Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons

nuclear weapon states possess over 25000 nuclear weapons. Some states continue to rely on nuclear weapons for their security, while others seek them to dominate their neighbors or gain and maintain great power status. Should they be banned, or shoud we accept reality and learn to "love the bomb?"

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

All nuclear weapons threaten health and quality life of people

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.

If the nukes have terrorist bomb potentiality, then the bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the fact that nukes have heavy destruction at high blast overpressure and threanten the health and life of people. People there now are still exposed to the radiation, let alone the people then. The evarge leukemia rates and other radiation-ralated desease rates are much highter then those in other earas. The bombing in Ngasaki is in certan respects the fitter symbol of the nuclear danger that still hangs over us. Once nuke is used, nobody can ganrantee that no way it will be again. So, for the sake of the health and quality life of the people, we should eliminate all nuclear weapons.

No because...

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
Yes because...

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.

No because...

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
Yes because...

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.

No because...

The logical falacy in today's debate is that it is simply chasing shadows and grabbing sand. One thing we have to state clear is that we cannot be assured of a nuclear free world. And even if there's such a chance it is slim as slim can be.
Politics, governance, personal interests and of course, skepticism, forbids countries from openly demonstrating their nuclear power and subsequently surrendering them to some interim organisation to "take care" of the problem. and that interim organisation, international or not, has no credibility nor guaruntee whatsoever that the weapons shall be "destroyed" without any speed-bumps.
And speaking of destroy, perhaps anyone would like to hazard a guess at how to eliminate nuclear weapons? simply we cannot. Of course we can still do it and bring down half a world at least along with the weapons. But that's your funeral.
Proposition may now cower behind one final shield where this is a theoretical debate and all we have to do is to justify morally the elimination of all nuclear weapons. But may I also remind you that today is a policy debate likewise. Aside from ambitious promises, we need strong framework and legal backing, to ensure that the elimination, if it will happen, to be convened with least obsturctions and with full cooperation in stamping out cumbersome technicalities and so forth. But for now, we don't have anything like that.
Ratherm I would suggest a more lenient attitude towards nuclear weapons. To limit them rather than to destroy them is a good starting point to build up with.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

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.)

No because...

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
Yes because...

Nuclear weapons are Pointless

Nuclear weapons are the ultimate waste of money. They are a weapon that cannot feasibly be used. If the UK were to fire a missile at Russia then they will fire one back. Mutually Assured Destruction.

The oft-heard counter argument against this is that they are a bargaining chip. Does the UK need to be involved in this international game of "my dad is bigger than yours"?

No because...
Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

Nuclear Weapons have ceased to be useful

Nuclear Weapons have been effective so long as they have a purpose and in this current age I would contend that the reasoning for having them. During the Cold War nuclear weapons acted as a terrifyingly effective way of detterring both the USA and USSR. But however you can't just use nuclear weapons against terrorist or transnational forces. I mean what is Israel going to do if Hizbollah decides to detonate a nuclear bomb or threatens to . Nuke Lebanon or Syria? No that would be seen as an overreaction and the price of the collateral damage would be too high.

No because...
Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

Nuclear weapons are morally repugnant.

Over the past fifty years, we have seen a general tendency towards limited warfare and precision weapons, allowing military objectives to be achieved with minimal loss of civilian life. The entire point of nuclear weapons, however, is their massive, indiscriminate destructive power. Their use could kill tens of thousands of civilians directly, and their catastrophic environmental after-effects would harm many more all around the world. These effects could never be morally acceptable, particularly as the basis of one’s national security strategy. They place ‘humanity and most forms of life in jeopardy of annihilation’ (Krieger, 2003).

No because...
Robinson

The goal, even the aspirational goal, of eliminating all nuclear weapons is counterproductive. It will not advance substantive progress on non-proliferation; and it risks compromising the value that nuclear weapons continue to contribute, through deterrence, to U.S. security and international stability

Nuclear weapons are a necessary evil; the doctrine of mutually assured destruction prevented the outbreak of nuclear war during the Cold War because in the face of an immoral threat adversaries could place that of an immoral response. Nuclear weapons therefore act as a check upon the very institution of war, restraining aggressors through fear of mutual escalation and certain destruction.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

Nuclear deterrence encourages proliferation

By maintaining a strategic deterrent, the current nuclear powers encourage the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (Krieger, 2003). To be a part of the so-called 'nuclear club' is seen as a matter of great prestige; when India and Pakistan recently declared their nuclear capability, it was seen in both countries as increasing their international status. Also, nations opposed to a nuclear power feel that they need to develop their own capability in order to protect themselves. The declared nuclear powers must therefore take the lead in disarmament, as an example for the rest of the world.

No because...

States seek nuclear weapons not primarily in order to use them, but in order to take advantage of the security they offer. If states existed in a world post-disarmament, the incentives to develop nuclear weapons for reasons of security would not have disappeared, in fact they would have increased. As Paul Robinson notes, ‘conventional armaments…will remain the backbone of U.S. defense forces, but the inherent threat to escalate to nuclear use can help to prevent conflicts from starting, prevent their escalation, as well as bring (them) to a swift and certain end (Robinson, 2001)’. Such potential advantages will not be lost on states in a nuclear-free world.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

Risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands

While nuclear weapons exist, they can fall into the wrong hands. This is particularly true in Russia, which now had control of all of the nuclear weapons which were distributed around the former Soviet Union. The military is disastrously underfunded; technicians and officers who were used to a high standard of living are now finding themselves without pay, sometimes for years. At the same time, other states and extremist groups are willing to pay substantial sums for their services, and to gain access to nuclear weapons. The danger of a weapon being stolen, or - in consideration of the current political instability in Russia - a nuclear base being taken over by disgruntled members of the military or other extremists, can only be ended by destroying the weapons (Allison, 1997).

No because...

While nuclear weapons can be dismantled, the weapons-grade plutonium which forms their warheads cannot simply be destroyed. Instead, they must be stored in special facilities; in Russia, there are some thousand sites were military nuclear material is stored. It is producing this plutonium which is in fact the most difficult stage in building a weapon - by dismantling missiles, you are therefore not destroying their most dangerous part, and hence the risk of theft does not decrease. In fact, it may increase: missile silos in Russia are still the most heavily funded part of the military, whereas in recent years it has become clear that security at storage facilities is often inadequate. Moreover, it is far easier to steal a relatively small quantity of plutonium than an entire Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. Ironically, the safest place for plutonium in present-day Russia may be on top of such a missile.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

Both the use and threat of nuclear weapons is illegal

The International Court of Justice in 1996 declared unanimously that any use or threat of nuclear weapons had to be compatible with existing international law relating to armed conflict (International Court of Justice, 1996). Furthermore, a majority of the judges present felt that any such use or threat would ‘generally be contrary’ to those rules of international law and therefore, unanimously, ‘there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control’ (International Court of Justice, 1996).

No because...

The very same jury voted unanimously that ‘there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such’ (International Court of Justice, 1996). Unlike biological and chemical weapons, for whom specific treaties have been developed to regulate and prevent their use, nuclear weapons are recognized for their restraining effect on war. Disarmament would be an unstable step.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

high rate of risk involved in the construction of nuclear arsenals

as the example of Chernobyle revels, there is a high rate of risk involved in construction of nuclear weapons.The people working in such factories are prone to so many diseases and infections. Apart from that ,there are high risk of nuclear accidents which may lead to the death of thousands of innocent people as well as enviroment pollution.

No because...

There's a greater risk with nuclear waste management and the destruction of existing nuclear arsenals, there's no clean clear-cut way of deterring from any of the issues listed on the left, when taking nuclear weapons apart.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
Yes because...

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies.

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies. Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?

No because...

The deterrent principle still stands. During the Gulf War, for example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against civilians, their opinions would rapidly change if they found weapons of mass destruction being used against them.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

Nuclear Weapons are a hedge

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.

Yes because...

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...

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented

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.

Yes because...

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.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

They save money

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.

Yes because...

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.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

Expense

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.

Yes because...

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.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

We don't live in a fairytale land!

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.

Yes because...

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.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

Hand ALL Nuclear weapons over to the UN.

Hand all Nuke bases over to the UN. i.e. A US base would be controlled by Swiss/UN forces, the same idea could then be extended around the world. When/if they have to be used, the UN security council should vote, if one of the offending countrys is on the security council, the decisions will be argued and decided in the International Court of Justice.

Yes because...

The idea is unfortunately Utopian. Firstly, as all the UN’s permanent Security Council members are Nuclear powers, and all posses a Veto the UN would never be able to actually authorise a strike against one of the nuclear powers (the only people capable of starting an actual Nuclear war!), obviously removing any deterrent. The suggestion is to go to the court of justice. Not only is it practically difficult but would put the political decision as to whether to use the ultimate force into non-elected hands. Not only is that morally dubious, but how could we possibly ensure an impartial hearing on the issue of Nuclear war? Further, how is it proposed that the UN would be able to move to vote on whether to retaliate to a Nuclear attack during an attack. This is not to mention the practical limitations to the scheme. Just a few examples: how do you stop an American base in America manned by Swiss soldiers from being retaken by the Americans whenever they need to? How do you fire a Nuclear ICBM when the tracking system is linked up to GPS, run by the Americans? What do you do about tactical weapons stored on ships, subs and planes? How do you ensure that EVERY weapon worldwide is under UN control? How do you stop UN corruption or betrayal? Yet perhaps the most important question of all remains: why would the nations involved do it? There is no advantage to Russia, say, of doing this, and until that materialises it would never be done in the real world.

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

Nuclear weapons are required for deterrence

The use of nuclear weapons would indeed be a great tragedy; but so, to a greater or lesser extent, is any war. The reason for maintaining an effective nuclear arsenal is in fact to prevent war. By making the results of conflict catastrophic, a strategic deterrent discourages conflict. The Cold War was in fact one of the most peaceful times in history, particularly in Europe, largely because of the two superpowers' nuclear deterrents.

Record

During the Cold War, the principal function of nuclear weapons was to deter nuclear attack

During the Gulf War, for example, one of the factors which prevented Iraq from launching missiles tipped with chemical weapon warheads against Israel was the threat the USA would retaliate with a nuclear strike. Although there is no longer as formal a threat of retaliation as there was during the Cold War, the very possibility that the use of nuclear weapons by a rogue state could be met a retaliatory strike is too great a threat to ignore. Moreover, although the citizens of the current nuclear powers may be against the use of force against civilians, their opinions would

Yes because...

The idea of a so-called 'nuclear deterrent' no longer applies. Peace during the Cold War was maintained only by a balance of power - neither superpower had an advantage large enough to be confident of victory. This eventually became the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction: both sides had sufficient weaponry to totally annihilate one another, and potentially the whole world. However, there is no longer a balance of power. With the proliferation of nuclear weapons, some rogue states may develop the ability to strike at enemies who have no nuclear weapons of their own. It is not clear that the major nuclear powers would then strike back at the aggressor. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the emerging nuclear threats would not be from legitimate governments but from dictators and terrorist groups. Would it ever be acceptable to kill thousands of civilians for the actions of extremists?

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

Abolishment is an unrealistic goal

The nuclear genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way to go back. Nuclear technology exists, and there is no way to un-invent it (Robinson, 2001). Much as the ideal of global disarmament is fine, the reality is that it is impossible: it takes only one rogue state to maintain a secret nuclear capability to make the abolition of the major powers' deterrents unworkable. Without the threat of a retaliatory strike, this state could attack others at will.

Similarly, the process by which nuclear weapons are produced cannot easily be differentiated from the nuclear power process; without constant oversight it would be possible for any state with nuclear power to regain nuclear capability if they felt threatened.

Yes because...

In 1996, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The treaty, which calls for an end to all nuclear testing, includes provisions for extensive and independent mechanisms for the monitoring of nuclear activities. Such mechanisms could easily be co-opted for use in implementing, monitoring and verifying any future nuclear disarmament process.

Kimbali

The de facto global nuclear test moratorium and CTBT’s entry into force are crucial barriers to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to additional states and are essential to the future viability of the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). They are the first two of the 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive nuclear disarmament that were unanimously adopted in the Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference

Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons
No because...

Would leave nations vulnerable and result in more death.

Nuclear Weapons should not be abolished because not everyone would destroy there's and terrorist groups would make their own. This would leave terrorist groups and countries that don't destroy there missels at an advantage over the ones that do. As much as everyone hates the devastation and horror that took place in Japan at the end of the second world war, it was nesisary and saved lives in the long run. Japan would not have surrendered and it is estimated that the U.S. would lose 200,000 people that number alone is more then the lives lost in japan from the bombs. If the bombs had not dropped more of there people would have died fighting then thos that did in the blast. Also the threat of nuclear war stops wars from even occuring. Countries that would have gone to war now don't becuase they do not want nuclear war to happen.

Yes because...


Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons

What do you think?
(65%) (35%)

Continue the Debate - Leave a Comment

1 Comment on "Eliminate All Nuclear Weapons"

wpDiscuz
(Visited 3,451 times, 4 visits today)