972), pp. 723-724; Condensed AEC Annual Financial Report, FY 1953 (in Fifteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1954, p. 73)

2. Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

3. Estimated construction costs for more than 1,000 ICBM launch pads and silos, and support facilities, from 1957-1964: nearly $14,000,000,000

Maj. C.D. Hargreaves, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office (CEBMCO), "Introduction to the CEBMCO Historical Report and History of the Command Section, Pre-CEBMCO Thru December 1962," p. 8; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Ballistic Missile Construction Office, "U.S. Air Force ICBM Construction Program," undated chart (circa 1965)

4. Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

5. Peak number of nuclear warheads and bombs in the stockpile/year: 32,193/1966

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

6. Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

U.S. Department of Energy; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

7. Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

8. Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000

History of the Custody and Deployment of Nuclear Weapons, July 1945 Through September 1977, Prepared by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Atomic Energy), February 1978, p. 50 (formerly Top Secret)

9. Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

U.S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

10. Additional strategic and non-strategic warheads not limited by the treaty that the U.S. military wants to retain as a "hedge" against unforeseen future threats: 4,900

U..S. Department of Defense; Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

12. Peak number of operating domestic uranium mines (1955): 925

Nineteenth Semiannual Report of the Atomic Energy Commission, January 1956, p. 31

13. Fissile material produced: 104 metric tons of

plutonium and 994 metric tons of highly-enriched

uranium

U.S. Department of Energy

14. Amount of plutonium still in weapons: 43 metric tons

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

15. Number of thermometers which could be filled with mercury used to produce lithium-6 at the Oak Ridge Reservation: 11 billion

U.S. Department of Energy

16. Number of dismantled plutonium "pits" stored at the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, Texas: 12,067 (as of May 6, 1999)

U.S. Department of Energy

17. States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

William M. Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998 (Washington, D.C.: Natural Resources Defense Council, March 1998)

18. Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

19. Total land area of the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and New Jersey: 15,357 square miles

Rand McNally Road Atlas and Travel Guide, 1992

20. Legal fees paid by the Department of Energy to fight lawsuits from workers and private citizens concerning nuclear weapons production and testing activities, from October 1990 through March 1995: $97,000,000

U.S. Department of Energy

21. Money paid by the State Department to Japan following fallout from the 1954 "Bravo" test: $15,300,000

Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947 -1974, University of California Press, 1994, p. 158

22. Money and non-monetary compensation paid by the the United States to Marshallese Islanders since 1956 to redress damages from nuclear testing: at least $759,000,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

23. Money paid to U.S. citizens under the Radiation Exposure and Compensation Act of 1990, as of January 13, 1998: approximately $225,000,000 (6,336 claims approved; 3,156 denied)

U.S. Department of Justice, Torts Branch, Civil Division

24. Total cost of the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program, 1946-1961: $7,000,000,000

"Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program," Report of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, September 1959, pp. 11-12

25. Total number of nuclear-powered aircraft and airplane hangars built: 0 and 1

Ibid; "American Portrait: ANP," WFAA-TV (Dallas), 1993. Between July 1955 and March 1957, a specially modified B-36 bomber made 47 flights with a three megawatt air-cooled operational test reactor (the reactor, however, did not power the plane).

26. Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

Bill Gulley with Mary Ellen Reese, Breaking Cover, Simon and Schuster, 1980, pp. 34- 36

27. Currency stored until 1988 by the Federal Reserve at its Mount Pony facility for use after a nuclear war: more than $2,000,000,000

Edward Zuckerman, The Day After World War III, The Viking Press, 1984, pp. 287-88

28. Amount of silver in tons once used at the Oak Ridge, TN, Y-12 Plant for electrical magnet coils: 14,700

Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Bomb, U.S. Army Center for Military History, 1985, pp. 66-7

29. Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

U.S. Department of Energy

30. First and last test: July 16, 1945 ("Trinity") and September 23, 1992 ("Divider")

U.S. Department of Energy

31. Estimated amount spent between October 1, 1992 and October 1, 1995 on nuclear testing activities: $1,200,000,000 (0 tests)

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

32. Cost of 1946 Operation Crossroads weapons tests ("Able" and "Baker") at Bikini Atoll: $1,300,000,000

Weisgall, Operation Crossroads, pp. 294, 371

33. Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")

U.S. Department of Energy

34. Number of islands in Enewetak atoll vaporized

by the November 1, 1952 "Mike" H-bomb test: 1

Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History, Orion Books, 1988, pp. 58-59, 95

35. Number of nuclear tests in the Pacific: 106

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

36. Number of U.S. nuclear tests in Nevada: 911

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

37. Number of nuclear weapons tests in Alaska [1, 2, and 3], Colorado [1 and 2], Mississippi and New Mexico [1, 2 and 3]: 10

Natural Resources Defense Council, Nuclear Weapons Databook Project

38. Operational naval nuclear propulsion reactors vs. operational commercial power reactors (in 1999): 129 vs. 108

Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy; Nuclear Regulatory Commission

39. Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs

Adm. Bruce DeMars, Deputy Assistant Director for Naval Reactors, U.S. Navy

40. Number of high level radioactive waste tanks in Washington, Idaho and South Carolina: 239

U.S. Department of Energy

41. Volume in cubic meters of radioactive waste resulting from weapons activities: 104,000,000

U.S. Department of Energy; Institute for Energy and Environmental Research

42. Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)

Bruce Blair, Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution

43. Cost of January 17, 1966 nuclear weapons accident over Palomares, Spain (including two lost planes, an extended search and recovery effort, waste disposal in the U.S. and settlement claims): $182,000,000

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Interoffice Memorandum, February 15, 1968; Center for Defense Information

44. Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

U.S. Department of Defense; Center for Defense Information; Greenpeace; "Lost Bombs," Atwood-Keeney Productions, Inc., 1997

45. Number of Department of Energy federal employees (in 1996): 18,608

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

46. Number of Department of Energy contractor employees (in 1996): 109,242

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Worker and Community Transition

47. Minimum number of classified pages estimated to be in the Department of Energy's possession (1995): 280 million

A Review of the Department of Energy Classification Policy and Practice, Committee on Declassification of Information for the Department of Energy Environmental Remediation and Related Programs, National Research Council, 1995, pp. 7-8, 68.

48. Ballistic missile defense spending in 1965 vs. 1995: $2,200,000,000 vs. $2,600,000,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project

49. Average cost per warhead to the U.S. to help Kazakhstan dismantle 104 SS-18 ICBMs carrying more than 1,000 warheads: $70,000

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project; Arms Control Association

50. Estimated 1998 spending on all U.S. nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs: $35,100,000,000

which all show why we should abolsish nuclear weapons

Side: Yes.
1 point

Some stupid presidents, prime ministor, or dictator will get mad and use them.

We will kill our selfs with them; its in human nature to fight. We have been doing it for almost the begining of time!

The ONLY time i would say that they would be useful is if an alien race invaded us. Use the Nukes as a last resorte :D

Side: Yes.
1 point

Before I make my argument, I would like to establish what "we" means. I consider "we" as the people around the world, not just the US.

The answer to this question: Yes we should. If any nuclear war will start it'll be the end of the world. There are times in history where it has come very close to nuclear war like the Cuban missile crisis.

Also according to professor Ken Johnson of the U of R there was another scene in history where the US launched an weather balloon, and the Russians thought it was actually a nuclear bomb. They were about to launch their nuclear weapons on the US when lucky the weather balloon went on a different path, and the Russians had not released their nukes.

We do not want the world to be destroyed, and therefore we should get rid of nuclear weaponry.

Side: Yes.

If nuclear weapons aren't abolished, humanity will one day cause its own destruction through nuclear weapons.

Side: Yes.
0 points

Of course we should. When we first got nuclear weapons other countries got them too and they felt powerful too powerful for us to be safe.

Side: Yes.
0 points

YEs, who knows when a maniac will get their hands on those.

Side: Yes.
-1 points

the use of nuclear wepons is stupid, countries only do it so they are feared in case of a war or nuclear arms race so noone attacks them. nuclear weapons should e abolished all around the world, for every country not just ones that have a history of violence towards each other.

Side: Yes.

I don't believe so. If ever there was a reason against war, nuclear arms would be it. These compact cylinders of pure death have been, some speculate, the only reason we havn't seen a full-scale world war yet.

In fact, there hasn't been a war between any major or moderate power since nuclear arms came onto the scene. There have been, at best, minor scuffles and proxy wars fought in third world nations.

Because of the terrible destruction wrought by a nuclear war, the major powers are weary of engaging in warfare with any but the most defenseless of nations (Iraq, Vietnam, Argentina, Afghanistan, Serbia...etc..). This effect has no doubt saved hundreds of millions of lives; as another World War would have been quite likely some time during the Cold War era (or even now, as tensions mount between the U.S., China, Russia, and the E.U.).

Now, a World War is still far from impossible, but the deterrent of nuclear arms is unmistakable; to the point where nations such as Russia make open threats about "defensive" measures (such as Star Wars) that would effectively neutralize nuclear arms as a threat.

There seems, even now, a desire within many governments to wage war with other major powers. There are many within the corridors of political and economic power that are just dieing for a major war. The only thing that keeps them from letting loose on the world is the knowledge that their precious mansions and legacies would actually be at risk should they engage in a major war.

Before, of course, the rich and powerful could be reasonably assured of their safety, especially if the war went well. With nukes they know there is no winning, no getting out unscathed, little chance of even survival.

It'll never matter how many millions of their citizens, their worker ants, get sacrificed. They wouldn't bat an eye if entire continents were polluted with the bodies of men, women, and children. They've got the televisions, they've got the schoolbooks, and they've got their privilege; they needn't worry about us too much.

I am sure that without nuclear weapons populating this world George W. Bush would have invaded many, many more countries than Iraq and Afghanistan, and much larger ones at that. We could have just as easily been swindled into stalemates in the frozen Siberian tundra as we were trapped in the desert sands.

We'd be after Chinese-Americans just as readily as Arab; it doesn't take much to rile the American people up.

Nukes, though, make everyone think twice about a war. From the top all the way down to the very bottom. Which is why, of course, they'd like to see this little nuisance resolved.

Side: No.
4 points

Of course other countries are going to want nuclear weapons because we have them and they don't. That is no argument to abolish them. The idea is that we have them, and keep other countries from getting them. It is foolish to think that we could some how ever get everyone to agree to simply not have nuclear weapons. Until then, we need to have them, and keep everyone else from getting them.

Side: No.
3 points

Americans as a whole want to feel safe, want to feel secure. If the U.S. Government takes that away, all of America will go into an unstoppable downfall. Nuclear weapons, as it seems, are a huge part of U.S. safety. The bombs, Just the mere mention of them, can stop an entire country in its tracks from invading. These bombs, may just save America.

Side: No.
3 points

Because of the terrible destruction wrought by a nuclear war, the major powers are weary of engaging in warfare with any but the most defenseless of nations (Iraq, Vietnam, Argentina, Afghanistan, Serbia...etc..). This effect has no doubt saved hundreds of millions of lives; as another World War would have been quite likely some time during the Cold War era (or even now, as tensions mount between the U.S., China, Russia, and the E.U.).

Side: No.
3 points

The resolution is the nuclear nations should eliminate its nuclear weapons. This means without any agreement just the nuclear nations should eliminate its nuclear weapons. I disagree with the resolution to eliminate the world’s nuclear arsenal. Nuclear Weapons are important in providing fear and intimidation. The problems in making an agreement with other nations in the world are having other nations agree or actually follow the agreement. Do you believe nations like Pakistan with unstable governments or communist China will actually follow a plan to eliminate their nuclear weapons. Both sides would be very suspicious of each other and who would actually follow.

There are many nations currently that are either pursing nuclear weapons or are capable states and there are other states that are suspected to have nuclear weapons. By making agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons it makes a more dangerous world, who would enforce nations to agree.

According to Science World, Disposal of nuclear weapons is dangerous. At the heart of every nuclear weapon is a pit (grape fruit size) of plutonium. This human-made element is highly radioactive. The nuclei of plutonium atoms constantly emit invisible, subatomic bits of matter and high-energy rays. Tiny doses can damage body cells and cause cancer. Plutonium stays radioactive for more than 240 thousand years. The U.S. has amassed 24,000 nuclear weapons at the end of the cold war. At the end of the cold war nuclear weapons were reduced. Steel containers buried in bunkers have the pits locked up, closely guarded and monitored. But these igloos storage space is running out.

Side: No.

NO, WE ARE GOING TO NEED THOSE NUKES TO WIPE OUT THE BAD GUYS!

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they are not after us ;)

Side: No.
1 point

If we abolish them, that doesn't mean our enemies will. Nuclear weapons make me feel somewhat safe because if any nation aims theirs at us, we'd just obliterate them with hundreds of nukes.

Side: No.
1 point

If we abolish nuclear weapons doesn't mean bad people would steal them and use them against us. We can 't just throw them away! If evil terrorists use them against us then what will we do?

Side: No.
1 point

How do we know that everyone els is really being honest when they say, "okay we got rid of all our bombs".

What if we get rid of our nuclear bombs thinking everyone els did the same thing, and they didn't.

What defense would we have if they sent those nukes flying?

Side: No.
1 point

If we get rid of them, then what proof do we have that everyone else did? We can't go in to every country in the world, and search for nuclear weapons. It just doesn't work that way. Plus, if some maniac comes along, and tries to nuke us, we'll turn his land into glass with the heat of our nuclear arsenal. There is no getting rid of these, because there's always gonna be a crazy guy like Hitler to take over the world.

Side: No.
1 point

I think that we should continue to build nuclear weapons, but do not tell the whole world.I am sure that rumers in other coutries say that we are going to bomb them ut Obama just signed a peace treaty with russia that we would not. In that last sentance I said Russia. If Iran/Iraq wants to bomb us then you what one they do I am sure that we will bomb them then guess what WWIII.we are always trying to one up each other this will never end...We need them for our protection!!!

Side: Yes.
1 point

First, when two states have nuclear weapons, the result is not confrontation but cold war. If Osama built a nuclear warhead in his cave, he would not fire it at the United States for fear the USA would bomb him back. Similarly, the USA might ease their attacks on Al Quaeda as public opinion in the USA would give way to fear of being struck by Osama's missile. This would result as nothing. Perfect!

Second, you won't be able to prevent another state from just making a new weapon after abolishing them. When you destroy all atomic bombs the countries could just make another one. By destroying it, you don’t destroy the knowledge of making it as well!

Third, you cannot destroy a nuclear weapon without deploying it - which has huge environmental and economic costs. How would we even destroy it without further harming the universe, or earth for that matter!

Fourth, if aliens come from outer space and try to take us over, what do we do? The only missiles we have that we can launch into space cheaply are nuclear missiles.

Fifth, of course other countries are going to want nuclear weapons because we have them and they don't. That is no argument to abolish them. The idea is that we have them, and keep other countries from getting them. It is foolish to think that we could some how ever get everyone to agree to simply not have nuclear weapons.

Last, Americans as a whole want to feel safe, want to feel secure. If the U.S. Government takes that away, all of America will go into an unstoppable downfall. Nuclear weapons, as it seems, are a huge part of U.S. safety. The bombs, Just the mere mention of them, can stop an entire country in its tracks from invading. These bombs, may just save America.

Side: No.
1 point

Our country has too many enemies right now to do away with nuclear weapons. Unless the Chinese get rid of there nuclear weapons, the USA will always need nuclear weapons and a strong nuclear weapon defense system.

Side: No.
1 point

Sending a nuke against a meteor, comet, or something like that, for example.

Side: No.
binamenator Disputed
1 point

Sending a nuke towards a falling meteor comet or towards anything outer space is a stupid idea. Once you nuke the thing, radioactive chucks of meteor or comets will come hurling down on earth.

Side: Yes.
nummi(1435) Disputed
1 point

You do know the alternative is letting the meteor plunge into Earth, destroying and burning the surface and cause a decade or so long global winter (assuming the meteor is that big), thus killing almost everything and everyone.

Once the meteor is reduced to smaller pieces there is a much higher chance that they will burn away while flying toward the surface.

Everything that is in open space is highly radiated, our adding nuke radiation to it will change nothing. Small chunks of rocks are constantly burnt to dust entering our atmosphere, they almost never reach the surface.

Side: No.