Instigator / Con
24
1634
rating
13
debates
80.77%
won
Topic
#1658

The US Ought to Pursue Nuclear First Strike Capability

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
12
0
Better sources
8
8
Better legibility
4
4
Better conduct
0
4

After 4 votes and with 8 points ahead, the winner is...

Jeff_Goldblum
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
7,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Pro
16
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

Resolution: The US ought to pursue nuclear first strike capability.

Definitions:
Nuclear first strike capability. From Encyclopedia Britannica: "First strike, also known as preemptive nuclear strike, attack on an enemy’s nuclear arsenal that effectively prevents retaliation against the attacker. A successful first strike would cripple enemy missiles that are ready to launch and would prevent the opponent from readying others for a counterstrike by targeting the enemy’s nuclear stockpiles and launch facilities." In simple terms, first strike capability means you can disarm the enemy's nuclear arsenal by launching first. This might be achieved through excellent counterforce targeting strategies and technologies, along with sufficiently effective ballistic missile defense systems.

Round Structure:
R1 Opening statements
R2 Response to R1
R3 Response to R2 and closing arguments (no wholly new arguments may be introduced in this round)

If voters determine one of the debaters has violated the round structure, they must award conduct to their opponent.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

Accepted. I hope this will make a good debate. I may be away from the site for a while but I'll post my argument in time, don't worry.

-->
@MisterChris

Door's open

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I agree to that amendment. I'll accept when the time is adjusted, looking forward to it!

-->
@MisterChris

I definitely agree to point 1. As for point 2, I could agree if we said "first strike capability is theoretically possible to achieve."

I have no problem adjusting to 2 weeks.

-->
@Jeff_Goldblum

I like this debate. I think I would be willing to accept this if we can both concede on a few things first.
1. In the status quo, no country currently has first strike capability.
2. first strike capability is possible to achieve.

Also, I would want 2 weeks for arguments. Not that I would need ALL of the two weeks, but I have a TON going on and the extra time would be helpful.

-->
@MisterChris

To my understanding, no nuclear state possesses first strike capability vis a vis any other nuclear state.

The US and Russia possess the vast majority of nuclear warheads in existence today. On that basis, I think it's fair to say that the US has nuclear superiority over most nuclear states, but it does not have first strike capability, not even against North Korea (again, to my knowledge. Who knows, maybe military intelligence has some super secret info about the location of North Korean warheads and they are very confident we could take them all out in one strike).

Good topic. What are current US nuclear capabilities? Does any other nation have nuclear first strike capability?