The nuclear deterrent - is it necessary?
It is necessary
Side Score: 3
It isn't necessary
Side Score: 2
Nuclear weapons make war between the states that possess them less likely. This is because any gains made by victory would be less than the massive loss of people, arable land, infrastructure, etc. War between nations that both have nuclear weapons isn't profitable and only makes sense for ideological reasons. Further, it is always necessary for a state to possess the best weapons it can, lest it be at the mercy of other states.
Side: It is necessary
I don't have a particularly strong view on this topic, so I'm going to choose this side to balance things out a little.
I think that while it can be a deterrent to have nuclear weapons, it isn't a necessity.
Most countries don't have nuclear weapons. Admittedly, most of these countries are not particularly hostile with the countries that do have nuclear weapons.
I'm from the UK, where we have a nuclear deterrent called Trident. This is a system of submarines, in various secret locations around the world, which contain nuclear weapons. The topic of whether or not we should renew it has been the subject of much public debate in recent years, as soon Trident will need to be renewed.
Renewing a nuclear deterrent such as Trident takes a huge amount of taxpayer money which could feasibly be spent on things which will benefit the lives of citizens (or not make so many cutbacks on things which citizens need or enjoy). In a country with some social democratic leanings and publicly funded healthcare, it makes sense to not tax people more than necessary, and to try and avoid debt.
There is also the argument that it is immoral to fund Trident from taxpayers and pension schemes, when around half the British population is against a full renewal of Trident.
Nuclear weapons can be dangerous not only for our enemies, but for our allies too. Back in 2016, Trident misfired a missile at the United States. It would have caused a diplomatic, climatic and social catastrophe had the missile actually been armed.
It is unlikely that our greatest threats are going to come from nuclear war. The West is highly vulnerable to cyber-warfare, which we should also be addressing. Even if terrorist groups in the Middle East launch a nuclear weapon at the West, launching a nuclear weapon at them in retaliation will be ineffective, will probably kill civilians and cannot hope to kill all the terrorists responsible. There is also the idea that terrorists are not tied to any particular nation so they can operate from anywhere in the globe, including from the security of our own borders.
It may be more effective to have decoy nuclear missiles. Protected under Official Secrets legislation, this would have the same effect as a nuclear threat. Just having nuclear weapons around has helped keep the peace; if the West had decoys, there is still a good chance our bluff would not be called.
And if we did have to use nuclear weapons, it's worth remembering that retaliation could result in entire arsenals of such weapons being used, which would potentially make swathes of the planet uninhabitable for years to come and affect more lives than just those involved in the war.
Side: It isn't necessary
First by Constitution Nuclear weapons do not insure mutual destruction. In fact they may easily create the opposite.
Second any United State would describe the Nuclear weapon as an obsolete value of chemical warfare only. As it posse a extreme high cost with little chance of completion.
Third the only reason to sustain any nuclear arsenal is in the defense of biological threats made inside a nation.
There is a new meaning to the term Drug War it defines publicly the constitutional separation between degrees of chemical Warfare that had been allowed to proceed by the act of the Cold War.
The test in separation takes place on principle of nuclear is just a type or form of chemical warfare. Do you have some mitigating new understanding that it is not?
Side: It isn't necessary