I have a high school debate competition coming up and I need information or opinions on this topic!?!
Posted in military weapons
Why Weapons Aren't Enough to Keep Your Family Safe? Read More...
Which is the most effective home defense weapon for a home invasion:
Click Here
to learn about the pro's and con's of each as well as the biggest mistake all the "heavy artillery" guys make when choosing "terminator ammo"!
(Hint: It has nothing to do with "stopping power" but it's nearly as important to your family that you get this right! Not doing so could cost you a lifetime of grieving that no law-abiding family should suffer...EVER!) Read More...
March 4th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Try using the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as the basis of your debate.
A number of nations HAD nuclear power and weapons. (USA, BRITAIN, FRANCE, USSR).
A number of other nations wanted nuclear power for electricity.
So they all got together and made a treaty. Those with nuclear power would help the other nations develop a peaceful nuclear power program. In return, those nations PROMISED not to try to develop nuclear weapons.
Some nations refused to sign the treaty and went ahead and developed nuclear power and weapons on their own. (Israel, Pakistan, India.) They did not break the treaty because they never signed it.
IRAN signed the treaty and took the help and is now breaking it in developing nuclear weapons.
How can one signer of the treaty make another signer of the treaty stick to the treaty? Threats maybe? Or should they just fly in and bomb the crap out of the other nation right from the very beginning?
March 4th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
I think anyone in office would see the loss of nuclear weapons by a foreign government to be a national security issue. Similar to what is currently going on in Pakistan at the moment, if a terrorist organization like al-Qai’da managed to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan, it would be our duty to take control of the nukes to prevent them from being used against us or our allies.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Yes. I believe this is definatly a situation where you should be proactive and not reactive. If a nuke is aquired and used by an enemy then thousands or more lives could be lost and then many more will suffer for the rest of their prematurely ended lives. While I dont believe we should police the world we should look out for ourselves.
March 4th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
It is not only just but necessary. The "threats" are not interested in peaceful co-existence. They would absolutely use these weapons not on a battlefield between soldiers but against innocents. This would give the US the moral obligation to use any and all force necessary. This includes other nations as well as terrorist groups. If we look at it historically, do you think it would have been acceptable for the US & UK to have attacked Germany to prevent Hitler from building up his forces, invading neighbouring countries and slaughtering millions of innocent people ? Of course it would!! It just takes a leader with the guts to do so.