1 
Offline
Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.If necessary, define the nominative and verbal components of the resolution in order to clarify your arguments.
Forum
Off Topic States ought not possess nuclear weapons
States ought not possess nuclear weapons
21 replies Resolved: States ought not possess nuclear weapons.If necessary, define the nominative and verbal components of the resolution in order to clarify your arguments.
Todays infrastructure, todays economy is that much connected world wide, that everything will break down, when one country (of course one of those which is able to start a war!) is destroyed, many countrys will be destroyed too (economical of course!)
In addition, nuclear weapons are just not ethical. Millions of people get killed, who were innocent.
Today, as tkd said, it would be a economic suicid to do that. The one serious hazard are nukes in the hand of terrorists. They dont fear a counter attack, actually, they would be happy about that.
But Russia, America, China and all the other countries know that this is one thing, they are not allowed to do. And they are the ones, who follow the geneva conventions. Terriorists dont do. They shoot at paramedics, even tho the paramedics have the order to medical assists every soldier on field.
But time changes, and war too.
Then we have China. And, from my best knowledge, China says openly that half of the Russian Federation (from Ural to Vladivostok, including Siberia) is their land, informally for now. So, we don't have to look far to predict a nuclear war.
There should be someone independent, who will inspect states for possession of nukes, which is impossible.
And also. TheKilledDeath, in your post you wrote that millions of innocent people die. That is the idea of nukes, as the innocent people may go to the war, or, for example, grow food. Without food and other resources there is no point in the army.
And, I believe that after 9\11, America had much more nukes then before. It may be understood as an act of defence, but also as a threat.
EDIT: Spf, I should dissagree with you on one aspect.
''War... War never changes.'' (Tagline of Fallout games)
Actually, this sentence applies on the death soldiers, the injuries, etc.
Im talking about how a war is fight. And war changes during time, and this war now is completly different.
And next time, dont use game citataions. Even when they sound good.
After the nuclear powers destroyed eachothers main targets (which, as a said, could happen in a matter of hours), they just wouldn't have enough organisation, resources, fule etc. to fire a nuke, or, probably they wouldn't have enough missiles left, or maybe not even targets. (not to talk about silos, which the enemy may have known about). But then there are the other countrys, and also the nuclear powers still have many cities left, and an army, though their main industrial areas are totally destroyed, their moral is probably crap, there's panic, and economy just "died". It's quite possible that they might even continue fighting the "traditional" way, and other countrys would also join. The main countrys, already striked by nuclear weapons would constantly drain their resources, and since their most important factories are probably destroyed, they would quickly run out of supplies, while also civilians would take a lot of manpower to control them, and also other countrys would be attacking them. They might also have some spare missiles, and now they could stategically fire them, even at other countrys, and wouldn't have to worry about them firing back, though all of them could have more missiles, and we know what that means...
So, basically they would carry on with war untill all their main industries are gone, the population drains dramatically, economy stops, and after a whild no one would have enough power, and resources to continue. Borders and countrys would change a lot, and there would be chaos all over the world (though it wouldn't be apocoliptic, there still would be countrys and cities and a governmenst).
*deep breath* ....finally, i'm done!
Sorry for the mini-novel
. they see the casualties as "statistics". and when it's their turn, they would totally regret that kind of thinking. when another humanbeing is lost, and you have no empathy for it, you are basically killing your own soul.
and now starring, the typical arrogance and ignorance of the west!
People also tend to believe what they see/read first.
spf357 has written
The last picture is not really the best one. In fact, isreal is on the of most appreciated partner of the usa. And they are one of the country who know they are not allowed to use the nukes. They are way more intelligent than we think. They have a superior army force and technology. But they know how, and when to use it.
People also tend to believe what they see/read first.
People also tend to believe what they see/read first.
that is funny, because Israel has committed alot of war crimes and genocide on the Palestinian people, stolen their land (even if it's theirs) in a very aggressive way, uses their military on innocent population, etc, I can go on and on.
Israel is also the #1 country in the world to commit the most UN violations and resolutions.
www.ifamericansknew.org
www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4gymxY2zM8
yes, you sure are intelligent by bombing buildings to the house, terrorize Palestinians trying to live a normal life, and overall commit war crimes and genocide. Even American activists have been killed by Israeli soldiers. It's all over the net, you only need to do your own research instead of watch mainstream media (which tends to make Israel look as the victim of terrorism, irony)
who cares what country has a superior military force? if not a single country had a military, the world would live in relative peace, no one to be aggressed on or occupied by. if you think militaries is what makes a country cool, your only deluding yourself.. like I said, video-games is video-games, don't compare games to real life situations.
Arming Israel with nukes, is like giving a mental and brutal child an AK-47.. the west obviously turns a blind eye on it, using the WW2 holocaust as an excuse. Just because they have suffered, doesn't mean they have a perfectly legit reason to make other people suffer.
It is childish to say "If no country have a military we all live in peace". Actually, it would be the complete difference.
Actually, i did some research by myself.
I looked around the link, and found the list of killed children. First off, this is one source you told me.
There is a list of children killed by the IDF and police...most of the deathreports say "...killed during a demonstration".
You said i shouldnt compare video games with real life. Yes. Its not easy for a soldier there...and we actually dont know what really happend during such a demonstration.
"Ragnarök(the final fate of the gods) in Norse mythology refers to a series of events, including a decisive battle, which is predicted to lead to the end of the world." -a quote from the swedish wikipedia page.
If countries that owns nuclear weapons are deciding to launch nukes at other countries, their own country will be suffering from counter-attacks and there will be a chain reaction between different countries, all this will be happening in a short period of time. The countries that get attacked with nuclear weapons would be totally demolished. That's where I started to think about ragnarök. Ragnarök will be the end of the world, it's like playing that game Risk but with nukes basicly.
spf357 has written
the demonstrations are the effect of the Israeli illegal and horrifying actions on them and their families and country. Most demonstrations were done peacefully, with clear messages that they want Israel to stop shedding blood. They have cried out to the world, but the world turns a blind eye on them, so what else can they do? Children even throw rocks at Israeli tanks, what do you think is on their minds? Their family/parents may of been killed, their house may of been levelled to the ground, etc. I can keep on going for days..Please, dont turn around my words. I never said that a country with a suporior military force is "cool" in any way.
It is childish to say "If no country have a military we all live in peace". Actually, it would be the complete difference.
Actually, i did some research by myself.
I looked around the link, and found the list of killed children. First off, this is one source you told me.
There is a list of children killed by the IDF and police...most of the deathreports say "...killed during a demonstration".
You said i shouldnt compare video games with real life. Yes. Its not easy for a soldier there...and we actually dont know what really happend during such a demonstration.
It is childish to say "If no country have a military we all live in peace". Actually, it would be the complete difference.
Actually, i did some research by myself.
I looked around the link, and found the list of killed children. First off, this is one source you told me.
There is a list of children killed by the IDF and police...most of the deathreports say "...killed during a demonstration".
You said i shouldnt compare video games with real life. Yes. Its not easy for a soldier there...and we actually dont know what really happend during such a demonstration.
Quote
They are way more intelligent than we think. They have a superior army force and technology. But they know how, and when to use it.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WEcWNc3DQw
is flying your flag and making the peace sign with your hands a sign of a "terrorist"? The Israeli army sure is very intelligent.. :-l
just look to the right, there's countless of footages, mere examples, do a quick search on a search-engine such as Google, and you'll find alot more. does mainstream news, especially those in the west, cover this? They hardly talk about it, that is no miracle since USA fully funds and supports Israel with their terrorization of their neighbors, therefore USA does not want to show such things.
Israelis respond to this with saying it's Hamas' fault and other insurgent groups, but they are also just the mere effect of what they have done for years on the Palestinians, they see the suffering of their people, therefore they fight the Israeli aggressor. Destruction causes hate, and hate causes even more hate, war is pointless. Resistance/freedom-fighter groups will always exist aslong as another country puts the pressure and aggression on them.
Don't get me wrong, Hamas' actions are as bad as the Israeli's actions, but if you compare the numbers, Israel is committing genocide and war crimes infront of your nose, while Hamas is merely doing anything. All the while, innocents get murdered, slaughtered, and beaten in the process, war and conflicts are pointless, leaders and politicians make profit of it. If every fighter and soldier swapped their gun for love to oneanother, there would be no wars, because there would be no-one fighting for leaders who have no empathy for the innocent casualties.
so is it really neccesary to have Israel keep growing their nuclear and biochemical nukes, and what God may know they have in secret weapons? Israel has also stated before, if Israel is going down, they will "take the world with them".
I haven't seen a single atomic bomb used (outside of any test) against something that weren't civilians.
Also , Agreed with OP , if States Possess Nuclear Weapons , there is a Large chance that they will get Hit by Nuclear Weapons from Other Countries If M.A.D even Begins
Of course , M.A.D can be Prevented if Nuclear Material is Sealed up and Closed and Forgotten , But Even with Protest , As everyone knows , The Materiel is Never Sealed up , even with the Nuclear Prevention Talks held by the US
1. Given the predicate that the existence of nuclear weaponry is guaranteed, which is necessary for a system where the resolution can be tested, and
2. Given that the removal of nuclear weaponry is a gradual process,
The complete removal of the nuclear arsenal of any state, required to fulfill the basis of the resolution, will in turn render the state vulnerable without regards to political allies, to a military strike. While we isolate this on a per-state scale, the threat of invasion is insignificant via the offset of allies. However the disposal of nuclear weaponry won't successfully propagate as the trailing country achieves global hegemony when the state before it disposes its nuclear weaponry. By asserting that hegemony of military and thus overall power negatively impacts the world, we can deduce that the ends of the resolution is unjustifiable.