Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

10
18
Maybe. Wait..., what? No!!!
Debate Score:28
Arguments:26
Total Votes:28
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Maybe. (9)
 
 Wait..., what? No!!! (15)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40052) pic



Should India just nuke the Pakis and get it over with?

Maybe.

Side Score: 10
VS.

Wait..., what? No!!!

Side Score: 18

A nuclear exchange would help reduce the world's population problem ;)

Side: Maybe.
DevinSeay(1120) Disputed
1 point

The world doesn't have a population problem. Everyone in the world could fit in Texas if they had living space. If every person had 1 square foot to theirselves, everyone could fit in Los Angeles.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
GuitaristDog(2548) Clarified
1 point

Although this is true, it is also not true. Yes, if we had everyone live at the same density they do in New York City you could fit everyone in a city the size of Texas. However, this does not account for all the space that would still have to be used for farming, energy, water ect.

Side: Maybe.

Your definition of "population problem" is not the same as mine ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

Nuke what? All there is in Pakistan is some sand, old Soviet gear and more sand, why waste the nuke?

Side: Maybe.

For the same reason we set off fire works..., the awesome light show ;)

Side: Maybe.
kozlov(1755) Disputed
1 point

It's more like Chinese and American gear. But it is still out dated.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
3 points

Hypothetical Scenario:

Two short range nuclear weapons hit Islamabad and the Pakistan retaliates by hitting New Delhi. This causes Pakistan to plunge into Civil War and their nuclear weapons are lost track off. Insurgents, Taliban, and the Iranians flood into the area and add more chaos. The Iranians are successful in stealing some of their nuclear weapons and are able to bring it back home. They attach them to modified SCUD missiles and fire them to Israel. Israel fires back and plunge the entire area into chaos. Oil skyrockets in price and forces a Coalition force into the area to bring peace. Millions die and prevents and idea of Middle East peace for decades to come.

Is this what YOU want?

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

You have to admit, it would make for some good TV news ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
SovietSpy(709) Clarified
1 point

Well I guess, a nuclear war and destruction would be a first time for CNN to report on.

Side: Maybe.
1 point

A nuke will not create anything good for either countries. It will result in plenty of bloodshed, hundreds of innocent families dead, and yet another reason for the American government to step in and create another war, the last thing any country needs.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
1 point

You're forgetting that Pakistan has its own nukes (and had them before India obtained its nukes). MAD is very much in effect in India/Pakistan. You don't start throwing nukes around just over a minor border skirmish, especially when your enemy can throw nukes back at you.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!

So what you are saying is that an armed society is a polite society. Sounds like an argument against gun control ;)

We should not have gun control because if everyone carried guns people wouldn't start shooting at their neighbor over a minor skirmish because their neighbor can shoot back. MAD would be very much in effect in the U.S. ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!
Taqwacore(668) Disputed
1 point

That doesn't make any sense at all. How does anyone shoot anyone if no one has a gun to shoot with?

Side: Maybe.
BenWalters(1513) Disputed
1 point

Even though I know you're joking, I can't let this go unchallenged.

MAD stands for Mutually Assured Destruction. It is used in the context of nuclear arms, to state that no one will fire upon each other, for they would also be fired upon: if you destroy another, then you will also be destroyed. So far, it's worked.

This idea does not apply to guns. If I shoot someone else, they will not automatically return fire upon me - they'll be dead. Obviously there is a form of retribution, in the form of the justice system, but this is very different from the absolute response that nuclear weapons would incur.

And anyway, MAD is ridiculous - it isn't an argument for nuclear weapons, and against disarmament, it's an argument of how nuclear weapons don't necessarily have to be as dangerous as people can think. It does not mean that governments should not disarm - simply that the problems are not as great as they could be, that the importance of disarming is (somewhat) reduced.

Side: Maybe.

No since Nuclear radiation has detrimental side effects in which not only the Pakis would suffer from. It would also render their expedition useless since the land would have to heal first before being used. Approximately thousands of years.

Side: Wait..., what? No!!!