Vote totals:
Yes:
60%
No:
40%
Neutral:
0%
DEBATE: ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
All nuclear weapons increase the risk of nuclear terrorism
Any nuclear weapon anywhere is a potential terrorist bomb. There have been cocnerned for over 15 years about the security fo nuclear weapons in the former Soviet Union. Now, however, those concerns are more wide-spread. Unrest in Pakistan and uncertainties in China have raised the alarm about the security and instability in other countries. The recent news that 6 nuclear weapons took a joy ride on a B-52 without the knowlegde or permission of base commanders or proper authorities reminded people that security in the United States is also far from perfect.
We know terrorist groups have stated their desire to acquire nuclear weapons. If security over the weapons we have is imperfect, and we know sub-national groups are trying to acquire them, then to protect ourselves, the best way to proceed is to eliminate all nuclear weapons ro ensure they never fall into the wrong hands.
Any nuclear weapon is a potential terrorist bomb, yes potentially it is, in fact any weapon isa potential terrorist weapon however most of them are much easier to use.
If a terrorist does manage to get their hands on a nuclear warhead, a high yield ballistic misslie warhead, for example where are these non-state actors going to then construct their ICBM launch site?
If the security of the weapons is light then perhapsit is with ease that a terrorist may get a hold of the weapon, but building a placeto launch it is not so easy to do without the support of the state they’re building it in. Remeber the Cuban Missile Crisis? Aerial photos of the construction just because the Cold War is over does not mean similar measues are still not being taken.
But perhaps the terrorists are just using a tactical nuke or want to simply detonate their device in-situ. The bomb then has to travel, completely undetected, accompanied by rather anxious, possibly know terrorists, accross multiple borders, arrive at the destination and then finally be detonated.
It seems quite a big ask either way and thats without mentioning the appropriate skills and funding required that would rule out the majority of would-be city destroyers.
Furthermore, eliminating weaponry does not eliminate the existence of nuclear material in reactors and waste dumps. This material itself is potentially very dangerous were it to fall into the wrong hands – a so-called "dirty bomb" would cause mass panic at the very least, and there have been indications that terrorists have been trying to construct one for some time. It is surely better to keep nuclear material under high security in secret military bases than large, insecure waste dumps.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear Weapons reduce American security
The United States is the world’s conventional super power. The only thing that can truely threaten our existence and our military capabilities are nuclear weapons. Thus, the United States shoudl be leading international efforts to rid the world of all nuclear weapons under strict verification. Doing so would help ensure American military dominance and its ability to protect its allies and its security interests.
Moreover, the United States does not need nuclear weapons to protect itself. In al of the wars fought in recent memory, nuclear wepaons have not been useful. From Vietnam, to Iraq, to Somalia to Kosovo, nuclear weapopns have been useless. Why have them if you can’s use them, and why have them if they only serve to legitimize the nuclear arsenals of others.
The whole probelm with this is why would any other nuclear state disarm?
It is stated that the only threat to the United States’ military capabilities are nuclear weapons, removing them from the world would ensure American military dominance. If this is the case then why would any other nation wish to see the United States have an unrivaled military dominance over them?
Surely it would be better for the others to keep hold of their arsenal and therefore their detterent.
In addition, as shown in Vietnam, American military dominance is not all it seems against non-conventional forces.
Also the wars mentioned were not defensive, therefore in terms of protecting itself they aren’t really applicable. To say a weapon is not used does not mean it is not useful and indeed if the USA had not had a nuclear cabability during the Cold War the prospect of Soviet Russia being much more active militarily has a far greater likelihood.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Moral Authority needed to combat a nuclear Iran
The United States need to increase its moral authority if we are going to prevent countries like Iran from becoming nuclear powers. As the only country to ever use nuclear weapons (to end WWII) and as a country that has recently stated its willingness to use nuclear weapons to advance the regime change agenda, the UNited States has lost a lot of the moral authority it needs to convince other coutnries to join in efforts to convince Iran to end its nuclear program. We must make it easier for non-aligned states to side with us. Right now, it is politically harder for leaders in middle powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Egypt and South Africa to side with the US.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear weapons undermine our commitment to international security forces
Were Britain to thoroughly commit to the United Nations instead of merely paying it lip-service (as can be said of a huge number of Western nations – particularly America), then perhaps it could resemble an effective moral and military authority. Some of the biggest tragedies of the past two decades – Rwanda and Darfur spring to mind – have been perpetrated not with nuclear weapons but with machetes, yet the international community has not taken it upon itself to act.
Without support from its members, the UN cannot take action. Yet with a nuclear deterrant countries are able to believe that they can still defend themselves independently, at the expense of upholding commitments to defend others. It is time for the UK to accept that its years as an island are now over, replenish it’s nuclear arsenal knowing that were any other country to launch a nuclear attack on Great Britain the UN would step up to the task. (At the very least in theory. In practice downsizing our arsenal whilst stepping up our UN commitment could be the working solution.)
As an argument against eliminating nuclear weapons: Some of the biggest tragedies of the past two decades – Rwanda and Darfur spring to mind – have been perpetrated not with nuclear weapons but with machetes.
That aside, the UN as a military authority? does that entail a United Nations Army, under the command not of the leaders of the states from which the forces will be drawn from or something else?
"Were any other country to launch a nuclear attack on Great Britain the UN would step up to the task" how so? nuclear retaliation? from the United Nations non-existent arsenal or from one of its member states who did not give up their nuclear detterent. Or perhaps not nuclear retaliation but some sanctions and a UN mandate for other states to go in to the warring nation whilst not endangering that particular states’ sovereignty untill peace is made. Sounds good but would you want to rile a nation that has just shown how it willingly utilises nuclear weaponry offensively, why wouldn’t it use them defensively against the UN nations invading?
States exist in a system of anarchy, collective security is at best unreliable and given the nature of the international beast it would be foolish at best to give up nuclear capabilities and the abilty for self help.
Finally Just because a nation can defend itself does not mean it would nnot defend others take for example Britain’s involvement in Sierra Leone or NATO in Kosovo. To suggest that if they had not had nuclear weaponry the powers would have stopped genocides in Africa is misguided at best.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear Weapons are a hedge
To the same extent that they are a hedge, they may also draw enemies into attacking the US. It is important to remember that Nuclear Weapons don’t protect against other Nuclear attacks, only anti-nuclear defenses do this. Nuclear Weapons are not a defence but a tool for future aggression and preemptive action. Anything could happen in the future, but it’s much more likely to in a nuclear world…
We don’t know what the future can bring. Just as no one predicted 9/11, we don’t know if we will face major challanges to the US in the future – from Russia, from China, from unknowns. We need to keep our powder dry and be ready just in case.
Nuclear weapons do provide a measure of defence against other nuclear states. A strike by one country against, say, the US, would easily be detected and while measures would be deployed against the incoming missiles (see the ‘son of star wars’ program), retaliation could only be in the form of a nuclear strike. The knowledge that other states possess nuclear weapons is a reason not to attack those states.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented
There is the knowledge in people’s heads for far worse weapons than nuclear ones (such as biological weapons). These can be created, but states consistently choose not to, and vindicate these decisions in articles such as the Geneva convention. If the heavily-armed states led the way in disarming, nuclear weapons could potentially gain this status.
you can’t elimimnate the knowledge in people’s heads. Just because the US gets rid of nuclear weapons does not mean we can eliminate them everywhere. Since the knowledge exists, nuclear weapons will exist – always. So if there are going to be nuclear weapons, we better have them too.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
They save money
This simply isn’t true. Since the end of the Cold War all the enemies of Western states have been located outside of American and Europe – such as in Asia and the Middle East. There have been no military operations whatsoever by these enemies into Western states throughout history (except a few skirmishes around Turkey in the 19th century). To argue that nuclear weapons have prevented conflict and thus saved money is to plagerise the story in which a child sits outside his front door (in a Western country) with stones, in order to keep away the tigers. There haven’t been any tigers, thus his method must be cost effective and beneficial.
Just to add to this.
"missions now assigned to nuclear weapons." Unless my head has been been in a bunker I must have missed all the nuclear attacks alluded to here.
Equally the cost effectiveness has been shown to be lacking in cases such as Korea in the 50s or any other conflict where nuclear weapons have been actiively considered where the US has paid for the weapon yet is still using large amounts of man power and conventional weapons instead of its apparenlty cheap and effective option.
nuclear weapons are a bargain. Without nuclear weapons, we would have to spend a lot more money sending troops to protect allies and on conventiona military capabilities to cover the missions now assigned to nuclear weapons. So even if you think nuclear weapons are not the most important tool in the US arsenal – they save money which we need for other things.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Expense
Actually the cost of disarmament could be made fairly small, dismantling warheads is a fairly complex process, true, and good technical minds would need to be employed. Disposal of nuclear fuel is also, in real terms, fairly cheap, with the prices massively inflated simply because there is nowhere to dispose of it TO right now. For those who don’t know much about nuclear waste disposal, this would basically be a giant hole in the floor in a geologically stable area, covered in concrete. There are no suitable sites, at least to my knowledge, in the US, however, there are many in Canada, Europe and Oceania. Once built, the whole thing is really self explanatory.
The cost of propper Nuclear disarmament is huge. It is more than simply putting htem away in storage or burrying them or shooting them into the sun or whatever easy solution you imagine. Rather the correct and safe disarmament is an expensive and technical process. It is actually cheaper to renew nuclear programmes than it is to deconstruct them.
A lot of people seem to think the USA should lead the way on the process, should they then bear the costs as well? Theirs is the biggest arsenal and therefore most expensive to dismantle making it already a financially unappatizong suggestion but if they had to bear the brunt of the cost for the world (including in carrying out checks to ensure that disarmament has been carried out propperly) as they had to do with Soviet Russia after SALT 2 the the idea of expense alone would make the idea impossible to agree to. When added to the arguments mentioned above the idea becomes nothing more than an idealistic fantasy.
ELIMINATE ALL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
We don’t live in a fairytale land!
What about ABMs (anti-ballistic misslies) and other missile defence systems? All that would be removed if the offensive threat of massive retaliation against the civillian population of the agressor not defence capabilities which have been underused in order to maintain the concept of MAD hence the agreements not to use ABMs, which would be void if there was a mass nuclear disarament.
There is no way in which we could ensure the complete destruction of all nuclear weapons. If one nation kept theirs they could hold other nations to ransom as they would have no form of protection against a nuclear strike. Although a good idea it is somewhat unrealistic to expect every country to destroy all of their nuclear weapons.