Instigator / Pro
8
1553
rating
24
debates
56.25%
won
Topic
#2767

Massive nuclear retaliation

Status
Finished

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

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
0
6
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
2

After 2 votes and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...

MisterChris
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
7,500
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
14
1762
rating
45
debates
88.89%
won
Description

Death23 is PRO - Death23 is arguing in favor of massive nuclear retaliation.

Hypothetical: The United States has just been nuked to ashes by the Chinese. 300+ million are dead. To retaliate, or not to retaliate.

Massive retaliation would result in the deaths of over a billion Chinese civilians who, arguably, didn't have anything to do with the decision to launch a first strike. Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout. On the other hand, we must have our revenge.

I'd argue yes on the grounds of rational irrationality.

That is, a country makes up its mind ahead of time, as in "I have no choice or further control over my own actions. Under condition X, I must respond with action Y." This country becomes a slave to its earlier vow or policy even if, when the moment finally comes, it's irrational.
This appears to makes no sense at first glance. After all, when the moment comes it should be a decision based on current realities alone, right? But my answer is that a country which does not put itself in bondage to its past vow or policy has no credible deterrent at any point before X happens.

Thus, rational irrationality. It works effectively for every moment up until X, but if it could be simply reversed upon X then it paradoxically cannot have existed beforehand, meaning that it never had value.

-->
@Barney

Thanks for the vote

I don't think America should nuke the Chinese in this instance, but how else will America get our revenge? We can't just let China get away with killing most Americans.

vote bump

vote bump

vote bump.

-->
@Theweakeredge

Thanks for the vote

Vote bump.

-->
@MisterChris

Eh, usually you wanna do things when you feel like doing them but who knows if that's gonna happen. Sometimes it does, sometimes it don't.

Looks like I'll be doing this pretty last minute too.

Oh well

-->
@Death23

Apologies, but I mixed up my PRO's and my CON's a few times in R2. Here is the corrected statements:

1. "CON concedes that China would repeatedly bomb the US in response until they ran out of nuclear weapons, of which they would have about 150 left (200 of which would be used up) undoubtedly resulting in the absolute destruction of the United States as a nation."

This should be:
"PRO concedes that China would repeatedly bomb the US in response until they ran out of nuclear weapons, of which they would have about 150 left (200 of which would be used up) undoubtedly resulting in the absolute destruction of the United States as a nation."

2. "PRO agrees with CON that the world would be thrust into a Dark Age regardless of a response from the US. PRO never claimed otherwise."

This should be:
"CON agrees with PRO that the world would be thrust into a Dark Age regardless of a response from the US. CON never claimed otherwise."

3. "CON’s response is largely a non-response. RECALL & EXTEND that the extinction of humanity is a bad way to preserve it. CON himself describes this as likely in his description: “Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout.”

This should be:
"PRO's response is largely a non-response. RECALL & EXTEND that the extinction of humanity is a bad way to preserve it. PRO himself describes this as likely in his description: “Further, it may very well lead to the extinction of the human race through nuclear winter and the spread of fallout.”

Retaliate by brutally overthrowing the government via worldwide allied invasion. Not one single nation will forgive China for what it did and PLENTY of its neighbours are only allied to it via coercion.

The EU and Middle East would join 100%, Africa and South America would stay out of it with perhaps North Africa helping via arms. Australasia and India would absolutely assist.

-->
@Death23
@MisterChris

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhsss!!!!

Don's say this on the internet - China is watching us.

-->
@Intelligence_06

They can send the nukes before the nukes are even close to the US.

-->
@Death23

Yeah I cut it pretty close due to schoolwork, hopefully it didn't hurt the quality of my arguments too bad.

-->
@MisterChris

Thanks for getting around to it. I was worried about you.

-->
@Intelligence_06

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio-class_submarine

-->
@Death23

If the US is nuked to ashes, then I doubt that the US can even retaliate.

I'll most likely get my R1 finished before the time elapses. If not I'll simply waive and post it later

I had to cut this out due to character limits, but it doesn't have any impact so I'll put it here.

I came across an opinion on Reddit where someone had said something like killing millions of civilians could never be justified and wasn't even a valid opinion. I viewed it as somewhat of a challenge. So, this debate represents an attempt to justify the killing of not just millions of civilians, but over a billion. If there's any wondering, I would do it if I were the king, and all of the arguments I put forth here are ones that I believe in.

I also chose to debate this subject to touch on a lot of issues that are interesting to me, and that I find myself in disagreement with many people about. Issues like nationhood, humanism versus patriotism, sacrifice versus selfishness, collective punishment or responsibility in wartime, the value of justice versus the value of human life, honesty about oneself, and the value of morality. In everyday life, much of that stuff really has no practical impact on any decision. But when we're faced with extreme situations, fundamental philosophical or political disagreements like these are brought to the fore. This hypothetical is one of the most extreme situations imaginable. I'm hoping to bring many of those issues to the table for discussion and debate.

-->
@MisterChris

Looking forward to it.

-->
@Death23

you're on.