SHOULD THE WORLD ELIMINATE NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Should the World Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?
International Relations · Real arguments from SuperDebate members below
Both sides of the argument
The case for
There have been at least 13 documented near-misses since 1945 — incidents where a misread radar, a communication failure, or a single officer's judgment was the only barrier between a false alarm and nuclear war. The 1983 Petrov incident, the 1995 Norwegian rocket launch, and the 1983 Able Archer...
Posted by jconnor
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted by 68 countries in 2021, reflects a growing international consensus that deterrence is a temporary holding pattern, not a permanent solution. The International Court of Justice ruled in 1996 that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is...
Posted by jconnor
Global nuclear disarmament would free roughly $100 billion per year currently spent on maintaining, modernizing, and securing nuclear arsenals. The US alone plans to spend $1.7 trillion on nuclear modernization through 2046. That capital could fund climate adaptation, pandemic preparedness, and...
Posted by jconnor
The case against
The period since 1945 — the so-called 'Long Peace' — is the longest stretch without direct conflict between major powers in the history of the modern state system. Scholars from John Gaddis to Kenneth Waltz attribute this directly to nuclear deterrence: no great power dares fight another because...
Posted by jconnor
Verification is an unsolved problem. Highly enriched uranium can be concealed in quantities too small to detect with current inspection regimes. A country that secretly retains even a handful of weapons after "disarming" gains a decisive advantage. The incentive to cheat is so strong that no...
Posted by jconnor
Geopolitical tensions that currently require nuclear arsenals to deter — US-Russia, India-Pakistan, Israel and its neighbors — would not disappear with the weapons. Countries facing existential threats from adversaries would quickly rebuild. Disarmament agreements signed without resolving...
Posted by jconnor
Argue it yourself
Rehearse it
Debate this exact resolution against the AI coach and get scored feedback.
Practice with the coachFrequently asked questions
What is a strong argument for "Should the World Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"?
There have been at least 13 documented near-misses since 1945 — incidents where a misread radar, a communication failure, or a single officer's judgment was the only barrier between a false alarm and nuclear war. The 1983 Petrov incident, the 1995 Norwegian rocket launch, and the 1983 Able Archer... (Argued by jconnor on SuperDebate.)
What is a strong argument against "Should the World Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"?
The period since 1945 — the so-called 'Long Peace' — is the longest stretch without direct conflict between major powers in the history of the modern state system. Scholars from John Gaddis to Kenneth Waltz attribute this directly to nuclear deterrence: no great power dares fight another because... (Argued by jconnor on SuperDebate.)
Has "Should the World Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?" been debated live?
Not yet. Anyone can take a side on the topic page and challenge an opponent to argue it live on SuperDebate.
Where can I debate "Should the World Eliminate Nuclear Weapons?"?
On SuperDebate. Post a written argument on the topic page, rehearse the resolution against the AI debate coach, or take it to a live debate night at a club near you. Joining is free.