» Home » Politics
Nuclear Acquisition By Dangerous Countries
It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a threat.
 davidsuggs  27 Dec 2007 20:57
                           (What's this?)  Add to Firefox  RSS
Whoops! I misunderstood the question!
 
 IDGuardTK  21 Feb 2008 00:15
 Add a Comment
 
 
Nuclear weapons have been much available things now and every country is getting prepared for acquisition of this weapon in order to keep their opponents always worried. But is it really necessary to those countries to possess the life threatening weapons? I don’t think so. According to my point of view, every country should take the oath for not applying the nuclear weapon in any bad situation. The Second World War has shown us the ill effects of this nuclear weapon which was hit the Hiroshima city. But today’s life is getting more and more insecure that every single country is undergoing the nuclear tests. But will it be a solution? If the day come that one country starts applying the weapon to another, then will there be any life to be survived? Every single life would be terminated.
 
 sudipa  06 Feb 2008 04:41
 Add a Comment
 
 
I'll try and give a different perspective on this one.

I think in some circumstances the only way to curb the power of irresponsible use of weapons is by force.
It's the old utilitarian argument of what is for the better good -countering force with force to save the world from possible nuclear war.
I don't think the United States has a God given right to dictate who should and should not have a nuclear capability when it's got the biggest store of weaponry in the world. The scenario that I envisualise as allowing the US to use military force is when there's a real and direct threat with irresponsible governments ready to make direct threats in the world and carry them out.
This wasn't the case in Iraq and the US and allies had no right to use military force there.
The president of Iran is making a lot of noise with regards to nuclear weapons but much of this is sabre-rattling and most people think the US would be ill advised to use force there.
However I have to vote for this one as I would see a real, direct threat as one against world peace and it would have to be dealt with effectively.
Hope this view helps with your resolution at high school.
 
 Researcher  12 Jan 2008 18:03
 1 Comment
 
 exactly that is another problem. while rational leaders would never consider using them aggressively, there are irrational leaders out there who just do not care
by  davidsuggs
 17 Jan 2008 20:32
Comment
  
Comment
  
No country has the right to interfere in the development of any country which is basic human right law as well. And even if a country is developing a nuclear program the USA does not have the right to suppress the development of that nation by force, sanctions or any other means. If it does not like it it can only leave the nation alone in disapproval of its actions because the only nations that are a real threat are the ones who have already developed these program and are now dictating their term on other developing nations.
 
 qmamin  24 Aug 2008 06:59
 1 Comment
 
 I agree with you. Perhaps they ought not have the nuclear weapons but it is definitely not our RIGHT to interfere with their ability to do so.
by  davidsuggs
 24 Aug 2008 23:25
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
When has fairness or justice had anything to do with international politics? The leaders of America and every other country are able to make these sweeping statements about what is just and right with a complete lack of irony. It boggles my mind. I mean let’s be honest folk’s American aggression and self centered approach to international politics is hardly trend setting. Literally ever nation or political group in history has convinced itself that if it has the power it should use it. If I could take America’s nuclear weapons away I would but I wouldn’t trust anyone else with them either.
 
 finsch  24 Jul 2008 17:18
 Add a Comment
 
 
Why should the world trust the US with nuclear weapons and not be allowed to have them themselves? This is typical American arrogance.
 
 Snipex  24 Jul 2008 16:34
 Add a Comment
 
 
How wonderful the Americans are they are truly unique nobody in the history of mankind has used so many weapons of mass destruction against so many .they have used napalm atomic bombs agent orange they even use a coined phrase "when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have will have guns"mugabe tortures people but the Americans are again unique because they give shelter to those they torture and look again they are so good that if Saddam killed 200,000 in twenty years the Americans killed over 1,500,000 in 4 years they have such brave men they can and do kill thousands and always mostly innocent civilians with no chance of death or injury and they create so much hatred that they manage to make their enemies become so deadly that they kill themselves .now i bet you cannot disagree the Americans are the greatest.......OH DID I MENTION" when nuclear weapons are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns""so i guess if you want to be there become an outlaw .
 
 bountyhunt  16 Jun 2008 21:01
 Add a Comment
 
 
I don't see the US doing anything to take away Israel's 200 nuclear weapons.

Given that the US is the only country to use nuclear weapons on another country, and the hundreds of instances of US terrorism against other nations since World War II, it's clear that the US IS the greatest danger to the world, not any other country.

Edit:

The replier obviously doesn't have a clue.

The nations that are the greatest danger in having nuclear weapons are the countries that already have them.
 
 K9  22 Apr 2008 21:38
 1 Comment
 
 I didn't say GREATEST danger. The resolution given is referring to nations that pose a military threat to the US. This argument avoids the issue
by  davidsuggs
 01 May 2008 18:33
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
I don't understand the concept of defensive nuclear weapons or technology. I generally think the idea is disgusting and pretty clearly rooted in money or power trips. The idea that someone else better not try to make a bomb as powerful as me or else i will bomb them doesn't hold water in any sense. Why should the first country be allowed to have such a bomb, let alone tell another country they cannot.
Its common sense gone crazy.
 
 characters  19 Apr 2008 02:19
 Add a Comment
 
 
He he debater I am to but I think on my own that was the easiest resolution ever I want more like that one
 
 msc7683  10 Mar 2008 21:54
 Add a Comment
 
 
Well you see the problem with arguing for this resolution, primarily for me, is that rational leaders would only ever attempt to acquire them for defensive purposes
 
 davidsuggs  17 Jan 2008 20:31
 2 Comments
 
 No one will attack a country if they know they are stronger or as strong as them. It is best to keep strong to prevent a fight than to lose one.
by  IDGuardTK
 21 Feb 2008 18:01
Comment
  
Comment
  
Comment
  
 
The nuclear cat is out of the bag and dangerous countries and dangerous organisations and dangerous individuals could make crude nuclear detonations or just dirty bombs with parts ordered on-line.

Its too late for America to save the world from nuclear holocaust. Head for the hills with your trusty rifle and hunker in your bunker.
 
 O-Wiseone  07 Jan 2008 09:31
 Add a Comment
 
 
The United States believes itself to be the cop of the world, protecting all the world from rogue nations and yet it remains to be one of the most dangerous and over-stocked nuclear powered and armed countries in the world.

As the only country in the world to have ever used nuclear weapons in anger and the country with the highest quantity of active and ready to fire nuclear weapons.

By 'pose' a threat, I wonder if the poster means that they threaten the USA's control over the world by wielding its massive destructive force.

Iran? Is it a threat? It's only a threat if you believe that it will use it against you when you yet again try to bully them. China? Russia? It's funny how America seems to find no problem in not bullying the more powerful nations, it only picks on those countries that do not agree with America's aims and cannot at adequately defend themselves at the time being.

I also have a problem with the idea of 'dangerous' countries, they seem dangerous to me, because they challenge the dominance of the United States of America over the world. They are not dangerous because they suddenly want to take over the world, but because they have different ideals, philosophies and ideas. The US finds this dangerous because it challenges the economic and military hegemony that has existed since the Second World War.

Are there responsible countries? Does America get a monopoly on being the responsible user of nuclear power? It seems strange to consider it responsible having killed and maimed two hundred and twenty thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Now it uses its weapons to bully other countries into complicity. Just because another country that doesn't agree with Western democratic society doesn't make it dangerous or irresponsible.

Using military force to prevent the development of nations is nothing more than holding the world to ransom.
 
 Spartan76  30 Dec 2007 23:43
 1 Comment
 
 This is the current resolution in the high school Lincoln Douglas debate, not my personal opinion. I was simply looking to see some view points. As far as dangerous goes, I do not mean bad, but capable of causing harm if it was attempted. Thought I should clarify
by  davidsuggs
 02 Jan 2008 23:26
Comment
  
Comment
  
Sign In / Sign Up
 For and Against Recent Activity
Related Debates
Hilary Should Be Running For President
We Should Bring Our Soldiers Home From Iraq
It Is Primarily The Government's Function To Preserve Rights Over The Good.
Smoking Should Be Banned In Public Places
Bush Says He Hates Tourism, It Is Terrorism
Michelle Obama Is Fair Game For Critics
This Website Should Have Less Moderation.
Dr. David Kelly Was Assassinated.
American Relations With Israel Must Be Minimal
Tony Blair Should Be Prosecuted As A War Criminal
New Debates
The Printing-Press Was The Greatest Historical Invention Of All-Time
Bill Clinton Should Be Allowed To Run For President Again
Cster Is A Big Meanie!
Paranormal “Investigating” Is A Pseudoscience
To Say You Are Joking To Get Away With Meanness Is A Social-Lie
Adults Should Be Allowed To Eat Off The Kids Menu.
Very Little Food We Buy These Days Is Good For Your Health.
If You Give Shoes As A Present, People Are Never Unhappy.
People Who Are Over Weight Should Not Be Able To Get First Class Seats In Airplanes For The Price Of...
Dogs Are Better Than Cats