The debate "All countries have the right to develop nukes" was started by
April 26, 2017, 12:16 pm.
8 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 21 people are on the disagree side.
People are starting to choose their side.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thereal posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
neveralone posted 5 arguments, historybuff posted 3 arguments, makson posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
thereal, KCave05 and 6 visitors agree.
makson, neveralone, cdogy, Mr_Beuller, dalton7532, blue_rayy, historybuff, qqqq, Post_it_note and 12 visitors disagree.
It's called nuclear war
historybuff, your argument is completely illogical because many countries today have hundreds of nuclear weapons and none have used them. rather, they have prevented wars. the only country which has ever used a nuke is the US, the "rational" and "reasonable" goatf***ers who think they are responsible enough to have them. the fact is that if japan had an atom bomb of its own in 1945, the US wouldnt have dropped on of theirs on it. More nukes = less wars and less wars = less lives lost. you do want to save lives dont you?
in terms of North Korea, of course they are rational. you cant be a government without being rational. just because western media presents him as a psycho doesnt mean its true. North Koreanis developing nukes because it knows that no country attacks a country which has nukes. if saddam had nukes he wouldnt have been killed, if gaddafi had them he wouldnt have been killed etc. so north korea is developing nukes for its self preservation- that is completely rational.
makson, youre literally so stupid im not even going to bother arguing with you.
and the concept that everyone being armed reduces violence only works if everyone is rational and reasonable. does North Korea seem rational and reasonable to you? does the Islamic State seem reasonable?
nuclear proliferation is a terrible, terrible idea.
you are correct that nuclear weapons have played a part in preventing wars. that has saved thousands of lives. but all it takes is one slip up and billions die in a single day and humanity is extinct. forgive me if I think that a few regional conflicts are less important than our extermination.
actually wrong. It's bigger chance is everyone have that than if 2 countries have them. It's like with the guns, everyone uses guns and if only 2 countries would have them, percent of use would still be 100% , but it's
2 of 2
90 of 100 for an example
"the more countries that have them, the more likely they are to be used." well that is actually incorrect because the more countries that have them, the less likely they are to be used.
historybuff, no, its not a stupid concept and yes, it HAS worked. You dont know much about politics so im not surprised that you dont know this, but look how many times pakistan and india went to war before they both got nukes.
Ematio, i dont know if you live under a rock or something so im not going to judge because maybe you dont have a tv, but "groups like isis" are known as terror groups, not countries.
we want sane people to have guns. very different concept.
but you do want everyone to own guns. it is the same concept on a smaller scale. when a lunatic shoots up a school it's a tragedy, but many Americans refuse to consider that maybe guns don't need to be owner by everyone who wants one.
if you hand out nuclear weapons to every country, then it is just a matter of time until they are used.
American idea? most of America from my knowledge doesn't want everyone having nukes
the idea that if you arm everyone violence will stop is such a stupid American idea. it has never worked that way. the only reason nuclear weapons were only used on Japan is that they were tightly controlled by 2 sides that each had alot to lose.
the more countries that have them, the more likely they are to be used. it only takes 1 military coup, 1 civil war, 1 election of an idiot or a madman and all life could end.
What if a country has intention to use them as soon as they are developed? Such as groups like ISIS? They want to be martyred, so mutual destruction has no effect. If a nuke got into their hands we would all know their intentions.
*nk not no
no should definitely not have nukes. their leader is an idiotic child.
it most certainly would be and if there was a button that erased the knowledge of how to make them and destroys them all I would press it. but sadly now they are here none will give them up
in terms of the nukes, countries with them are less likely to go to war because they are such a good deterrant. if countries didnt have nukes, they would be going to war much more frequently and a lot more lives would be lost. it is discrimination that some countries arent allowed nukes whereas others are allowed them and can use them to bully the nations which dont. lmao, how is a country with 8000 nukes going to tell little old north korea to not get any? its completely discriminatory and unfair. it would be like if a teacher in a school had access to special educational resources and then tried to prevent other teachers from getting them or if a bully in a school brought in a bat to terrorise other students and then was confused when the other students started bringing in their own bats and clubs etc. so for these reasons, all countries should be allowed nukes.
who didn't guess this was a thereal post as they were clicking it lol?
hell to the no!
I get it, it's a bit of a double standard that some countries have it and some don't, but the more nukes the more likely an unstable leader will use them, an unstable government would sell them, and the entire world will be worse off.
if you have a problem with the double standard how about nobody gets nukes! wouldn't that be a better goal?