Topic: We should fight for the abolition of nuclear weapons
nuclear weapons will kill everyone and should be abolished.
nuclear weapons will result in world destruction and should be abolished
nuclear weapons will someday destroy everyone and everything.
Nuclear weapons, as any other weapons, can be used for protection, deterrence, and ensuring rather than disrupting safety. Our goal should be to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons rather than get rid of them.
Nuclear weapons, by virtue of the principle of mutual assured destruction, have made another great war between global powers impossible.
nuclear weapons, if used, would end life on earth.
Other nations would think twice before launching an attack on a nuclear-armed country
Other nations would think twice before launching an attack on a nuclear-armed country.
our goal should be the abolition of nuclear weapons because a nuclear war would likely destroy the world.
Owning nuclear weapons acts as a deterrence against others with nuclear weapons.
Possessing nuclear weapons increases the power and status of a nation.
practically speaking, nuclear weapons already exist. we must maintain our stock as a check against other, hostile nuclear powers.
Radioactive waste from nuclear weapons poses a real threat to the health of the population living near those site.
Rather than advocate for the abolition of nuclear weapons, it would be preferable if there was more nuclear proliferation, as more countries with nuclear weapons increases their deterrent effect.
Research funded by the government into nuclear weapons has overflow benefits for nuclear energy and other technology that the government won't fund.
Residual radiation from nuclear weapons can destroy the environment and wildlife for centuries.
Since larger, richer states are the ones who tend to have nuclear weapons, they can bully smaller states to their will which is unfair, so nuclear weapons should be abolished to regain international equitability.
Since many different countries have nuclear weapons and are unlikely to cooperate with disarmament, getting rid of our own nuclear weapons weakens us.
Small states would never be able to resist large states with conventional weapons, but are able to do so with nuclear weapons.
Smaller nations can be protected from bigger nations with nuclear weapons.
some states will ignore this and terrorize other nations
Speaking honestly, there's simply no other usefull solution to avoide another world war
States armed with nuclear weapons can practice aggressive colonialism or imperialism against states that do not have nuclear weapons and, as such, are absolutely outclassed militarily.
States have an obligation to their citizens to protect them, the existence of nuclear weapons anywhere poses an existential threat to citizens everywhere, which means every nation has an obligation to fight for abolition.
Talks about nuclear disarmament are very nice and beautiful, but let's be realists: it cannot be achieved. International politics just don't work this way.
Testing of nuclear weapons causes pollution and destruction
Testing of nuclear weapons causes pollution and destruction of the environment.