Instigator / Con
3
1458
rating
12
debates
37.5%
won
Topic

Are nukes good?

Status
Finished

All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.

Voting points
3
2

With 5 votes and 1 point ahead, the winner is ...

Gatorade
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
Politics
Time for argument
Three days
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Unrated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
2
1616
rating
31
debates
64.52%
won
Description
~ 351 / 5,000

The issue of nuclear bombs and non-proliferation has been brought back up, because of North Korea, and the state of its recent nuclear bomb testing. Even though, in 2018, Donald Trump declared that North Korea wasn’t a nuclear threat, there are still many possible occasions that a new nuclear state might emerge and total nuclear war could break out.

Round 1
Con
ARGUMENT 1: Lots of People will die. 
Nuclear bombs have killed 129,000 people. This was the cause of only two bombings (in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan). Imagine if all the nuclear bombs in the world were detonated. According to the site NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein, if a modern day 150 kiloton North Korean bombs was detonated over NYC, over 700,000 people would die. This North Korean bomb is dwarfed by the current arsenal of the United States, with nuclear bombs that have a yield of 1.2 megatons, or 1,200 kilotons of TNT. According to the same site, if this bomb was dropped on NYC, over 1,800,000 people would die. A single bomb could do more damage than double the amount of casualties in the Civil War (which was the deadliest war in American History). 

ARGUMENT 2: It's bad for the environment.
If a nuclear war happened there would be "two or three degrees of global cooling, a nine percent reduction in yearly rainfall. Still, such changes could be enough to trigger crop failures and famines. After all, these would be cooler temperatures than the Earth has seen in 1,000 years." according to https://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war. This will happen in a small war by India and Pakistan, with 100 nuclear warheads detonated. This is nothing compared to the massive arsenals of the USSR and the U.S. Also, according to https://www.theclever.com/20-shocking-facts-about-nuclear-winter/, the ozone layer would be massively damaged, causing a rise in temperatures after the nuclear winter. This will create a "nuclear summer", also drastically impacting the earth's environment.

I look forward to debating this topic with you. Sorry for keeping my debate short, I just wanted to see what you can do.
-Gatorade.
Pro
Hello Gatorade and I appreciate the debate opportunity.

There is no structure for this debate so I will do it.

Round 1-Cases
Round 2-Rebuttal
Round 3-Defense and Closing statements

Point 1-It saved lives. If we haven't had nuked Japan many more lives would have been lost.

Personnel at the Navy Department estimated that the total losses to America would be between 1.7 and 4 million with 400,000 to 800,000 deaths.-https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/the-pacific-war-1941-to-1945/operation-downfall/
Keep in mind this was only American soldier deaths. Imagine all the Japanese soldiers and the civilians who would have died just for their country or just caught in war. For example in the Battle of Saipan 1,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide or ran towards American tanks with suicide bombs. This was known as Sepuka-https://archive.is/20130112145122/http://www.samurai-weapons.net/samurai-history/the-deadly-ritual-of-seppuku

Point 2-No one wants to declare war. This is simple. When a big country has nukes it would only make sense that the other big country wouldn't have fought with nukes because nukes are SO devastating. Nukes can be attributed to the decrease in warfare-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NC45TRP4lq0. Nukes saved a war between America and the USSR because both sides was scared of using them. Without nukes the two sides could have been at war. There is a reason why no nuclear powers are at war frequently with other nations. Instead fight in proxy wars.

Point 3-Quite cheap and allows countries to focus on more important things.Our massive nuclear arsenal deters any opponent from fighting us and as businessinsider reports:
Because nuclear weapons deter our adversaries from attacking the United States, we are able to redirect our hard earned money to areas that allow us to better take care of our families.-https://www.businessinsider.com/3-reasons-why-americas-massive-nuclear-arsenal-actually-makes-the-world-safer-2017-7
Next round is rebuttals
Round 2
Con
Thanks for making the structure of the debate.
Point 1- Rebuttal
The case of Japan is very complicated. I do agree that the nuclear bombs saved lives in the event of the bombings, but those were the very first nuclear bombs ever detonated. We are talking about the present, not the past. Imagine if a current nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there would be hundreds of times more casualties and deaths. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just a fraction of the amount of damage a modern nuclear warhead could do. According to NUKEMAP, almost 2 million people would die if Tsar Bomba (the biggest nuclear bomb ever) was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You say 400,000-800,000 Americans would die. That is nowhere close to 2 million. Imagine seeing your dad die, but 2 million times over. That is the damage done by a nuclear bomb. 

Point 2- Rebuttal
Nukes did not prevent a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the exact opposite happened. Nuclear bombs almost caused a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, was the closest the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. ever go to a war. And what was the cause of this? Of course, nuclear warheads. The U.S.S.R. stockpiled weapons in Cuba, and the only thing that stopped it was luck, not deterrence.

Point 3-Rebuttal
Nuclear bombs are not cheap.
As hundreds of millions of people across the globe go hungry, the nuclear-armed nations spend close to US$300 million a day on their nuclear forces. http://www.icanw.org/the-facts/catastrophic-harm/a-diversion-of-public-resources/

Keep in mind, $300 million dollars a DAY!
Globally, annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at US$105 billion – or $12 million an hour. (same source)
It's not cheap. $105 billion dollars is more than the entire military spending budget of Russia, more money than the budget of NASA, enough money to be the second richest person in the world. All in one year. We are spending more money on horrible things than useful ones. 

-gatorade

Pro
Nuclear bombs have killed 129,000 people.
WOW, I thought we cant use history like you said

We are talking about the present, not the past.

This was the cause of only two bombings (in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan). Imagine if all the nuclear bombs in the world were detonated. According to the site NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein, if a modern day 150 kiloton North Korean bombs was detonated over NYC, over 700,000 people would die. This North Korean bomb is dwarfed by the current arsenal of the United States, with nuclear bombs that have a yield of 1.2 megatons, or 1,200 kilotons of TNT. According to the same site, if this bomb was dropped on NYC, over 1,800,000 people would die. A single bomb could do more damage than double the amount of casualties in the Civil War (which was the deadliest war in American History). 
This is of course IF a Nuclear War happened. A nuclear war will never happen. Nuclear deterrence is the key. No side wants to use nukes do you know how many "close calls" we have had but NONE OF THEM TURNED INTO A NUCLEAR WAR. The fact is that if America had nuke sin the 30's WW2 would never have happened. Germany would never take the risk. Unless you can prove this war will happen these argument is invalid

If a nuclear war happened there would be "two or three degrees of global cooling, a nine percent reduction in yearly rainfall. Still, such changes could be enough to trigger crop failures and famines. After all, these would be cooler temperatures than the Earth has seen in 1,000 years." according to https://www.popsci.com/article/science/computer-models-show-what-exactly-would-happen-earth-after-nuclear-war. This will happen in a small war by India and Pakistan, with 100 nuclear warheads detonated. This is nothing compared to the massive arsenals of the USSR and the U.S. Also, according to https://www.theclever.com/20-shocking-facts-about-nuclear-winter/, the ozone layer would be massively damaged, causing a rise in temperatures after the nuclear winter. This will create a "nuclear summer", also drastically impacting the earth's environment.
AGAIN, You have to prove that a nuclear war will happen to make this argument
Round 3
Con
Forfeited
Pro
My opponent has forfeited. Extend Argument.



We are talking about the present, not the past.
Why didn't you include that in the details. You also break that rule in your fist argument by saying nukes HAVE killed people.

Imagine if a current nuclear bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there would be hundreds of times more casualties and deaths. Hiroshima and Nagasaki was just a fraction of the amount of damage a modern nuclear warhead could do. According to NUKEMAP, almost 2 million people would die if Tsar Bomba (the biggest nuclear bomb ever) was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You say 400,000-800,000 Americans would die. That is nowhere close to 2 million. Imagine seeing your dad die, but 2 million times over. That is the damage done by a nuclear bomb.
This argument is invalid because it shows "Probability" like saying "Imagine". You need solid evidence that this will happen without imagining. 

Nukes did not prevent a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., the exact opposite happened. Nuclear bombs almost caused a war between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, was the closest the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. ever go to a war. And what was the cause of this? Of course, nuclear warheads. The U.S.S.R. stockpiled weapons in Cuba, and the only thing that stopped it was luck, not deterrence.
No, both sides stepped down because of nukes. Incidents that happen without nukes will guarantee a war because well there is no consequences. Like WW2 and WW1. Also you cherry-picked one example. Extend Argument

Nukes are cheap, 300 million a day isn't a lot. Yes its surprising but it's really not. The governments makes A LOT OF MONEY. Its hard to make a number for all the nations but AMERICA makes 4.5 billion a day.

Globally, annual expenditure on nuclear weapons is estimated at US$105 billion – or $12 million an hour. (same source)
It's not cheap. $105 billion dollars is more than the entire military spending budget of Russia, more money than the budget of NASA, enough money to be the second richest person in the world. All in one year. We are spending more money on horrible things than useful ones. 
This is globally, 105 billion dollars is not a lot, Military spending will be higher without nukes because there would be more wars.

Conclusion

In Conclusion, I have proved nukes are good and have rebutted and defended my points. Thanks for the debate