Debate Mansion

   

Nuclear Weapons Testing: Should it be ban

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 1

datspreets

IF-Veteran Member

datspreets

I-F Crazy Creatives

Joined: 10 April 2005

Posts: 1745

Posted: 11 April 2006 at 11:46pm | IP Logged
 
Some Information about the same :
 

Efforts to stop the testing of nuclear weapons have been going on for nearly as long as nuclear technology has existed. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty only banned tests in certain environments such as the atmosphere, outer space and beneath the sea. While the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty included a statement of intent to work towards the total ending of nuclear testing, it was not until the competition of the Cold War effectively ended and after the START Treaties between the United States and the U.S.S.R. were signed that a total moratorium became feasible. President Gorbachev in 1991 and President Bush Sr. in 1992 declared unilateral moratoriums on testing and were followed by other nuclear powers. In the 1990s debate has focused on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) of 1996 which rules out any nuclear tests in any environment indefinitely for its signatories. This was opened for signatures in 1996 but has not been ratified by the 44 listed Appendix 2 nations who must commit before the treaty comes in to force. Non-ratifiers include the U.S.A, China and India although major nuclear powers like Russia and the United Kingdom have committed. As such the situation is finely balanced and it is possible in a debate fairly to propose either the abandoning or the enforcing of the Treaty.

Pros:

The CTBT works with the Non-Proliferation Treaty and is the best way to stop the development and proliferation of more, and more complex, nuclear weapons amongst established powers and to new States. It not only holds back the technical development of weapons but also reduces the extent to which they can be shown off, therefore reducing their value as a bargaining chip and a symbol of power. The CTBT means fewer weapons in fewer states and is therefore a valuable way of reducing nuclear tensions

Nuclear explosions have a huge environmental impact and cause huge harms. Large areas are irradiated by the blasts themselves and the long term effects of radioactive materials thrown into the atmosphere by the explosions are uncertain. Tests often involve moving people off their own lands as with the French tests in Polynesia in 1995 and involve the destruction of habitats. Underground tests are suspected to have caused earthquakes in China although information is limited.

Voters in the United States, for example, overwhelmingly favour the CTBT. 73% to 16% say that the United States should ratify the treaty. World opinion in all but a few rogue states strongly favours banning nuclear testing creating a significant political impetus.

Even if testing is done and nuclear weapons or nuclear plants are set up, there is no safe disposal method..the junk either goes into the seas or is buried in the layers of Earth.

Nuclear installations, whether military or civil, have a sad record of accidents and incidents, shrouded in cover-ups, lies and misinformation.

Moreover, nuclear energy has never been economic, despite the massive state subsidies it has received for decades. Even now funding still pours into the nuclear sector at the expense of renewable resources like solar or wind energy.

Cons:

The CTBT is toothless. Its only specific measure is expulsion from the treaty rights and obligations. It is unenforceable and its only effect is likely to be on those states who threaten least by their nuclear armouries. Affectively it puts the tool of nuclear testing in the hands of the least stable and least scrupulous of the nuclear powers.

Overt testing by nuclear powers happens in only the most deserted and environmentally stable areas such as Siberia and the deserts of Western Australia and Nevada. As such its environmental impact is not just minimal but much less than that of secret tests which might take place to circumvent the Treaty. In the end the environmental damage is not significant enough to decide this debate.

Computer modelling can only work so long as it is based on data from real explosions. The less real data, the less effective it is; as time goes by and new technologies develop modelling will become increasingly unsatisfactory. Moreover, it is exactly the unexpected effects that are important in the tests. They not only allow us to ensure the weapons are working but also yield data which has been found highly useful in the peaceful nuclear industries which are specifically protected in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

************************************************************ *****************

Now the question is,

Do you think Testing of Nuclear Weapons Stop altogether due to the harmful effects of the same?

Or should testing be allowed in isolated areas?

 

Preeti

****

Do post your views ~

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Nuclear Weapons Testing: Should it be ban" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

sameer.84

IF-Sizzlerz

sameer.84

Joined: 10 May 2005

Posts: 10000

Posted: 12 April 2006 at 12:13pm | IP Logged
i'd favour the removal all the nuclear weapons frm the face of the earth and spend that money on education, health, tackling poverty and pollution and bringing peace and humanity back again.....

in other words....a heaven on earth!! Smile

SuperDuper01

Senior Member

SuperDuper01

Joined: 08 October 2005

Posts: 655

Posted: 12 April 2006 at 12:13pm | IP Logged
It shud be tested in isolated areas

Pradarshak

Goldie

Pradarshak

Joined: 24 January 2006

Posts: 1609

Posted: 12 April 2006 at 1:52pm | IP Logged
Nuclear Weapon should be banished, it is menacing to the whole living world. If it falls in the hands of a dictator or ruthless terrorists, it can create havoc.

Miss-kiss

Senior Member

Miss-kiss

Joined: 06 December 2005

Posts: 782

Posted: 12 April 2006 at 4:56pm | IP Logged
yep i think there should not even be a singel nuclear wepon in the face of the world Big smile

but one thing i dont like is wen countries tell other countries they cant have nuclear weapons wen they themselves do

i think ALL countries should get rid of them Big smile

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Joint family or a Nuclear family

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

jyoti06 77 17836 13 April 2009 at 6:37am
By _Angie_
Nuclear deal passes Congress jagdu 1 443 01 October 2008 at 10:47pm
By jagdu
Nuclear deal ?? Vinzy 0 433 26 July 2007 at 3:43am
By Vinzy
India Welcomes The Passege of Nuclear Bil Aanandaa 5 493 08 June 2007 at 8:13am
By IdeaQueen
Can nuclear power be used for welfare? TheRowdiest 6 464 06 April 2007 at 10:45pm
By mermaid_QT

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.