Should Nuclear Weapons be abolished?
There are some countries abolishing Nuclear Weapons and others don't.
Do you think we should abolish? or do you think we shouldn't?
yes, it should be abolished
Side Score: 37
|
 |
no, it shouldn't be.
Side Score: 24
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
abolishing them would demonstrate to the world a new set of morals that says killing as many people as possible in a country you disagree with is not moral, does not win your position, etc. setting a new moral and strategic standard will help convince other nations that it is not worth the cost to develop Side: yes, it should be abolished
3
points
3
points
3
points
1
point
1
point
The allies would still have won the war without nukes. It would have taken longer though and resulted in more deaths on both sides. Whether or not it was justified, another possible positive outcome is that the horror of the events may have prevented the cold war from turning nuclear. Side: yes, it should be abolished
2
points
There's no point in developing and storing nuclear warheads, which are the deadliest weapons of mass destruction. - Suppose a war breaks out. If the countries use nukes, there's a chance of entire holocausts happening, killing innocent people. The world will no more be a (better) place to live in. - No argument can justify there use. Human lives are valued above all else. True that other forms of weapons could also kill people, but then nuclear weapons have their own "side effects". You'd not like to expose entire generations to its harmful radioactive after-effects. - Overall impact is negative (by using them). Ultimately, it's the governments and countries that lose in the long run. They first spend zillions of dollars making them, storing them, and them risking the lives of their own citizens. Side: yes, it should be abolished
yes, they should be abolished. WHAT HAPPENS IN AN EXPLOSION? Outside the circle where people will be instantly vaporized from the initial blast, the light from the explosion is so bright that it will immediately blind every living thing, even if their eyes are closed. Most people who will die from the nuclear explosion will not die in the initial blast, nor in the heat blast. Nor will the pressure wave which follows over the next few seconds do most of them in, though it will cause bleeding. Nor even will most people be killed by the momentary high winds. Later, these people will begin to suffer from vomiting, skin rashes, and an intense unquenchable thirst as their hair falls out in clumps. Their skin will begin to peel off… http://www.animatedsoftware. Side: yes, it should be abolished
yes it should be because as long as countries have these weapons other countries will and if one country send a nuclear weapon then the only response is to get even and send another then every country starts to send them destroying all that just does not make sense. Side: yes, it should be abolished
1
point
abolishing them will show our confidence that we have better methods of fighting (intelligence, smart bombs, etc). Then, other countries would persue aquiring these methods (as they are more effective, have less blowback, and tend to cost less). Side: yes, it should be abolished
1
point
not only does having nuclear weapons not make us safer - you do not need nuclear weapons to deter nuclear weapons (nor a machine gun to take out someone who has a machine gun, etc) but having them can makes us less safe since nuclear weapons, power plants, and waste sites will be likely targets for terrorists Side: yes, it should be abolished
If nukes are still created in some other place and are ready to launch it, maybe it is best to abolish it right now in case places like Iran have created already, but lie to us that they didn't create any. So far as I known, Iran has the power to create it. maybe they are creating it right now! Why don't we just stop making debate and let the law of no nuke start. So that we can have peace around the whole world. Side: yes, it should be abolished
Besides, nukes cost a lot of money, and creating it dosen't have any use of it, there are no wars right now, why should Us, England, Russia, and other state like Iran still creating it? Why don't we just stop creating it and make the money worth it like increasing medical tech, military tech, security tech, and other bla bla bla stuff that can help more people instead of killing and threatening more and more people. If opposing don't agree, just start launching it so that we don't have anymore conversation of this ok? Plus, why are we creating nukes that are not being used? Wasting a bunch of money and causing more and more panic and economy go down and down and down, by the time that state fall, and he said the reason is because he (Mr.president at that state) bought 1000 or more of nukes, I wonder how he will use them. So it's best to abolish it right now and get the economy better and better so that more people can have better life and think that it's worth it. Side: yes, it should be abolished
1
point
|
Nuclear weapons should't be abolished as it keeps the government in check. For one, no government would lightly try to nuke another nation when they know that the other countries can to the same thing to them. In addition, weapons with less fatality rates mean more wars. A typical example would be the first and the second world war. Even after horrors of the first world war, Germany started another war after less than two decades. Side: no, it shouldn't be.
2
points
I've commented on this a few times before. Nuclear weapons, if "abolished" could still be manufactured in countries that don't give two shits what the West has to say. If the UN Security Council outlaws nuclear weapons, do you really think North Korea is going to say "Ok. Fine, we'll stop our nuclear programs. Sorry guys."? Uhhhh.... no. Also, having a few countries with many nukes serves as a deterrent for other countries to get too aggressive. I'm sure none of the nuclear-owning countries would ever use nukes in a conventional war, but other places in the world don't know that. Side: no, it shouldn't be.
1
point
our best defense against nuclear weapons isn't nuclear weapons. if someone is shooting a machine gun you can still kill them with a shotgun. having a few of the most prominent countries cling to nuclear weapons makes them seem necessary and other countries will try to develop them. - and we already did use them in war. Side: yes, it should be abolished
2
points
hell no. first of all, if during the cold war we had decided to stop making these things then we would all be faded ashes and shadows right now. Second- say you are at war with a nation (for the purposes of this story we'll call it Irack) and that nation is controlled by a group of terrorists (aka All-Kieda) who are led by a crazy military genius (we'll call him Asamo Bun Laden) who may or may not have nuclear weapons at his fingertips. The only thing stopping him from using those hypothetical bombs is the possibility that we may have more than he does. Side: no, it shouldn't be.
3
points
1
point
Whether or not nuclear weapons are allowed, countries will still manufacture them. An example: what if America and, say, Iraq or Britain, or any other country, sign a treaty that says that neither of them can manufacture nuclear weapons. That will not stop them, in their infinite quest for supremacy, to abide by the agreement. People can do anything that they want to stop the weapons, but that won't stop humanitiy's desire for power. While I believe that they should be, my viewpoint is 'no, it shouldn't be' because I have allowed logic to take over my emotions. Side: no, it shouldn't be.
|
