How do you justify nuclear power even with the danger(cont)

[ray245]

In debates, most of my seniors is telling me that using nuclear power in a debate is a risky thing to do, as you have to take in account that military can be more efficient in runnning things.

And all this proves it you are using a very soft ground to defend your arguments.

Is there any way to form a good argument that even if the potential benefits of mass adopting nuclear power is better than the concerns of how military uses it?

[Ender]

In debates, most of my seniors is telling me that using nuclear power in a debate is a risky thing to do, as you have to take in account that military can be more efficient in runnning things.

And all this proves it you are using a very soft ground to defend your arguments.

Is there any way to form a good argument that even if the potential benefits of mass adopting nuclear power is better than the concerns of how military uses it?

Your syntax and grammar mean I have no idea what their arguments are or what your question is.

[Ghost Rider]

Moving to SLAM because I cannot see what you're asking in debate help. From what I can make of this mess, you're asking a question about civilian versus military usage of nuclear power.

[Saxtonite]

Is there any way to form a good argument that even if the potential benefits of mass adopting nuclear power is better than the concerns of how military uses it?

you can use the argument that the Oil Peak will be really bad in terms of an enargy crisis and building nuclear power plants would help to counteract that.

[Sarevok]

In debates, most of my seniors is telling me that using nuclear power in a debate is a risky thing to do, as you have to take in account that military can be more efficient in runnning things.

And all this proves it you are using a very soft ground to defend your arguments.

Is there any way to form a good argument that even if the potential benefits of mass adopting nuclear power is better than the concerns of how military uses it?

Drunk posting at SD for the first time ?

I think what ray is saying is is the benefits of nuclear power greater than the risk for abuse by the military in constructing atomic weapons.

[Sea Skimmer]

If he is, then that’s just a total non argument, because you can run a civil nuclear program without producing any nuclear weapons material at all. Just keep the fuel enrichment levels low and don’t reprocess spent fuel… which is what quite a few nations in the world do already.

In realistic terms the world already has a huge surplus of nuclear weapons material anyway, because of the dismantling of much of the US and Russian arsenals. That means the production of more material hardly even matters with regards to nuclear proliferation, that’s already being artificially capped about 20 gigatons lower then it could be. In fact several modified civilian nuclear reactors in the US are currently being fueled by dozens of tons of surplus Russian plutonium, which is effectively destroyed as usable nuclear warhead material in the process. Any plutonium extracted from spent nuclear fuel in the future can be dealt with the same way, and highly enriched uranium can be blended into reactor grades the same basic way. You don’t even need to modify the reactor for that.

[Adrian Laguna]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, ray, then the entire premise is stupid, you can have nuclear power without nuclear weapons. I could start naming countries that do so, shit I will: Spain, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, South Africa, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.

Then the States of Italy, Austria, Denmark, and the Philippines used to have civilian nuclear power without nuclear weapons, but have since decommissioned all their plants.

In other words, nations world-fucking-wide can and do build civilian atomic power programs without atomic weapons.

[ray245]

If I understand what you're saying correctly, ray, then the entire premise is stupid, you can have nuclear power without nuclear weapons. I could start naming countries that do so, shit I will: Spain, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Finland, Sweden, South Africa, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, and Argentina.

Then the States of Italy, Austria, Denmark, and the Philippines used to have civilian nuclear power without nuclear weapons, but have since decommissioned all their plants.

In other words, nations world-fucking-wide can and do build civilian atomic power programs without atomic weapons.

Ok guys...first of all, sorry for being rather unclear in my post. I was half awake when I wrote that post...mainly because of the fact that I woke up from a dream that was related to such an issue...

Now back to topic.

The main argument that many of my seniors gave was nuclear energy by itself can be used as an energy source to power the military as well. Like the issue of nuclear submarines which is powered by nuclear energy and so on. Basically they are saying that nuclear energy can be used by the military in other areas other than nuclear weapon. ( I tried my best to bring in the argument that other things in life can be used by the military as well )

Also, they mentioned the issue of rouge nations like North korea and Iran being able to use civilian nuclear power plant as a cover their research on nuclear weapons.

And because of the fact that we cannot ensure that anyone is able to control anyone from using a civilian power plant as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, it is very risky to bring in nuclear power as an source of alternative energy.

[Master of Cards]

And because of the fact that we cannot ensure that anyone is able to control anyone from using a civilian power plant as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, it is very risky to bring in nuclear power as an source of alternative energy.

[img]Many%20products%20can%20be%20used%20in%20ways%20that%20would%20have%20miltary%20uses.%20Chlrone%20and%20Beach%20make%20WMDs%20and%20ship%20building%20as%20a%20whole%20could%20be%20used%20to%20create%20ships%20of%20war.%20It's%20not%20enough%20to%20say%20it%20could%20be%20used%20in%20miltary%20operations.%20You%20would%20have%20to%20show%20the%20world%20is%20wors%20off%20with%20the%20invention%20and%20not%20better%20off.[/img]

[Shroom Man 777]

We should prohibit fossil fuels since the militaries of the world, along with certain hokey-masked postapocalyptic wasteland raiders in dystopic Australia, use the gasoline in their machines of war as well.

And does it matter if Iran, or even North Korea, has nuclear weapons? I don't think it does. The reason why the Norks won't shoot Seoul full of artillery is because they know the Sorks, with the Americans, will shoot back. If the Norks get nukes, the situation remains unchanged - except that the return fire will also turn Pyongyang into a protonic pyre.

The same goes for Iran. When you get nuclear weapons, other people point theirs at you, so acting carefully and politely becomes suddenly very important. Look at India and Pakistan.

[Kitsune]

I have to agree with the idea of being afraid of someone who just wants one. It means he plans to use it.

[Shroom Man 777]

And how many countries have used nuclear weapons? Hrm... just one, if I recall correctly. And which country was it?

The reasons why they want one is because they're also afraid of other countries, namely those that are going about in family friendly military adventures in other people's backyards.

[Kitsune]

What, you don't think Japan or Germany would not have used nuclear weapons if they got there first?

No, what I am most concerned about is an individual not tied in with any government getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

[Sea Skimmer]

The main argument that many of my seniors gave was nuclear energy by itself can be used as an energy source to power the military as well. Like the issue of nuclear submarines which is powered by nuclear energy and so on. Basically they are saying that nuclear energy can be used by the military in other areas other than nuclear weapon. ( I tried my best to bring in the argument that other things in life can be used by the military as well )

Your response was correct and overwhelming. No product of any sort exists which does not have potential military applications. Sleeping bags, food, cars, nails, carpet, anti tank missiles, anything, they all have military use. So does power, water and literally possession of land itself for training ranges ect… An argument against nuclear power on those grounds is an argument against all technology. And hell, even without technology humans would still throw rocks at each other.

Also, they mentioned the issue of rouge nations like North korea and Iran being able to use civilian nuclear power plant as a cover their research on nuclear weapons.

Both nations have nuclear programs which are spread much wider then simply building nuclear power plants, they have programs for complete fuel cycle technologies. North Koreas reactors don’t produce any power for a civilian grid at all anyway, while Irans reactors aren’t thought to be part of the weapons program directly. It’s the fuel cycle and fuel handling technology that matters, not reactors.

North Korea was in any case denied nuclear weapons technology by everyone on the globe and yet still developed it, just as every nation on earth which has nuclear weapons has done so. One nation’s position on nuclear weapons development will have no effect on another nations work.

And because of the fact that we cannot ensure that anyone is able to control anyone from using a civilian power plant as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, it is very risky to bring in nuclear power as an source of alternative energy.

Well that’s just plain stupidity; the world already has hoards of states with nuclear reactors as has already been covered. You also do not even need a reactor at all to make nuclear weapons material, they are only used for making plutonium. Highly Enriched Uranium is made by other methods. You only need one reactor to make plutonium for a bomb, ergo the risk of nuclear proliferation is not increased one bit by building more reactors in any nation which already has them. In nations which don’t already have nuclear technology, introducing reactors fed by fuel made and then retrived by foreign countries would also present vuritally no increase in proliferation risk. If they staert working on a fuel cycle, then we’d know it and keep an eye on it. But if they can do that, then they can do it if we want them to or not.

Basically it sounds like these people have no real knowledge of nuclear industry or the history of nuclear proliferation at all. They are anti nuclear out of ignorance, just like most of the rest of the anti nuclear crowd.

[Shroom Man 777]

What, you don't think Japan or Germany would not have used nuclear weapons if they got there first?

They would've, yeah...

But if France had a nuke too, the Germans would've reconsidered crossing the Maginot line. And if the USA had 'em, even a nuclear-armed Japanistan would've had a second thought about ruining Pearl Harbor's shit and having their little roadtrip to the Philippines.

And when the Ruskies got their nukes, they didn't use them. 'Cause of the Americans and their big sticks.

MAD brings a kind of nihilistic balance to the world.

No, what I am most concerned about is an individual not tied in with any government getting their hands on a nuclear weapon.

Mmm... nuclear weapons are very well protected. Even the breakdown of the USSR didn't result in any doomsday suitcase nuke scenarios occurring. I doubt the further fucking up of Pakistan would result in such a thing as well.

It's in no government's interests to give nukes to any individual faction and taking a nuke, well... that'll be quite a feat.

[Ender]

What, you don't think Japan or Germany would not have used nuclear weapons if they got there first?

They would've, yeah...

But if France had a nuke too, the Germans would've reconsidered crossing the Maginot line. And if the USA had 'em, even a nuclear-armed Japanistan would've had a second thought about ruining Pearl Harbor's shit and having their little roadtrip to the Philippines.

And when the Ruskies got their nukes, they didn't use them. 'Cause of the Americans and their big sticks.

MAD brings a kind of nihilistic balance to the world.

Only to a point. Consider Georgia vs Russia. That wasn't even MAD - Georgia didn't have a prayer. It was blatantly obvious from the outset that Russia could and would go through them like a hot knife through butter in the event of war. But Georgia decided to pick the fight anyways.

The problem with having a scenario where only a crazy person will pull the trigger is that eventually, a crazy person will do it. That's why non proliferation is so important and why the US and other countries to have a right to limit the technology from getting out. Because once one person starts letting them fly they are all gonna start flying. And frankly the odds of a person crazy enough to do it getting power in one of 8 countries is a lot lower then a person crazy enough to do it getting power in one of 200 countries.

Mmm... nuclear weapons are very well protected. Even the breakdown of the USSR didn't result in any doomsday suitcase nuke scenarios occurring. I doubt the further fucking up of Pakistan would result in such a thing as well.

I am nowhere near as optimistic on that cause.

[Shroom Man 777]

Is Georgia versus Russia really clear cut? Saakashvili the Tie Chewer picked the fight because no one was really sure that Russia would come in and bust ass (correct me if I'm wrong on this). It did come in and bust ass, though. So, too bad (for the Georgians).

Retaliation of Georgia's attack on South Ossetia was uncertain, which isn't like anything involving nuclear attack - where retaliation is certain and will certainly be unpleasant.


But yeah, I was assuming responsibility and semi-sanity on part of nuclear-nations (even ones like North Korea!). It's funny how America's Super Best Friend Saakashvili being a total crazy person is a more convincing argument to limit nuclear weapons than some Ayatollah or motherfucking Kim Jong Il.

[Zixinus]

My responce, in an insecure attempt to look smart:

The main argument that many of my seniors gave was nuclear energy by itself can be used as an energy source to power the military as well. Like the issue of nuclear submarines which is powered by nuclear energy and so on. Basically they are saying that nuclear energy can be used by the military in other areas other than nuclear weapon. ( I tried my best to bring in the argument that other things in life can be used by the military as well )

Their argument is silly: so what if it can power submarines or other military applications? These will be powered with or without civilian nuclear power because they NEED to be. You go and try to tell the defence minister that over half of the potent naval power must be decommissioned because nukes are bad.

Also, they mentioned the issue of rouge nations like North korea and Iran being able to use civilian nuclear power plant as a cover their research on nuclear weapons.

Running a nuclear reactor on foreign ground is not the same as a foreign country owning and running its own nuclear program.

If these countries honestly want nuclear power for electricity, these reactors can be checked. There are safeguards to prevent this from happening, one that the international nuclear agencies check upon.

The real fear should be such countries gathering the industry necessary to make nuclear warheads, which is a different cattle of fish. Partly because it would also mean denying industry and thus economic independence and progress for the country in question.

Furthermore, say they get the nukes AND the launch capacities. What then? Any country that tries to make a shot will be glassified within the hour of an attack. Only a suicidal government body would wish to use such weapons.

And because of the fact that we cannot ensure that anyone is able to control anyone from using a civilian power plant as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, it is very risky to bring in nuclear power as an source of alternative energy.

This argument is very uninformed of the capacities of a civilian nuclear reactor and ignorant of the process necessary to make weapons-grade or even military-grade fuels.

[Ender]

Is Georgia versus Russia really clear cut? Saakashvili the Tie Chewer picked the fight because no one was really sure that Russia would come in and bust ass (correct me if I'm wrong on this). It did come in and bust ass, though. So, too bad (for the Georgians).

Retaliation of Georgia's attack on South Ossetia was uncertain, which isn't like anything involving nuclear attack - where retaliation is certain and will certainly be unpleasant.

Then substitute in Lebanon vs Israel. Or any of the others - it isn't like history is short on examples of people with more power then sense picking fights they never had a prayer of winning.

But yeah, I was assuming responsibility and semi-sanity on part of nuclear-nations (even ones like North Korea!). It's funny how America's Super Best Friend Saakashvili being a total crazy person is a more convincing argument to limit nuclear weapons than some Ayatollah or motherfucking Kim Jong Il.

It comes down to the fact that so far we have been lucky in that only one person who had nuclear weapons also had the mindset to use them. You can debate Truman's decision, but there is really no argument about the fact that nothing ensures that no one with a "use them or lose them" mindset won't get into power. Fewer countries there are that have nukes, the lower the chances that someone like that will get them.

[Darth Wong]

ray245, grow a fucking brain and tell your idiot classmates to do the same. This thread wins the coveted "Most Idiotic Question About A Serious Issue" award.

[Ted C]

The same goes for Iran. When you get nuclear weapons, other people point theirs at you, so acting carefully and politely becomes suddenly very important. Look at India and Pakistan.

This argument carries somewhat less weight when the people in charge of the nuclear arsenal are widely believed to be fundamentalist religious kooks.

[ray245]

ray245, grow a fucking brain and tell your idiot classmates to do the same. This thread wins the coveted "Most Idiotic Question About A Serious Issue" award.

I am talking about it in a debate tournament when you do not have enough time to actually bring forward enough issues.

I mean sure, you can go deep enough in real life, but when you are given seven minutes...there is a limited amount of time for me to bring my arguments across.

And when the motion is not about nuclear power in context, but talking about the issue of energy in general, I should have even less focus and time on nuclear energy.

For example, I want to bring up the issue of alternative energy on nuclear power in this motion: This house will collect windfall profits from oil companies

In this scenario, as the opposing house and personally, I want to bring in the issue of alternative energy. My argument is this: What it will cause it a decrease of oil prices and encourage people to use even more oil as compared to using alternative energy, which in this case, is using nuclear energy.

One main reason I was discouraged was the fact that I may go off topic in this debate and about this motion. The burden of proof will fall onto me to justify nuclear power while not going off topic about the motion.


I was looking for a way to justify the issue of nuclear power in a short amount of time. In this scenario, I would have lost the debate if I went deeper about nuclear energy.




By the way, if motion is about allowing Iran to carry out its nuclear program, how would you set the debate and defend such a motion as the government side?

[Darth Wong]

That's fucking retarded. If you're in a debate, and the other side can bring up various arguments attacking nuclear power, why the fuck would you lose by defending nuclear power? They obviously have enough time to make up these attacks, the least you can do is refute them. Ignoring them and making up weird alternate angles of attack is shitty debating; you are completely conceding their attack.

[ray245]

That's fucking retarded. If you're in a debate, and the other side can bring up various arguments attacking nuclear power, why the fuck would you lose by defending nuclear power? They obviously have enough time to make up these attacks, the least you can do is refute them. Ignoring them and making up weird alternate angles of attack is shitty debating; you are completely conceding their attack.

Doesn't that mean I am no longer relevant in regards to the motion, that is 'This house will collect windfall profits from oil companies’? I can only cover more if the motion is directly talking about the issue of nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy in this scenario is a supporting argument, not as a main argument. I can't let this overtake my main argument can I? (My argument is this: taxing oil companies will decrease oil prices, and people will be less inclined develop or change their energy sources)

If I need to defend and refute their argument, how should I go about it in a reasonable amount of time?

[Patrick Degan]

The main argument that many of my seniors gave was nuclear energy by itself can be used as an energy source to power the military as well. Like the issue of nuclear submarines which is powered by nuclear energy and so on. Basically they are saying that nuclear energy can be used by the military in other areas other than nuclear weapon. ( I tried my best to bring in the argument that other things in life can be used by the military as well )

Also, they mentioned the issue of rouge nations like North korea and Iran being able to use civilian nuclear power plant as a cover their research on nuclear weapons.

And because of the fact that we cannot ensure that anyone is able to control anyone from using a civilian power plant as a cover to produce nuclear weapons, it is very risky to bring in nuclear power as an source of alternative energy.

Your opponents are engaging in an Appeal to Consequence Fallacy —stating that A cannot be allowed because it might lead to B. By their sort of logic, we can't allow aeroplanes because somebody might use them to carry bombs or fly them into buildings, thus killing people. It's a ridiculous argument which does not at all address issues either of nuclear safety or utility, or viable energy strategy.