Should Every Country Have the Right to Possess Nuclear Weapons

7/30/2019 Should Every Country Have the Right to Possess Nuclear Weapons

1/46

Should every country have the right to possess nuclearweapons?

37% Say Yes

63% Say No Of course

By not wanting them to have nuclear weapons we are actually encouraging countries to not only

pursue them, but to use them as a threat to establish their sovereignty. Of course the world

would be safer without nukes, but you have to be realistic about this and it's too much of a

hassle to try and stop countries from acquiring them.

Posted by: AnonymousReport PostLikeReply

01

If the United States has them why the hell not?

To me it's like owning a gun and then saying nobody else can have one. If the US and some of

these other countries don't want Iran or North Korea getting nuclear weapons, then they should

get rid of their nuclear programs too. It's hypocritical in my mind to have the nukes and then

dictate to the rest of the world who can or can not get them. What fits the criteria of getting anuke? I don't know about North Korea but the reason why a country like Iran is trying to get

them is because their enemies the US and Israel have them. I've been stressing to my buddies

that Israel is the strongest nation in the Middle East of course no to avail because of the alleged

threat by the Iranian president( I can't spell his name) to blow Israel into the sea. I must remind

everyone who has the nukes and who doesn't. Iran has to do this to protect themselves. But of

course here in the West anyone that tries to defend themselves are the bad guys. In no way

shape in form am I an Iran supporter, however if our country is going to sit up there and say

that they shouldn't have nukes, shouldn't we get rid of ours. After all Iran has no nuclear

weapons as of yet.

Posted by:kingdavid3000Report PostLikeReply

13

Yes, unless proven otherwise unfit.

I look at it much like I look at the second amendment. Yes, protecting yourself is an inherent

right, but the right to possess weapons can be taken away if you show you are unfit, particularly

in situations of handling a weapon which can cause immeasurable destruction. If your country's
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/kingdavid3000/http://www.debate.org/kingdavid3000/http://www.debate.org/kingdavid3000/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/kingdavid3000/http://void%280%29/


2/46

leader(s) commit crimes against humanity and blatantly threatens unnecessary war and

destruction against other nations, well, they have given up their right to possess a weapon of

such power.

Posted by: Anonymous

Report PostLikeReply

01

Equality should prevail: Yes for all, No for all

While ideally there should be no nuclear weapons on planet earth since our species has only one

planet but if one is holding such a weapon then all have the right to it. Simply it is wrong toassume that some among the homo sapiens sapiens are some how more "rightful" than others.

We have to realize that the current world order is tilted towards a minority because they are

holding bigger guns and are not letting it go. Eventually almost all will reach to this conclusion. It

is only a matter of time. While the answer to this question is yes, it is a wake up call for those

who are holding these weapons to give them up voluntarily, transparently and completely in

order to avoid the complete annihilation of the only intelligent species we know in this universe.

The only thing worse than that possibility is for this intelligent species to vote No and continue

supporting that some have more rights than others and can use that right to exploit other

members of their species. Such intelligence is better to not exist. So it is yes to this question

every time. Logically there cant be a No.

Posted by:Smith13Report PostLikeReply

21

Because some do, everybody else should.

Let me emphasize "because some do". Having nuclear weapons should be banned everywhere,

they're unsafe and don't help society, but who are we to decide who's smart or "good" enough

to have them? If I was in North Korea, I'd stand my ground. Extreme times call for extreme

measures. Their country, however much we may disagree with it, is being repressed and they

should not just sit back and do as they're told.


0
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/Smith13/http://www.debate.org/Smith13/http://www.debate.org/Smith13/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/Smith13/http://void%280%29/


3/46

3 How would you enforce disarmament?

Sure, it would be great if no country had nuclear weapons but disarmament just cripples

responsible countries and we can't stop irresponsible countries like North Korea from having

them. Just look at the UK, cops don't have guns and so robbers can walk out of a bank they just

robbed and shoot any officer in their way. There is no way to stop nations from having nukes,

but it would be nice if no one had them.


01

Freedom of choice.

All the people worldwide have the same rights and are equal to one another.

Every human being has the same cost it is priceless. Therefore, all the people around the

world have the same rights. Why shall the French people be protected from nuclear attacks andthe Spanish will not be? That contradicts with the main principles of human equality defended by

the United Nations. The first principle of the UN is as follows: All human beings are born with

equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms. The third article of the declaration of

rights states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


11

M.A.D

Just look at the Mutually Asserted Destruction strategy. One country launches a nuke, the other

does the same. It could stop there, but it won't because nuclear war will have been declared.

Each country will keep firing nukes until both countries are wiped of the face of the planet. Now,

what country would want to kill itself in order to kill another country? I can't think of one.

Posted by: AnonymousReport Post
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/


4/46

LikeReply

01

As sovereign nations, countries with the industrial and scientific potential to build nuclearweapons have a right to make that choice for themselves.

I believe nuclear weapons are a technological option that is either available to all countries or

available to none. I find no basis upon which to ban certain countries from possessing nuclear

weapons. Just because a country has ideological or foreign policy positions that are different

from those of the US is not a sufficient reason to ban them from having such weapons. Finally, it

is all but impossible to keep a country that actually wants and is able to develop nuclear

weapons from developing them, so a ban is unenforceable in any case.

Posted by: SweetieSkippReport PostLikeReply

11

Equality and fairness.

Only 9 countries today have nuclear weapons. That is not fair because no countries have the

right to dictate to other countries that don't have nuclear weapons. It is not fair for the countries

that don't possess nuclear weapons. The rich countries like the United States or Russia can not

dictate to the countries that don't have the weapons. It is simply not fair!


13

No Nukes, or Nukes for everyone

I do not like nuclear and hydrogen bombs at all, but let's face it. USA has nukes, Russia has

nukes, India has nukes, China has nukes, Brazil has nukes, France and UK have nukes.

And they want to prevent Iran from having nukes? Why on Earth? I don't see why one/a few

country/-ies is better than the others, or how some countries could be certain to protect world

peace but others are certain to cause nuclear war?!
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/


5/46

No. No nuclear weapons for anybody. If they don't want to get rid of them, than nukes for

everybody.


LikeReply02

All or none is a good approach

As long as some countries have nukes and others don't, the world will be more unstable than it

would be if all of the nations had nukes or none of them did. When every country has a nuke,

nobody will fuck with anybody else. In a way, it might be our best bet at world peace.

Posted by:Frederick53Report PostLikeReply

11

Generally - YES!

Why?

It is not easy saying that, but:

Why should only the rich and the powerfull states on this globe (the US, the Russians, the

French, the British and Israel (to name a few)) have the right to have security against a nuclear

first strike against them and the option to retaliate to a conventional attack against them (for

example when facing imminent defeat!) with a couple of warheads against the attacking

country?

I would say every modern and civilized state (i am not really counting Iran and similar states as

civilized) has the right to that security blanked, because let's face it, no nuclear state will attack

another (the US would have NEVER gone after JAPAN if Japan had nukes, too - they might have

fought conventionally and offered terms when Japan faced defeat, but they would have never

been able to force surrender at their terms!) and thus ATM nuklear weapons are a real gain for

the security of a country.

So, yes - with a few exceptions (countries not "mature" enough to handle those kinds of

weapons (most third world countries, because they could not maintain them properly and should

feed their people first befor builng the bomb!) and countries that would not handle them well(Iran and similar countries) - all countries should be allowed nuclear arms!
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/Frederick53/http://www.debate.org/Frederick53/http://www.debate.org/Frederick53/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/Frederick53/http://void%280%29/


6/46

Posted by:TSperlReport PostLikeReply

11

Every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons.

I do believe that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. If some

countries have the right and some don't how is that determined? It is not fair for only some

countries to be allowed to have them and some are not. Unless there is a great threat if they

have one then they should be allowed.

Posted by: barbiegirllReport PostLikeReply

01

Either everyone should have it or no one should have it.

Western powers (and China) seem to think they are superior to other countries and can be

trusted with nuclear weapons.

In reality they are no better than the others. America is the only country to have actually used it

on people, and they do elect idiots like George Bush Junior as their president.

So, if these countries truly believe in equality, there is no place for this hypocrisy.


02

Yes, everyone has the right to nuclear weapons.

If we (The United States) have the right to own and create nuclear weapons why shouldn't

anyone else be able to? Also since the creation of nuclear weapons, after using them once or

twice and seeing the destruction they cause, every country that has them knows how powerful

they are. Nuclear weapons cause people to realize they are safe. Also they cause a sense of

peace throughout the world, because everyone knows that a country will not use them
http://www.debate.org/TSperl/http://www.debate.org/TSperl/http://www.debate.org/TSperl/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/TSperl/


7/46

unintentionally. Nuclear Weapons make everyone in the world have to work out their problems

peacefully because no one wants the destruction of the world.


LikeReply01

America, should they be talking.

As seen with the second gulf war, and their other interests in being the only one to have 'the big

red button', America has stressed that they will protect everyone. They believe that they are the

most responsible large world power, yet time and time again they have attacked a developingnation for seemingly no reason other than that they will blow up the world. Other countries have

been more restrained and responsible, never trying to flex their military muscle through

barbarous nuclear tests and flaunting their power with large exercises. The only solution is to

take away America's large scale nuclear program and pass a measure to force them to scale

back their ground-force.


01

Yes they should; but not every country should possess it.

First of all, the US did not use the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to wage war

(which were the only times an atom bomb was used on the human race). The US used it in

hopes that the Japanese will surrender rather having the US invade Japan, and wasting millions

upon millions more of lives, on both sides. I do not like the idea of killing people that can't fight

back, but the word would probably be under Japanese-German rule if it wasn't for the US

decision of using the atom bomb to end the war.

Now, every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons because: 1) this enables

the countries to advance their energy source, 2) they have a weapon that they could threaten

other countries in case they threaten war on the smaller countries, and 3) why should the US be

the only one to carry the rights of having a nuclear bomb? its the same as saying, i should be

able to carry firearms in a bad, crime infested neighborhood, while my neighbor shouldn't be

able to, just because I was the first one to possess arms, and I was the first one to use it.

Imagine yourself in that neighborhood's position. You have a wife and kids, now relate that to

countries. The country can use that weapon to defend their country, and every citizen in that

country.


8/46

Posted by:peaceloveandReport PostLikeReply

01

Yes, every country should have nuclear weapons.

Why should only America have nuclear weapons. They are ruling the world under the name of

democracy with nuclear and toppling all the governments which are against America. So every

country should have the nuclear power for good reason. If America feels for democracy they first

they should dispose all the nuclear weapons before asking other to stop testing.


00

Nuclear weapons should be allowed.

Without nuclear weapons, we would all be unprotected and defenseless. Just because we abolish

them, doesn't mean other countries won't. They could bomb us. Also, no countries would be

afraid to attack us, meaning we would have a lot of war throughout the U.S.A. This is why we

should not ban nuclear weapons.


00

We are all equal

All countries should have the same rights. The rights of a country can be eliminated only if the

country has crossed the borders of the right processing of the subject. Also nuclear weapons are

the strongest, till now, mechanical defense that a country can posse. That is why each country

should have the right to posses nuclear weapons.

http://www.debate.org/peaceloveand/http://www.debate.org/peaceloveand/http://www.debate.org/peaceloveand/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/peaceloveand/


9/46

00

World Peace Counting on it

Nuclear weapons have kept world peace today... Nobody will be stupid enough to to send a

nuclear weapon if they knew they was going to get 1 back well i know i wouldn't would you... If

this answer is no then we should let everyone have nuclear weapons as it keeps the world safer.


00

Ineffectiveness of banning nuclear weapons

The international society cannot prevent the strong countries from owning nclear weapons. That

is because the countries possess a lot of power by just having a nuclear weapon itself. They can

threat the global peace if the UN or any other nations force the country to give up its nuclear

weapons. So if we cannot ban all countries from having nuclear weapons, we might as well let allcountries have them so that the countries can check and balance themselves with each other. It

is a false assumption that countries will start to abuse nuclear weapons when they are given the

rights to possess it. They will only use them when there is a threat to them. Because no one

benefits from a nuclear war, including the country who started it.


00

the united states will back stab everyone else

Its just like the human rights. If a white man can have a house or car why cant a colored guy

have them too? I just know it that the united states will back stab everyone on earth the second

they are the only ones with nuclear weapons. I just know it...




10/46

00

ALL NATIONS MUST PLAY BY THE SAME RULES.

All in or all out. All nations have the right to defend themselves in a vigorous and competent

manner. If any nation is allowed to possess nuclear weapons, the only credible means of any

other nation to defend itself from that nuclear threat would be to defend itself with like weapons.

Of course, a nuclear-free would be better for all nations - it does make you wonder why those

nation with nuclear weapon favor non-proliferation but not total and complete nuclear

disarmament.


10

Name one other Country to ever use Nuclear Weapons

The US telling other countries they can't have Nuclear Weapons is like a big punch to the face toall other countries.

Oh, well you can't have a weapon because we don't agree with you. The US should be the LAST

country to take a stance against Nuclear Weapons. We shouldn't get a say in it. That is, if we

want a country to really take the request seriously.

Posted by:kscarr73Report PostLikeReply

10

No organisation should have the right to deny a country the ability to deter a nuclear attack bypossessing nuclear weapons themselves.

Currently, Israel a rebel nuclear power that refuses to sign up to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation

Treaty, or to co-operate with the UN and the international community with regard to inspecting

her nuclear arsenal - is making bellicose statements with regard to Iran, and an unprovoked

military attack by Israel on Iran has been widely mooted. Why? Because Israel do not want Iranto develop nuclear weapons: they know that if Iran and other countries in the region also had
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/kscarr73/http://www.debate.org/kscarr73/http://www.debate.org/kscarr73/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/kscarr73/http://void%280%29/


11/46

nuclear weapons, Israel wouldnt be able to bully their neighbours and oppress their own Arab

civilian population (in flagrant contravention of international law) with impunity - their

neighbours would no longer have to cower under the Israeli nuclear threat because they would

possess the deterrent of mutually-assured destruction.

Posted by:brian_egglestonReport PostLikeReply

00

It's self defense.

If it wasn't for nukes, than most countries would go to war. Nukes kept the U.S. and the SovietUnion from going to war. Yes they cause mass destruction, but if we, or any country that has

possession of nukes didn't, then we would have a lot more destruction. Yes some countries

deserve possession of nukes, but some don't. Think about it, do you want the Iraqi government

having them.


00

Every country has an equal right to nuclear arms, not just the U.S., China and Russia.

It is not fair that bigger nations police the world by flexing their nuclear deterrents. The U.S. has

no right to prevent other nations from acquiring nuclear arms, as such nations may experience

provocation and therefore may need deterrence also. If one argues that any nation has the right

to nuclear arms, then they must extend this right to all nations. Either all nations should be

allowed nuclear arms or no nations.


10

Nuclear weapons is a right
http://www.debate.org/brian_eggleston/http://www.debate.org/brian_eggleston/http://www.debate.org/brian_eggleston/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/brian_eggleston/


12/46

Every nation has a right to defend itself from aggressor states. The US has not always acted for

the benefit of the world. Just as everyone individual in America has a right to bear arms, every

nation has a right to protect its people. The US wants to prevent other nations from gaining

nuclear weapons because war would be more dangerous with them. The future of war will be

more costly in both immediate death and sustained exposure to radiation. Countries that havenuclear capabilities will not seek out war as readily because they would face certain death.


00

To some extend but let me clarify.

First of all in my belief there should be no nuclear weapons at all in this world, the amount of

mass destruction and devastation it causes people is not worth it, even if it is to end a war or to

protect people within a nation. However since many countries have decided to make them, for

example USA, then they have no rights to tell another country that they cant make them. It is

stupid that one country should want to possess so much nuclear weapons and yet tell others to

not create them. That only instills fear through out the world of that nation and makes others

uneasy, which is something a country a and its people should not be living in. So in general, I

hate nuclear weapons and hope no one would make them, but sine some have already choose

to make them, then other countries should have the right to make them as well so they dont

have to live in fear, and I'm sure if many countries had nuclear weapons then no one would dare

launch them since the other countries would have some to combat them with. If Japan had

nuclear weapons at the time it could have prevented the US from bombing them so ruthlessly

since they would have been in fear that japan might bomb them back, which they had every

right to do so.


00

YES They Should

We stated the ball rolling but want to be the only player in the game. That is unless they are our

"friends".

There is no doubt other countries around the globe are suspicious of "USA's motive's"

considering our arsenal. So that being said, if you were in their shoes wouldn't you want "in" to?

Posted by:otterbio
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/otterbio/http://www.debate.org/otterbio/http://www.debate.org/otterbio/http://www.debate.org/otterbio/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/


13/46


00

Who Died And Made The USA and Israel God?

Who the heck is the USA to play God, and decide "who should" and "who should not" have

nuclear weapons??? Either everyone has them, (which is immposible to enforce), or no one has

them.

Posted by:JohnnyRebelReport PostLikeReply

00

I oppose companies having nuclear weapons, nuclear is to dangerous and deadly for people tohave it.

I feel that nuclear weapons are to powerful for any country to have. Nuclear weapons can wipe

out nations. I don't see why anyone would wipe out an entire nation. If a world war would ever

happen again those with nuclear weapons would be the only ones standing. Nuclear weapons

don't bring about nothing but fear into people of a nation.

Posted by: C0ImEIiteReport PostLikeReply

00

Either everyone has it or no one does

It's a very simple logic question. If only certain countries have it, it is an obviously hypocritical

thing for those countries to stop other countries from having it. If you detest possession of

nuclear weapon, you shouldn't possess it in the first place, and possessing them automaically

and atomically strips you from any right to lecture any country. There's really, really nothing

much to debate about.

http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/JohnnyRebel/http://www.debate.org/JohnnyRebel/http://www.debate.org/JohnnyRebel/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/JohnnyRebel/http://void%280%29/


14/46

00

Countries are sovereign entities, and should be able to decide for themselves if they wish topossess nuclear weapons.

Any country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, if that is their wish. It could be

dangerous for the world, but it is unfair to say that some countries can have them, while some

can't. Any country should be wary of the world superpowers having control of so many nuclear

weapons, and it is reasonable for them to wish to have some of their own to defend themselves.

Posted by: M0r3Fire


00

Yes To Nuclear Weapons

This Is A List Of The Countries That Have Nuclear Weapons: United States, Soviet Union/Russian

Federation, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Israel, And SouthAfrica.

I Think It Should Be A Limit To How Many Nuclear Weapons They Have At Once. Each Country

Should Make A Kind Of Agreement Of The Minimum And Maximum Of The Number Of Nuclear

Weapons In Each Country. I Dont Think That They Should Take Away All The Nuclear Weapons

Completely Because Some Countries We Cant Really Trust All The Way.

In Conclusion, I Think That The Countries Should Have Some Kind Of Agreement About How

Many Nuclear Weapons Each Country Should Have.

Posted by:jendaya.walkerReport Post

LikeReply

00

Every country should be allowed to do whatever they want with responsible decision making.

Every country has the right to process their own nuclear energy, but they shouldn't do that

anyway because it could kill thousands of innocent people. I believe that if you have nuclear

weaponry it could be hard in some cases to protect those weapons and weapons like that couldbe disastrous.
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/jendaya.walker/http://www.debate.org/jendaya.walker/http://www.debate.org/jendaya.walker/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/jendaya.walker/http://void%280%29/


15/46

Posted by: waffletimeReport PostLikeReply

00

To say that a certain country "might use them" and therefore "should not be allowed to possessthem" is utterly hypocritical.

The most common argument against allowing other countries to possess nuclear weapons is that

"the country in question might use them, which would be bad, so they shouldn't be allowed to

have them." Yet the United States of America, the world's foremost nuclear power, is the only

country that ever actually has used nuclear weapons - to murder civilians, no less. Furthermore,

there is little point to possessing a nuclear weapon without the willingness to use said weapon

under appropriate circumstances. The argument that "we have them, but it's okay for us to have

them because we would never use them" is illogical - if we would never use them, why not

adhere to a policy of universal nuclear disarmament and decree that no state, including our own,

ought to possess them? The current practice of maintaining our own nuclear arsenal but

forbidding other states to develop their own is simply a projection of imperialism upon nations

that we dislike. I'm not saying here that Iran should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons -

they certainly shouldn't - I'm saying that the arguments right-wing folk use to excuse our arsenal

while forbidding production of theirs are hypocritical, self-contradictory, and illogical, and that

the morally high argument would be one that aims to do away with nukes altogether.

Posted by:FRReport PostLikeReply

00

Countries have all the right and freedom to ensure their security and survival

Well, if US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel can have it, thenthe rest of the world can also!!! Equality prevails over all and that should happen here as well.

Its a guarantee of safety and security for a country and monopolized hold of Nuclear weapons is

a threat to global peace!


00

Put another way: should every country have the right to self defense?
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/FR/http://www.debate.org/FR/http://www.debate.org/FR/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/FR/http://void%280%29/


16/46

1)Every country has a right to self defense.

2)Nuclear weapons are 1940s technology an you can't keep the genie in the bottle.

3)If the other guy has nukes and you think he'll use them, then you are not about to attack

him.

4)Nukes kept the US and the Soviet Union from fighting each other.

5)If China's neighbors had nukes than China would not be trying to bully them.


00

Nuclear deterrence and protection.

Unfortunately, the world will never be rid of weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear

weapons. Although these weapons have the ability to destroy on a massive scale, they also

protect the U.S. and other nations of this outcome. Perhaps the best approach is to keep the

responsibility on the world's powers (Russia, United States, United Kingdom), who should make

sure other countries never get the chance to use them.


00

If some people can have them then all must have them.

No one should have the right to tell another country what they can have or not have. The United

States is the only country to have used them on another country. They're the ones that shouldn'thave them at all. They are not protecting anything with those kind of weapons, and these people

are very stupid to think it does, and they don't need any say in the world.


10

Freedom of choice.


17/46

All the people worldwide have the same rights and are equal to one another.

Every human being has the same cost it is priceless. Therefore, all the people around the

world have the same rights. Why shall the French people be protected from nuclear attacks and

the Spanish will not be? That contradicts with the main principles of human equality defended by

the United Nations. The first principle of the UN is as follows: All human beings are born with

equal and inalienable rights and fundamental freedoms. The third article of the declaration of

rights states: Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.


00

Mutually assured destruction works as well for Iran as it does for Russia, and rogue states will getnukes eventually.

One of the key tenets of the nuclear arms race during the Cold War was something called

"mutually assured destruction"--the idea that if one country launches a nuke, the other will use

its second-strike capability to retaliate, devastating both countries. This is a lose-lose situationand thus the nuclear powers were kept at bay. Some say that rogue states will use nuclear

weapons like suicide bombs, but the comparison is misguided. Suicide bombers have no power

base to lose. Iran, for instance, would lose its power base if it was destroyed by a nuke, which

goes against their long-term agenda. The thing we really need to fear is if non-state actors get

their hands on nukes. Then the suicide bomber comparison really is valid.

Posted by: 54uIIanReport PostLikeReply

00

Every country has a right to defend itself

Why should only Western powers have the right to develop, own and threaten other countries

with such weapons? This should be a right to all countries as this is fair, and besides the world is

not owned and governed by these "superpowers." I agree that these weapons should never be

used however if some countries have them then it puts them in the driving seat so to speak and

this is what these select countries want.


18/46


00

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons.

I do not think that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. I think that

nuclear weapons should not be allowed for any nation unless authorized by the UN to have them

and that we should stop the development of new weapons. Reaching a "stalemate" because

nuclear weapons are owned my many countries does nothing to help drive peace globally.

Posted by: SilverMathi


01

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because no country shouldhave that right.

There are some cultural habits that have passed away. No one has the right to duel in the street,

kings no longer have the power of life and death over peasants, and slavery is supposed to be

illegal. As we grow as a society we can give up unneeded acts of violence and if nukes don't

count, what would count?

Posted by: groovyboxReport PostLikeReply

01

Who holds the world's nuclear warheads? Get the full list by countryhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/13/north-korea-nuclear-weapons

What a silly debate with silly opinions. The only countries that can ban nuclear weapons and

enforce the ban are the USA, Russia, and China. Thankfully, we have the United Nations to

impose sanctions. If push comes to shove, it will be the USA that enforces the rules. Russia and

China actually want most of the countries that are against the USA to have nukes because those

countries will try to kill Americans and Jews.

=============================================================================


19/46

Allowing everyone to have nukes is insane and can only hasten them being used, especially by

radical Islam countries in the Middle East. Jihad is about destroying all non-Muslims, and if these

folks get nukes they will definitively use them. Iran needs to be taken out now! Korea needs to

be taken out on the same day!

===========================================================

==================The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake

of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill

infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites'

and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm

===========================================================

=========

For some idiot to say, it is like owning a gun. If I can own a gun, you should be allowed to own

a gun. The ignorance of many folks at this site does not cease to amaze me. All wars and

weapons should never have happened! Amazing! Man is an aggressive animal; our first weaponswere stones and clubs. Whoever had the biggest rocks and clubs won until the bow and arrow or

sword were invented; then came gun powder and guns. Now we are at nuke stage.

===========================================================

================

Despite the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons treaty (NPT), which was not signed by India,

Israel and Pakistan, and the efforts of the United Nations, nukes will be used again. I just hope

the USA has the most advance technology.

===========================================================

=====================

Data on the number of nuclear weapons is notoriously difficult to find. Almost 2,000 of theroughly 4,400 deployable warheads are in a state of high operation alert (2,150 USA, 1,800

Russia, 290 France, and 160 UK). Other nuclear warheads, 2012 Russia has 8,200; USA has

5,850; China 200; Pakistan 100; India 90; Israel 80; UK 65; and France 10. Russia has

approximately 7,350 warheads in reserve or awaiting dismantlement.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/dec/13/north-korea-nuclear-weapons

===========================================================

=====

The nukes will be used again. I hope America and its allies survive. Nobody knows what will

happen to the earth if hundreds or thousands of nukes are exploded over a few days. I am not

optimistic that human life on earth will survive. America needs to continue spending hundreds of

billions on weapon advancement and defense annually; but, we should pull most of our troops

out of the Middle East; but, we should maintain all are air and Naval bases.

Posted by:GWL-CPAReport PostLikeReply

010

NO WAY! Waste of money.
http://www.debate.org/GWL-CPA/http://www.debate.org/GWL-CPA/http://www.debate.org/GWL-CPA/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/GWL-CPA/


20/46

ALL war and weapons should have never happened!!! Can't everyone in this world just pull their

own weight! It wastes billions of pounds which could be spent on helping poorer countries or

improving your own. It is a human right to live... so what an earth makes you think this is ok!!!

Without all this useless rubbish they could pay for major human projects like the Berin Starit!!


01

Religion

Think about people whom are anxious for Infidels to meet their maker. Problem is, it is only the

belief of certain fanatics that is taught at a young age who is right and who needs to go. Some

people are all to much in a hurry to meet their God.

am in no hurry, so please don't say that everyone should have a nuke.

Posted by:JimClemReport PostLikeReply

02

Muslim brotherhood controlled countries should not be allowed nuclear weapons.

Countries under the control of the Muslim brotherhood should not because they have already

used what little they have to send their children strapped with bombs to attack Europe and the

USA. If they had nuclear arms the world could very well end because unlike the Russians the

Muslims don't "love their children too". Islam is not a race by the way it is an ideology likeCommunism is an ideology and Nazism is an ideology. Islam is political right wing extremism.


09

I oppose to the fact that countries should have possession of nuclear weapons.
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/JimClem/http://www.debate.org/JimClem/http://www.debate.org/JimClem/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/JimClem/http://void%280%29/


21/46

Owing to the current global conditions, whereby any time a third world war could spark, keeping

nuclear weapons could be the cause of wide-scale devastation. And love is what you need not

weapons. So it is mandatory that such weapons-of-mass-destruction should be kept away from

most countries.

Posted by: R0d30StamReport PostLikeReply

00

There shouldn't be any Nuclear weapons anywhere.

There shouldn't be any nuclear weapons because all it does is create problems and drama. For

instance if North Korea wasn't doing what they are right now there wouldn't be any drama. Also,

another reason why any country should have nuclear weapons is because then if a country gets

upset with another one, they will just start nuking each other. The last reason why I think this is

also because it could potentially cause a World War 3 and we all know what happens after a

world war.


00

No, of course not!

What have nuclear bombs caused in the past? The Cuban Missile crisis, Hiroshima, Nagasaki are

all examples of this and it hasn't benefited anyone. There is a reason the law was enforced in

the first place, to keep hundreds of people from harm and removing the law would put not only

hundreds but millions of lives at risk. Would we really want to do that to innocent men, womenor children?


00

Nope.


22/46

With a range of human emotions and impulses, the urge to blow the only habitable planet in the

known universe sky high is just too great. Even testing one goes beyond the realm of the

irresponsible, thats land that we can never use again. With only one earth, how can we be so

stupid?!?


00

Why should country have nuclear weapon?

Why should countries have nuclear weapon? One kilogram of Plutonium can change the World`s

order. Nuclear weapon. It can destroy this land, water, air.... Does human has authority to

destroy this Earth? I don`t think so. What is moral`s end? What is human for that enormous

space? What is us? When we make nuclear weapon, before we have to think about this question

too.


00

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because some nations are toounstable.

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons because some nations are

too unstable. Since the collapse of the USSR, lots of their old weaponry and military equipment

have gone missing and/or ended up on the black market. Some countries would use weapons in

small, petty disputes to settle centuries' old grudges against neighbors.

Posted by: H0bi3InvaderReport PostLikeReply

00

A loss far too great


23/46

Every country has the right to advance itself in technological means and should continue to do

so. Similarly, countries should have enough tactical weapons to deflect any strategic or a militia

attack to defend its sovereignty and protect its people. A weapon of mass murder belonging to

any community or any country is not only a threat to all human civilization but to world peace

and our future generations, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still not forgotten. Thatwas a loss far too great. Whenever I imagine the picture of what actually would had happen

there, it kills me to think that, how could anyone do something so barbaric like that. Think of the

children that had nothing to do with the war. It's the murder of innocence and humanity itself,

no country should bear such weapons and I am deeply amazed that leading world powers do not

decommission their own nuclear weapons but ask other countries to do so, for the world to be

safer we certainly do need nuclear or biological weapons.

Posted by:hammadReport PostLikeReply

00

No one should be owning nuclear weapons

Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and can lead to the end of humanity. The only life

that creates miracles and have the advantage over every other living thing does not suddenly

get to destruction of everything. By owning nuclear weapons countries are creating issues for

other countries that do not own such weapons and in a world full of competition such countries

do not want to be left behind in anything and will look for illegal means to gain nuclear weapons.

Thus it should not be legal for any country to own weapons and this is a time for peaceful

coexistence rather than war so they should abolish the existing nuclear weapons


00

Suraj

It is better to abandon the clear weapons if possible. It is the most dangerous weapon that

mankind has ever built. It not only kills the people of the particular country but also others who

inhabit the area. Excessive explosions cause nuclear winter due to the smoke cloud that spread

in the air and spread radiation. Not only a country attacks other but others also counterattack it.

i.e. If USA strikes Russia then Russia also counterattacks USA. It is pretty sure that the countries

who possess nuclear weapons do not attack to the others with nuclear weapons but they are
http://www.debate.org/hammad/http://www.debate.org/hammad/http://www.debate.org/hammad/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/hammad/


24/46

affected anyway by radiation. If we coinue to use nuclear weapons then we are responsible for

our own species extinction. Spread love not war.

Posted by:surraajReport Post

LikeReply00

Nuclear proliferation should be a right withheld from many countries, especially dictatorships, andthose in practice of human rights violations and genocide, to name a few.

The right of nuclear proliferation is not one that should be extended to a great number of the

world's nations, particularly those run by psychotic dictators, and those in practice of humanrights violations and genocide. Nuclear power is the most powerful technology known to man, as

well as that with the greatest capability for destruction, and certainly only those nations that

support and defend freedom, liberty, and peace should be in control of it.

Posted by: LudicrousJosh83Report PostLikeReply

00

Not every Country is a "friendly" to humans.

For Example, there is evidence that a small number of countries are supporting terrorist groups.

If they get Nuclear weaponry it may be a disaster for us all. Also there are multiple nukes

already pointed at america from other developed countries who have a mind. but if a countrie

who is run by one man decides to nuke us it would all be over.



00

It's simple: everyone has nukes= World War III!

Every country wants to be at the very top. But not in a very good way, if they don't get what

they want, they'll use force to make it there. Preferably with nukes, if they have them. That's
http://www.debate.org/surraaj/http://www.debate.org/surraaj/http://www.debate.org/surraaj/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/surraaj/


25/46

why only trusted countries should have nuclear weapons. If every country had nuclear weapons,

it could spell the end of planet earth and life on it as we know it!


LikeReply00

No country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

Theses dangerous weapons would only serve to spark conflict and argument. Besides, nuclear

weapons can potentially destroy the planet. No country should have that kind of power.

Additionally, when one country had nuclear weapons and another does not, it is viewed as"unfair" ,and in a way it is unfair due to the fact that no country should really have these

weapons in their possession.


00

Because there's more possibility of nuclear arms being used

The wealthy will always try to prevent others from getting wealthy, those with power will always

try to suppress others from obtaining power, that is just how the world works. Those who argue

it's only "fair" to let every country have that right because a few countries already does is simply

not being realistic. If you are US citizen, you will only want US to have nuclear weapons, but if

you are Iranian or North Koearn, you would also want your country to have that power to

defend yourself against other nations. But just because it's the un-hypocritical or the fair thing to

do doesn't mean we should do it. There are no correct morals or ethics when it comes to politics,

just individual agendas.

We like to think we are a great democratic and capitalistic nation and we have the rights to

police the world so earth is a better place, but in reality, to many nations around the world, US is

a bully who only take actions to further their own agendas and gains. The US, Russia, or China

will never get rid of their own nuclear weapons, so anytime they sanction other nations, it seems

highly hypcritical. But to allow every nation to have nuclear weapons is just stupid. Bigger and

more developed nations have more hurdles to go through when trying to use nuclear arms and

therefore takes more consideration and time to process the decision. Smaller nations or nations

with dictators or religious fanatics have no such hurdles, they are more likely to use nuclear

arms rather than just using it as a threat or self-defense, and if they decide to use it, it is mucheasier and faster for them to do so because there are no opposing political opponents, no


26/46

democratic processes, and no government bodies like congress and parliament to go through. So

you actually increase the chance of a nuclear war happening rather than decreasing it. But these

debates are pointless, politic is highly biased, every country will obtain nuclear arms if they have

the power and means to do so. There's no right or wrong when it comes to political decisions,

only self interests.


00

no country should be allowed nukes at all

These items have the power to destroy the world, and why should one country have them and

not another, so i think no one should have them, america has already used them against japan

and who is to say they will not use them again....just depends who gives the ok. it is like giving

every one a gun and saying protect your self(like the bill of rights to bear arms), but that has not

worked out to well because some crazy person will use them.....e.g shootings everywhere in the

usa...and the usa is the only country to a nuke on another country...hmmm so what does that

tell you!!

Posted by:rotten2thecoreReport Post

LikeReply

00

We barely survived the Cold War - don't start an Ice Age war!

The Cuban Missile Crisis nearly caused a nuclear weapon exchange and possibly the death of

millions. There are now more nations with nuclear weapons, including Pakistan, India, France

and possibly Israel. There are also more rogue states that may use such weapons, including Iran

to eliminate "the Zionist threat" they see in Israel for merely existing and Al Qaeda against the

infidels. If every nation had a right to nuclear weapons, all the minor conflicts in the world could

erupt into nuclear war. We should seek to disarm all nuclear weapons, not give a universal right

to possess them.

Posted by: Pir4AndReport PostLikeReply

00
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/rotten2thecore/http://www.debate.org/rotten2thecore/http://www.debate.org/rotten2thecore/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/rotten2thecore/http://void%280%29/


27/46

Nuclear war is too dangerous.

Any nuclear weapons are very dangerous and their renewal will cost the tax payer 97 thousand

million pounds, yet it leaves us totally useless in opposing any real existing threat. A nuclear warwould cause a blanket of particles in the atmosphere that would blot out the suns rays and

result in the death of the vegetation on which life depends. This would be in addition to the

death of people, animals, and plants caused by the explosive power, the radiation and the shock

waves.


00

It would be hectic

Many states have different people, smart people or unintelligent people. People in charge may

be elected from a unintelligent group causing the smartest idiot to be in charge of what ever that

position gives them access too. Bush put us in trillions of dollars of debt and thats a president,

theres no way of knowing what could happen if a states governor would abuse this. Just look

back at the civil rights movement in the south, they used there national guard to keep blacks out

of white schools. Even today states as a whole don't want gays to be able to the same rights as

another straight citizen.


00

Nuclear weapons should never exist.

I believe that nuclear weapons should never be made, and whoever tries to make them should

be punished. Nuclear weapons have too much destruction power, they could wipe out an entire

country of innocent civilians, women and children, possibly an entire race depending on where it

was set off. Not to mention wildlife, animals and trees.

Posted by: StarbustReport PostLikeReply

0


28/46

0

Some countries should not like USA's enemies.

Most of USA's enemies are bad and want to terrorize innocent citizens like North Korea who

threatens the US and even South Korea. Iraq and Afghanistan threatened us with their bombs I

a apologize for everybody from North Korea or Afghanistan but it is the horrible truth. I also

think that it is okay for the US allies to have nukes.


00

Definitely not. We all know deep down that they are an abomination to civilization.

I agree with previous posts. As a leader in the world, we should be the first to get rid of our

nukes, however, if we do that before all other countries, we will be putting ourselves into a

position of vulnerability. I doubt it will ever happen...the threat of nukes from the countries that

have them is enough to keep people from using them at the present time. That is not to say thatthe probability of these bombs flying in the near future is low.


00

There would be war

If there were nukes in countries like Iran for example we would be dead. Weapons of this sort

should only be allowed by our closest allies. This does not include Russia. I do not feel countries

like Russia and china should have access to this technology even if preventing it ment war. It is

unsafe to have your enemies to have as good or better technology than you.


0


29/46

0 With Nuclear Weapons comes moral and practical responsibility.

In an idealistic utopia, no need would exist for the possession or use of nuclear arms.

Unfortunately, that utopia does not exist on this planet. With respect to the greatest firepower

mankind has ever known, only those nations of the world who act in a responsible manner

should have the privilege of possessing these weapons. Nations who seek these weapons for

status, to threaten neighbours, or who desire the unfettered use of this destructive power must

always be deterred from possessing these weapons, by force if necessary under extreme

circumstances. In general, all nations should be discouraged from nuclear proliferation through

treaties, incentives, and assurances of support should unthinkable circumstances arise. Those

nations who do possess this weapon should only retain weapons sufficient for defense and

deterrence purposes while continuing to find ways to promote non-proliferation.

Posted by: snuggle muffinReport PostLikeReply

00

Of cause not!

Many countries like Britain Russia and America have the power to destroy the entire world. And

not only once. They can destroy the world again with nuclear bombs around 32 times all of them

put together. Because of nuclear bombs have made other countries powerful! But the bad idea

from this is that the nuclear bombs are at risk to destroy our entire world. Remember on the

news once some teenagers hacked into the systems of pentagon, they autally had the ability to

let one of the nuclear bombs hit somewhere. So again our defence systems could open letting all

of the bombs detonate if we do not act. What about the cold war the massive bomb that was

released for testing by Russia and the bomb was over powered that I could had destroy a lot of

their resource. Now all I say if the entire world had bombs nuclear wars may happen causing

domination to the entire world. Its to risky if the entire world has bombs!


00

Peace will be history.


30/46

If every single country in the world possess nuclear weapons, there will be tension created

between neighbouring countries, there will be lack of foreign relationships as they will feel

insecure which will lead to countries building up alliances, this can trigger war between

neighbouring countries as they fear that if they don't take action now, in the future lives will be

taking for their mistakes.Additionally, country would feel that possessing nuclear weapons would make them have more

power, so poorer countries would focus more on the concept of owning nuclear weapons than

stabilizing their country and this can lead to extraordinary debts; obviously they wont be able to

pay the money back and this could affect our global economy so badly that countries will lose

partnership in trade worldwide.


00

No weapons, no war

If we have nuclear weapons we can kiss the earth bye-bye. We have come so far in all the years

of living on this planet. Countries need to work out their problems with each other without

weapons. Look what happened in the cold war, we almost died, almost blown up the world. All

this work reminds me of Revelations in the bible: there will be no peace until Jesus comes back.

There will be no world peace but there can be some


00

Some countries will use them.

Nuclear weapons been used as a deterrent for several decades; however we are now seeing

countries which are willing to use such weapons. Just look at North Korea, dramatically

increasing their nuclear capabilities and threatening war with South Korea and a "preemptive

strike" on the USA. How could anyone suggest that a country like this deserves the right to

possess any weapons of mass destruction?


0


31/46

0

No countries should not have right to possess nuclear weapons!

There is no way countries should have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons

makes the world a very unsafe place environment because if a country decides to stand up and

shoot a nuke at another country, that country will respond with nuclear weapons which will

cause a nuclear way. Also, if countries like US nuke somewhere like Iceland where they don't

have nuclear weapons, that gives United States an unfair advantage.


00

No they are just too powerful.

Nuclear weapons are just too destructive! Albert Einstein once famously said "I know not with

what weapons World War III will be fought with, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and

stones." He thought that world war three would be a nuclear war that would destroy civilization

as we know it. World war four would therefore be fought with nothing but sticks and stonesbecause there would be nothing left. It's famous because it's a warning of the immense

destructive power of nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France,

China, India, Pakistan and North Korea all possess nuclear weapons. In fact Russia and the

United States both have thousands of warheads. They have to power to destroy countries and

even the world. Nukes are weapons that have lasting affects 100's of years later. War should be

a last resort. And nuclear weapons are too dangerous for one government to have power over.

The problem is based on the fact that they are way too destructive. Just look at what one of

them did to Japan. Hiroshima was the site of the first ever atomic bombing during World War II.

The bomb exploded over Hiroshima at 8:16 on the morning of August 6, 1945. Most of the city

was destroyed. Over 100,000 people were killed, many instantly and many afterward because of

radiation sickness. More people died later because of cancer or other illnesses caused by the

radiation. Approximately 21,343 people died of cancer from the radiation caused by the atomic

bomb. Even if all countries did agree not to use them, what would happen the next time there

was a war? If the leader of one country is unstable and desperate, they might use them

anyway.

---Nick Stephenson


0


32/46

0 No one should have Nukes

They are weapons that have lasting affects 100s of years later. War should be a last resort. And

nuclear weapons are too powerful for one biased government to have power over. People with

that kind of power often lose their heads (e.g. rational thought).

Is it reasonable to have the kind of power to change/destroy the world in biased hands when

they could use it for their own petty little arguments amongst themselves (e.g. Russia and the

US)?


00

Let's Go Back

I think we should all take a moment to go back to Kindergarten and remember the most

important lesson we were all taught. "The Golden Rule." The U.S Should treat other countries

the same way we wish to be treated. This includes throwing in the idea of Nuclear Weapons. Ifwe own them, which we do, and lets face it the U.S may not threaten other countries with the

use of our weapons but just having them in our reach is enough of a threat to anyone without

the use of words or a document, how come we do not expect other countries to be allowed to

have them as well? If we're threatening a country, we deserve to be threatened in return for we

as a country have not treated them fairly.


00

America the Beautiful

Other countries hate Americans because America is the superpower. America already gives every

other country everything they need, why should America allow others the opportunity to rise

with nuclear weapons? Now, America needs to get rid of Obama to actually move "forward." If

Obama had it his way he would get rid of all of the nuclear weapons and let every other country

rise against America. What an idiot. Why would you want all that power as a president just tocrap on the idiots that voted for you?


33/46


00

no, ban nuclear weapons

1) Wasting the money on weapons research. (STAT- Nuclear countries spend about $37 Million

every second on developing nuclear programs. Thats about 23,972,300.) When we could use

all that money now to help out our decreasing economy.

2) (STAT- There is enough nuclear weapons to demolish the earth 7 times over.) Why use aweapon if it destroys part of the earth we now live on. Plus the nuclear fall out would devastate

other countries not affected by the current conflict. (If there was ever a conflict)

3) Resources needed to make 1 nuclear weapon. Mining for Uranium, using up precious oil and

natural gas to make weapons no really uses but for practice runs. Plus the resources needed to

make 1 bomb is so radioactive, that if anyone person who tried to make one, would be

endangering their own life. And if there was nothing to go wrong in the process the endangering

of many other lives as well.

4) Considering that what I've gathered from numerous websites, most people around the world

are in fact against the use of nuclear weapons. So why have them at all when it causes so many

problems just to make one and then to have one in your possession


00

why shold any country have them?

who has the moral superiority to simply launch a missile that would end the world?! surely

common sense says that no one has the right to end the world simply because they see it fit?

the fact some countries then determine others arn't allowed to have them is just sickening


00


34/46

How about the danger?!

Ladies and gentlemen, consider this. North Korea is threatening us with nuclear weapons. Do

you think this is a right thing to do? No, it is not. If every country have rights to own nuclear

weapons, they will threaten each other which will cause a huge problem and everybody might

die. Is this a good thing to do? No, it is not.


00

No country should have weapons of mass destruction--not even the United States.

Nuclear weapons are a death sentence for the entire world in that, if one is deployed it will ruin

the earth and every living thing on it. There is no way to prevent strong winds from blowing fall

out to the far corners of the earth. Although the same reasoning could be used in favor of these

weapons (based on the argument that nobody would actually deploy one for that very

reason)the fact remains that there is no way to protect the human race from an act of insanity.

Therefore, no nuclear weapons should be made or distributed to any country.

Posted by: N3vinFaceReport PostLikeReply

00

Certainly, they should not.

For several reason; firstly, it should be the responsibility and privilege of select countries to be in

possession of said nuclear warheads. The duty of these countries regarding aforementioned is to

use them as a method of intimidation against other countries or rogue groups, to prevent them

from getting out of hand in their endeavors, as deemed by the UN. Rogue states such as the

DPRK, Iran, and Pakistan, should absolutely not be allowed these missiles. As demonstrated in

the past,the governments of these 'rogue' nations have high potential to react to situations in an

irrational and selfish manner, and by placing in their hands the greatest power known to man,

we are only encouraging their more nefarious endeavors.

Posted by:James_HartwoodReport Post
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/James_Hartwood/http://www.debate.org/James_Hartwood/http://www.debate.org/James_Hartwood/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/James_Hartwood/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/


35/46

LikeReply

00

It is bad.

World War 3 is going to be the end of humanity due to nuclear disaster. Not only that but a

single warhead could be more than merely disastrous. Seizing all nuclear weapons would save

us, considering we are not at the top of the list for number of nuclear warheads.


00

Not mature enough?

I'm not sure if i put this the right way, but I don't think any country should be allowed to have

nuclear weapons. Sure, some of them know how to handle it, but I believe that some countries

are not mature enough to have nuclear weapons. It's a great risk and why would anyone needthem? They haven't been used since WW2 and I doubt they will ever be used again.


00

I dont believe anyone should have them.

Nuclear bombs give politicians the ability to kill millions in seconds. Not only the destructive

potential of the explosion but the effects of radioactive fallout on the planet. Nuclear weaopons

are for cowards who are afraid to fight for their own but ironically the fools who conceived this

failed to think of the possibility that someone else could invent them, when they did and theses

arrogant fools realized they could be killed allong with much of the world population now all of a

sudden they want fake world peace. No true warrior likes nuclear weapons only idiots who like

the idea of winning a war without sacrifice do. Nuclear weaopons are for cowards.



36/46

LikeReply

00

No they should not.

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons. Some people who possess

these have obviously threatened us and other nations with these weapons. We must protect

ourselves and others so we will not have a nuclear war. If we don't get a hold on the world and

it's weapons we could all be in serious danger.



10

No

Nukes should most definitely not be allowed for anyone. The ability to ruin a generation because

of arguments the past generation was involved in is a crime against humanity. For example thebombing on Japan lead to decades of deteriorating generations. Not only did the bomb leave

future generations permanent health issues, but never will anyone forget the damage and the

hatred that possessed America to commit such an act.


00

Nuclear weapons to a reckless country is a horrible idea.

Countries that are not used to having nuclear weapons, and then being allowed to produce

nuclear weapons will be a huge disaster. First of all, allowing them to have a weapon of that

magnitude is reckless. These countries will want to bust out the nuke for any reason and cause

harm to society. Heavier sanctions need to be implied to these countries attempting reaching

nuclear weapons. United States, Russia, and China should be the only ones allowed. End of

discussion.



37/46

LikeReply

00

Wrong

Honestly no one in the world needs nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons not only kill your enemy

but also anyone who just happens to be in the area. To much life is lost when weapons such as

these are set off. Its one thing to defend your country and those inhabiting it, its another thing

to kill millions of innocent people.



00

I do not feel that every country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons because, if theyfall into the wrong hands, it could be dangerous for the world.

Every country should not have the right to possess nuclear weapons. There are some countries

that would use these weapons to cause harm to everyone on the planet. They would act

irrationally and irresponsible, with the given opportunity. Only countries that have proved

themselves worthy should have the right to possess these kinds of weapons.

Posted by: TabooReyesReport PostLikeReply

00

Too much power for too little a country?

It may not be the best to keep other countries from having nuclear weapons but by keeping a

few countries in control, then the smaller lesser countries cannot unwisely use their weapon/s

and destroy the world. If a country that does not have the responsibility to control and use a

nuclear weapon wisely (if at all) then they should not be given the chance to "use" it and

possibly destroy the world. An arms race and nuclear war could break out and cause mass

destruction. It may not be fair for only a select few countries to have nuclear weapons but in the

case of what the world could become if nuclear weapons fell into the wrong hands, a few ownersis better then nothing left.


38/46


00

No human should be trusted.

The likelihood is that one of these weapons will end up in the hands of someone stupid or evil

enough to utilise it. America has already proved itself that stupid/evil with its needless attack on

Japan. I don't think they have the right to dictate who possesses these weapons. Then,

extremist countries have proved themselves insane enough to blow themselves up in other

situations. Chances are, some ass will end up in charge of one of these arsenals and kill whatremains of our planet. What worries me is that we, the rest of the inhabitants, have no say in

this! Humans are dangerous, conceited and power hungry. It will end up in an apocalypse.


00

No country should possess nuclear weapons because it is unsafe to the entire world.

Nuclear weapons are far too dangerous for any country to have them. A nuclear weapon used as

a threat means an increase in world tension, and many countries will simply respond by creating

their own nuclear weapons. When everyone has these weapons pointed at one another,

diplomacy breaks down into fear of mutually assured destruction.

Posted by: babyuniqhReport PostLikeReply

00

No, no Weapons.

We would end up killing ourselves. Why? I want to know why. Why should countries have

them?Countries should only use the nuclear weapon as the last resort. No weapons, no real war.

We need to get rid of them now before it's too late. We need to stop the government.


39/46


00

No all countries are suitable for nuclear weapons

Haven't you noticed from the countless attacks from North Korea, the country isn't only

developing nuclear weapons, they are testing it and declaring war on America because they are

not capable of dealing with the weapons in s suitable/decent manner. Therefore - no, absolutely

not, until countries all countries are developed.


00

No, not Everyone.

It's enough not everyone should have them. Is too dangerous to mankind. And falling in wrong

hands is always possible. I fear some countries will use them for wrong purposes like Pakistan,

Iran (may use or may not), North Korea (for sure will use). So it's not good. We want to live. We

don't want to be wiped out by idiots who play politics and fanatics who play terrorism.


00

We could end the world and wipe out humanity.

If every country had nuclear weapons, then some of the less responsible countries may see it as

a chance to take over somewhere, but this would then just start a nuclear war. A nuclear war

would quickly spread radiation and many, many people would die. It would be even better if

none had any at all. This would prevent nuclear wars and other such things.

http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/


40/46

00

No, Risk out ways benifits

Most often people underestimate the power that some people hold. Hitler who some consider

the anti-Christ was elected democratically elected started a quest for power that killed millions. If

you give him a weapon that can destroy entire cities with the A-bomb the entire world would be

uninhabitable and all of the human race would've been finished


LikeReply

00

I think no country should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons, because of their destructivenature.

Their is no need for nuclear weapons. The people that die are just ordinary people, who have

nothing to do with the reason to use them. What good does it do, anyway, if you use them totake over a nation, when it will be completely destroyed? Many years will have to pass before

you can even send people into the country to assess damages. No one will ever be able to live

there or farm there, or anything, for that matter.

Posted by: EndurableWinford28Report PostLikeReply

00

Nukes are bad m'kay

I believe in leading by example. Monkey see, monkey do. Those countries that do possess

nuclear weapons shake the finger at N.K. and Iran for trying to do the same to protect their

citizens. We, (the U.S.) as a world power should be pointing the finger at ourselves.


LikeReply0


41/46

0

Nuclear Weapons are a crime against humanity

Under international law, nuclear weapons should be classified as a crime against humanity

because they do not discriminate between civilians and soldiers, between hospitals and air force

bases, between schools and military centers. Any major nuclear war would also likely end

civilization as we know it. No country should have the right to possess nuclear weapons.


00

nuclear weapons can destroy the planet

No country should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because it will increase the number of

genocides. The number of nuclear weapons today, make it possible to destroy the whole planet

20 times.If a nuclear bomb is exploded in an area, the area would have radiation and it wouldn't

be safe to live there until 70 years pass.


00

No

I am a simple man but I do not see the need for any country to own nuclear or biological

weapons. There is enough and so many kinds of weapons out there to kill off every living thing

on the planet ten times over.

I believe that all of the countries should enlist one common kind of world overseer to make sure

that we all truly dispose of these horrific weapons. And we should all work towards a common

goal of cleaning up the planet and make it a safe place for our children to inherit.

This is a new age and now days the other side of the world is only a keystroke away.

I am not a religious man but I really feel that If there is a God, then he or she or it will do for us

humans what we cant do for ourselves.

Posted by:david5437
http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/http://www.debate.org/david5437/http://www.debate.org/david5437/http://www.debate.org/david5437/http://www.debate.org/david5437/http://void%280%29/http://void%280%29/


42/46


00

There are too many possible consequences.

Nations like Iran and North Korea

Documents

Should Every Country Have the Right to Possess Nuclear Weapons