Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Right to possess nuclear weapons

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 15:50, 30 May 2010; Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
[Digg]
[reddit]
[Delicious]
[Facebook]

Do countries have a right to possess nuclear weapons?

Background and context

[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]

Nuclear deterrence: Does it work?

[Add New]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Add New]

Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section down]
[Move subquestion section up]

Equality: Would this policy promote equality among states?

[Add New]

Pro

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Add New]

Con

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here





[Edit]
[Delete Subquestion section]
[Add new subquestion section]
[Move subquestion section up]

Do nuclear weapons promote peace?

[Add New]

Pro

  • Nuclear deterrence. Nuclear weapons are known to have protected peace, rather than the opposite. In the military, there's a rather famous doctrine called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). This doctrine theorizes that since nuclear weapons cause enormous damage, would alert the target and that the target would also fire nuclear weapons, no country would be mad enough to attack countries with nuclear weapons. Also, if nuclear weapons were really that dangerous, the world would have been most probably destroyed during the Cold War. It was because of the danger of nuclear weapons that countries couldn't invade nor fire nukes on each other.





[Add New]

Con

See also

External links and resources:

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.