He [Osama bin Laden] came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheists.
I would love to hear everyone's arguments, values, value criterion, etc. Thank youl Pro Definition: Ought - Used to indicate duty or correctness OR used to indicate a desirable or expected state 1 I am going to be arguing it would be a desirable state if States did not possess nuclear weapons.
Value - Utility 2 3 I am referring to "utility" in the utilitarian sense, as a measure of happiness or relative satisfaction.
Value Criterion - Increasing Utility By this I mean, the value utility will be supporting by outcomes that increase the likelihood of or potential for utility and it will be damaged by outcomes that decrease the likelihood of or potential for utility.
States ought not possess nuclear weapons because no one should possess nuclear weapons. No sane person should even support the existence of devices capable of causing such widespread destruction. Weapons of mass destruction differ from conventional arms in that it is almost inconceivable that they could be used for the greater good.
Conventional Weapons Conventional weapons, such as firearms, can be used in self defense. If a dangerous criminal breaks into a school, it would be more utilitarian for a police officer to shoot him with a gun and prevent him from harming the children, teachers, and other innocent people.
In cases of national self defense or human rights intervention, even heavy artillery and combat vehicles be used to destroy hostile military forces. My intent is to prove that the damage caused by nuclear weapons reaches such a threshold that they can never be used in a utilitarian way; the damage caused will always exceed the benefits.
My opponent cannot argue that my case does not allow for the existence of any weapons because this is not the case. Use of Nuclear Weapons Historically, nuclear weapons have only been employed twice against the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.
In both instances, the intent of the weapons was intimidate a military enemy into submission through the mass slaughter of civilians. The American military could have defeated the Empire of Japan through a prolonged blockade as the Japanese naval and aerial strength was crippled and Japan lacked the resources to sustain itself.
However, in order to advance their political goal of keeping the USSR out of the Pacific war, the United States government used the atomic bomb against Japanese civilians and their own prisoners of war.
August 6th,and not December 7th,will surely live on in human history as a day of infamy. It is impossible to believe that nuclear weapons could ever be used for any other purpose than the slaughter the population of enemy States en masse.
The destructive potential of these weapons far exceeds what would ever be necessary to destroy military targets. The sole use and intent of nuclear arms is to massacre innocent people. This can only decrease the overall happiness and satisfaction of people.
I find it extremely doubtful that the use of a nuclear weapon in this way could ever possible have positive side effects sufficient to outweigh this damage.
Nuclear weapons are intrinsically wrong; they are build and used solely for evil. It is in the best interest of the human race as a whole that they not exist at all.
Potential for Damage The potential damage that nuclear weapons could cause if used in a large scale war far exceeds the net damage to utility that could be caused by any given single usage of nuclear weapon.
A full scale nuclear war between two states would, under the most optimistic predictions possible, a full scale nuclear war would result in hundreds of millions of deaths. Least optimistic predictions do not rule of the possibility of the extinction of the human species.
The damage to the environment and human life caused by a nuclear war would be unimaginable. The possession of nuclear weapons by States creates the potential for a disaster of apocalyptic proportions.
It is a desirable outcome for those who value their lives and the lives of their fellow humans that States not possess nuclear weapons. They are only used to cause widespread destruction to infrastructure and to massacre civilians, and they possess the potential to bring about the extinction of the human race and perhaps all life on Earth.
It is the duty and moral obligation of States, and all human beings, to insure that such devices do not exist.National liberation, national renaissance, the restoration of nationhood to the people, commonwealth: whatever may be the headings used or the new formulas introduced, decolonization is always a violent phenomenon.
States that formerly possessed nuclear weapons are South Africa (developed nuclear weapons but then disassembled its arsenal before joining the NPT) and the former Soviet republics Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine.
The United States, who had predicted that the USSR would not have any nuclear weapons until the mids, was massively surprised when the Soviets . Introductory Proviso: The following essay on possible gun confiscation is a purely conjectural gedankenexperiment about the future that extrapolates from recent history and current trends.
Nothing herein is seditious (per 18 U.S. Code § ), nor a call to arms, nor a threat to our government or. The official website of William Cronon.
The Trouble with Wilderness; or, Getting Back to the Wrong Nature. Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good .