We should gradually get rid of nuclear weapons worldwide change my mind

Author: Alec ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 25
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    I think we should get rid of nukes gradually and force other countries to do the same.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Alec
    1. How do you force other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons?

    2. Isn't mutually assured destruction a deterrent to war?
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    It only one takes leader to press a button in order for others to retaliate and kill everyone. 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    If we lived in an ideal world in which we could get rid of all nuclear weapons and somehow ensure that no one makes any more, then perhaps it would be ideal.

    However, if one country builds a nuke after we get rid of them, then they are granted a lot of leverage over every other country and can extort them. Then, other countries build weapons to deter the use of that nuke and we get right back where we are.

  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Do you understand that nothing what you said was directed at what I said.

    I said: 1 person can launch nukes which can lead to other people launching news.

    You said: Ideal world no nukes. Present day US leverages nukes to get stuff and other countries are doing it as well. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,392
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Alec
    Unfortunately the deterrent force is nuclear weapons.

    Presently, any other conventional force is rendered impotent.

    Though I expect scientists are beavering away in their secret research facilities, developing the next generation of environmentally friendly weapons of mass destruction.

    As a species we've never really come to terms with the idea that peace is the better option. I think maybe, that we are hardwired not to.



  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    You were making a case for denuclearization. I recognize that a nuclear war would be catastrophic, but the alternative, which I provided, is also problematic and leads everyone to build nukes up again to prevent exploitation.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    I am just pointing out having a lot of people with really dangerous weapons leads to more chances that they can be used to instigate instead of retaliate. Lets put it at 5%. There is currently 3,730 nuclear weapons meaning 3,730 nuclear weapons have a 5% chance of being used to instigate. 

  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Yes, but let us say that you have nukes and your enemy does, as well as their allies. You don't want to nuke them because then you'll get wrecked. That is the whole idea of mutually assured destruction: the fact that others have nukes deters you from using them at all.

    I don't think there is any realistic way to get rid of all nukes and ensure no more are made, so this is what we have to go with.
  • TheRealNihilist
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    Debates: 44
    Forum posts: 4,888
    4
    8
    11
    TheRealNihilist avatar
    TheRealNihilist
    --> @bmdrocks21
    That is the whole idea of mutually assured destruction: the fact that others have nukes deters you from using them at all.
    Doesn't go against the percentage. The more nukes the more percentages that have to be added individually. You are making a claim which I have already addressed and expecting me to give a nee response. 
    I don't think there is any realistic way to get rid of all nukes and ensure no more are made, so this is what we have to go with.
    What percentage would you put every single of the nukes going off at? 
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @TheRealNihilist
    Ok, we don't know this percentage, but we will pretend we do for the sake of argument. Let us say one country in the world, China, has a nuke. They have a 20% chance of using it on Laos. Then, let us say Laos builds a nuke. China's chance of using the nuke may go down to 1% or even 0% because they don't want the retaliatory nuke.

    Now, let us say all nukes are destroyed. The only people who are likely to use the nuke are going to build more. Then, the other countries don't have them and there is less of a deterrent against using them for those who have built them.
  • RationalMadman
    RationalMadman avatar
    Debates: 283
    Forum posts: 8,665
    10
    10
    11
    RationalMadman avatar
    RationalMadman
    I agree.

    Mutually assured non-destruction is the actual endgame of correctly played war strategy.
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @bmdrocks21
    How do you force other countries to get rid of their nuclear weapons?
    I'd want the UN to implement a tax on nukes that every country must pay annually.  It would start off at $1 billion/nuke and as countries got rid of their nukes, the tax would increase until no country has them anymore.  To avoid the tax, most nukes would get destroyed.

    Isn't mutually assured destruction a deterrent to war?
    It's a deterrent, but not a peace guarantee.  The more countries that get nukes, the more likely we are to have nuclear war.

    If we get rid of the instructions on how to build nukes in addition to the nukes, people can't make them illegally.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Alec
    How would the UN go about collecting this tax? What if the country doesn't pay?

    What about hidden nuke arsenals like Israel has? How do you find those nukes and charge them for it?

    I don't know how you get rid of the "instructions" for building nukes. That would actually be unconstitutional. Also, I don't know how you would go about destroying information, and how do you prevent people from "discovering" it again?
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @bmdrocks21
    How would the UN go about collecting this tax? What if the country doesn't pay?
    They require a check from every country that has nukes.  If the country doesn't pay, they get sanctioned.  The only reason why we have nukes is to protect against other nukes.  Eliminate the nukes gradually, and there is no need for defense from them.

    What about hidden nuke arsenals like Israel has? How do you find those nukes and charge them for it?
    I'd send foreign UN officials to search Israel for nukes, just like what we did to Iraq.

    I don't know how you get rid of the "instructions" for building nukes.
    By burning them if they are made of paper or by deleting them if they are online.

    That would actually be unconstitutional.
    Why?

    how do you prevent people from "discovering" it again?
    In order to discover it again and to build a nuke again, people would be prohibited from owning plutonium and uranium.  It would have to be done underground if it happens and if building a bomb gets caught, the people involved would be punished with life in jail without parole.  Currently, people aren't building nukes illegally, so I don't think it would happen in a nuke free world.  I'd want the nukes to get used for power to get rid of them and to provide energy.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Alec
    Russia, US, UK, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and China all have nukes. Notice how none of them go to war with each other. Even the Cold War had no direct conflict between the US and the USSR.

    I'd send foreign UN officials to search Israel for nukes, just like what we did to Iraq.
    Just like Iraq....Know for a fact they have no weapons and invade them anyway :P

    By burning them if they are made of paper or by deleting them if they are online.
    I don't think this sounds very feasible. Deleting information online is incredibly difficult, but I will take your word for it. Should we purge all scientists that know how to make them?

    Why?

    The Anarchist Cookbook is a book that has been ruled constitutional to publish multiple times despite attempts to ban it. It tells you how to make explosives and illegal drugs.

    In order to discover it again and to build a nuke again, people would be prohibited from owning plutonium and uranium.  It would have to be done underground if it happens and if building a bomb gets caught, the people involved would be punished with life in jail without parole.  Currently, people aren't building nukes illegally, so I don't think it would happen in a nuke free world.  I'd want the nukes to get used for power to get rid of them and to provide energy.

    Yeah, people would need a ton of money in order to make a nuke. However, you are increasing the incentive for nukes to be made illegally. Think of all of the power that could be given to a group that has a nuke while no other country does. They could exploit non-nuke countries heavily.
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,186
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    NO, if no nukes= more war
  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @bmdrocks21
    Even the Cold War had no direct conflict between the US and the USSR.

    We got lucky.  Even if the odds of a president launching nukes is 1/100 in their term, as time goes on, the collective odds of a president launching nukes gradually increase.  Nukes are too risky.  Getting rid of all nukes at once leaves us vulnerable, but if we gradually get rid of them, then it would prevent their explosion.  This is why there should be a high tax on nukes.  It forces countries to gradually get rid of them so they are no longer a threat.

    Just like Iraq....Know for a fact they have no weapons and invade them anyway
    We thought Iraq did have nuclear weapons.  It wouldn't be an invasion.  It would be a team of 20,000 UN workers or so making sure that there are no nukes in Israel.

    Should we purge all scientists that know how to make them?
    I wouldn't kill them, but I´d send them to an isolated island with no transportation out of it but it would be a good island for them so they wouldn't want to leave and so when every one of them dies from natural causes, the knowledge of how to build nukes is gone.

    The Anarchist Cookbook is a book that has been ruled constitutional to publish multiple times despite attempts to ban it. It tells you how to make explosives and illegal drugs.
    The explosives in the book aren't nearly as dangerous as nukes.  I would personally want the book banned but I respect the court decisions that established it´s legalization.  Making explosives that injure a dozen people is nothing like a nuke.

    However, you are increasing the incentive for nukes to be made illegally.
    How can they make a nuke if they don´t know how?  All the scientists that know how to make a nuke are on an island.  I don´t think the scientists would allow random people to get a nuke, so I doubt they would help out random people with making a nuke.  Since people currently don´t build nukes illegally, I don´t think they would get nukes in a nuke free world.


  • Alec
    Alec avatar
    Debates: 42
    Forum posts: 2,474
    5
    7
    11
    Alec avatar
    Alec
    --> @Dr.Franklin
    NO, if no nukes= more war

    I think nukes can deliver a possibility of nuclear war.  If there is a nuclear war, humanity is basically dead.
  • drafterman
    drafterman avatar
    Debates: 6
    Forum posts: 4,689
    3
    6
    9
    drafterman avatar
    drafterman
    I think the laws of physics guarantee this outcome. Just depends on how "gradual" you want things to change.
  • bmdrocks21
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    Debates: 5
    Forum posts: 1,671
    4
    5
    9
    bmdrocks21 avatar
    bmdrocks21
    --> @Alec
    We thought Iraq did have nuclear weapons.  It wouldn't be an invasion.  It would be a team of 20,000 UN workers or so making sure that there are no nukes in Israel.

    <br>
    No, we really didn't. They even lied about Saddam Hussein helping with 9/11. How would these UN workers, say, search through all of Siberia in Russia, thousands of miles of desert in the Middle East, and other remote locations where nukes could easily be hidden. How much will it cost to hire 20,000 UN workers?

    I wouldn't kill them, but I´d send them to an isolated island with no transportation out of it but it would be a good island for them so they wouldn't want to leave and so when every one of them dies from natural causes, the knowledge of how to build nukes is gone.

    So, we are forcibly kidnapping people now. I'm intrigued.

    The explosives in the book aren't nearly as dangerous as nukes.  I would personally want the book banned but I respect the court decisions that established it´s legalization.  Making explosives that injure a dozen people is nothing like a nuke.

    I mean, no they aren't as dangerous. But, normal people can actually make these weapons, while only a billionaire could perhaps build a nuke. You are arming nearly everyone with knowledge to blow things up.

    We got lucky.  Even if the odds of a president launching nukes is 1/100 in their term, as time goes on, the collective odds of a president launching nukes gradually increase.  Nukes are too risky.  Getting rid of all nukes at once leaves us vulnerable, but if we gradually get rid of them, then it would prevent their explosion.  This is why there should be a high tax on nukes.  It forces countries to gradually get rid of them so they are no longer a threat.

    My point is that it is more or less unfeasible to actually find every nuclear weapon that a country may be hiding and that both sides having nukes deters conflict between those nations.

    How can they make a nuke if they don´t know how?  All the scientists that know how to make a nuke are on an island.  I don´t think the scientists would allow random people to get a nuke, so I doubt they would help out random people with making a nuke.  Since people currently don´t build nukes illegally, I don´t think they would get nukes in a nuke free world.

    Scientists, like all human beings, want stuff. How would they make a nuke? Pay off a scientist to tell them the secrets. 

    Also, sanctions haven't stopped Iran from attempting to build nukes. North Korea has about two allies and they also have nuclear weapons. How is what you are proposing any different?
  • Dr.Franklin
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Debates: 32
    Forum posts: 8,186
    4
    6
    11
    Dr.Franklin avatar
    Dr.Franklin
    --> @Alec
    I think nukes can deliver a possibility of nuclear war.  If there is a nuclear war, humanity is basically dead.
    <br>
    no 
  • Jeff_Goldblum
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Debates: 10
    Forum posts: 120
    0
    2
    10
    Jeff_Goldblum avatar
    Jeff_Goldblum
    --> @Alec
    I think I make a good case here why retaining minimum nuclear deterrents would be preferable to total nuclear weapons abolition. https://www.debateart.com/debates/1581/conservative-nuclear-arsenals-are-preferable-to-total-nuclear-weapons-abolition
  • Stephen
    Stephen avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 3,326
    2
    2
    2
    Stephen avatar
    Stephen
    --> @Alec
    I think we should get rid of nukes gradually and force other countries to do the same.

    Look at the bold underlined above and ask yourself, is your country going to lead by example?

    I'd want the UN to implement a tax on nukes that every country must pay annually.  It would start off at $1 billion/nuke and as countries got rid of their nukes, the tax would increase until no country has them anymore.  To avoid the tax, most nukes would get destroyed.

    Sound like fighting talk to me. Enough to create a war.. a nuclear war.


  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 12
    Forum posts: 2,392
    3
    2
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @Stephen
    Do you think Kim will pay his tax bill?