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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
What if fascists were to win democratic elections in a nation that has nuclear w
Hitler was democraticly elected.
Just because something happened doesn't mean it will happen again. However the fact that something happened means that it is possible.
A number of countries in this world have nuclear weapons today :
USA
UK
Russia
France
China
India
Pakistan
North Korea
Israel
What would happen if some fascist lunatic won the elections in any one of those countries?
Bonus question : what gives any of these countries the right to prevent other countries from developing this technology without getting rid of it themselves?
As far as I'm aware, the military commander in chief has to agree to nuclear missile launch, the head of state can't just declare unconditional war in most of those countries.
Also, the UK has nuclear weapons, 9 countries in total.
If a fascist government were democratically elected, it could change the constitution, it could change how things work, and it could therefore get rid of that rule you speak of (whether it's true or not, I don't even know).
---Also, the UK has nuclear weapons, 9 countries in total.
I included the UK, oh, no you're right, just double checked and didn't.
USA - All constitutional changes have to go through congress, which isn't chosen by the party in power.
UK - All constitutional changes have to be approved by Parliament, chosen at a local level
China - No elections
India - All constitutional changes have to go through the Lok Sabha
North Korea - No elections
I just did the ones I know, but I'd assume that the others have similar checks in place. No ones dumb enough to create a system in which this can happen.
----USA - All constitutional changes have to go through congress, which isn't chosen by the party in power.
----UK - All constitutional changes have to be approved by Parliament, chosen at a local level
In France there are similar "rules". Yet it is possible for a newly elected President (or party) to make a new constitution.
I would assume given enough popular support (for example as established through a referendum) that the rules in which the American and British government evolve can be changed, even structurally.
It wouldn't make sense to believe that any rule that makes up how a government operates and/or is organised is "there to stay for ever". Know what I mean?
Example :
On 23 March, the Reichstag assembled at the Kroll Opera House under turbulent circumstances. Ranks of SA men served as guards inside the building, while large groups outside opposing the proposed legislation shouted slogans and threats toward the arriving members of parliament.[130] The position of the Centre Party, the third largest party in the Reichstag, turned out to be decisive. After Hitler verbally promised party leader Ludwig Kaas that President von Hindenburg would retain his power of veto, Kaas announced the Centre Party would support the Enabling Act. Ultimately, the Enabling Act passed by a vote of 441–84, with all parties except the Social Democrats voting in favour. The Enabling Act, along with the Reichstag Fire Decree, transformed Hitler's government into a de facto legal dictatorship.[131]
Of course, new governments will eventually have the power to write something like that in into a constitution. But, that's the idea of government, you have to trust someone to do what's best, and if the public make the wrong decision, then there's a problem. There are only so many safeguards you can create.
Exactly, so if Germany can go from being a democratic country to a dictatorship and back (and leading the European Union), what's to prevent any other country from doing the same?
So if Iran became "democratic" and all that, would it then be ok for it to develop nuclear weapons?
And how to justify that these countries (USA, France, UK, Israel etc) have those weapons, when for all we know, they might be dictatorships in 15 years?
Nothing, that's part of the dangers of nuclear weapons.
And no, there's much more issues with Iran, whether it's Iran's fault or not is debateable, but there are reasons why the Western world would not want Iran to have nuclear weapons other than its form of government.
Why do you assume that a dictatorship is so bad? They're a much more efficient form of government, and can give much better results a lot of the time.
It's their actions, their history, it's a much deeper problem than what media talk about. I'm not an expert though, I've only briefly talked about it, if you're interested I'm sure you can research it.
Well I can understand that, but the entire idea of democracy is that the leaders follow what the people want, while acting as a mediating check over extreme opinions. But, if an extremist government stems from an extremist population, then that could lead to problems in the world as a whole. It's an inerrant risk of nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it unless it starts to become likely.
---I'm not an expert though, I've only briefly talked about it, if you're interested I'm sure you can research it.
I did have a look, and if it's not about the weapons, the general opinion seems to be that it's about petrol.
---Well I can understand that, but the entire idea of democracy is that the leaders follow what the people want, while acting as a mediating check over extreme opinions. But, if an extremist government stems from an extremist population, then that could lead to problems in the world as a whole. It's an inerrant risk of nuclear weapons, but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it unless it starts to become likely.
This is what OWS are protesting against, since the leaders are not following what the people want, but what lobbies want.
About extremist governments, the racist far right parties seem to be "growing" where I live (France and UK). But is it really because they represent the people? How much does a government or political party represent if half the people don't even vote?
Lastly, sorry to go back on this again, but once Hitler was in power, I don't think the people really agreed with his decisions. Think it was more a case of "you don't have a choice".
Not saying that it is likely or making a case that it's about to happen or anything like that, but a World War III would be disastrous not only because wars are disastrous generally, not only because World War I and II were disastrous, but because nations today (as opposed to 1945) have weapons that are hugely more "powerful", and more of them.
If 4 kids fight, that's a shame, but if they fighting with machine guns?
Essentially, there is no logical reason, they know they're in the wrong and they know Iran has legitimate reasons to want to hurt it, and they're trying to save themselves.
But no lobbies would try and start a nuclear war.
Yes, but democracy was much less developed then, the risks were lower. Nowadays, there's lots of checks to prevent things like that happening. Times have changed, I really wouldn't worry.
