16/10/2006
"The present nuclear powers should be able to maintain the status quo."
Monday 16th September 2006 saw the third Public Speaking forum of the 2006/2007 academic year. The topic of choice followed the announcement the previous week of the ascent of North Korea to the world's nuclear club. There were three speakers each presenting a different perspective on the issue; David Hewitt proposed that the status quo should be maintained, Mohammed Al Mannai spoke in favour of the idea that all nuclear weapons should be banned, and Chris Wright advocated allowing all nations of the world to have their own nuclear weapons. James Fraser acted as Chairman. Cakes present were: Chocolate Indulgence, Organic Flapjacks, French Fancies, Lemon Slices and Almond Slices (much to the delight of el Presidente!)
No vote was taken initially as it was felt that the positions of the speakers required further exposition before the audience could reach an informed decision.
David opened the discussion rather un-conventionally by presenting an audio-visial powerpoint presentation (done in the dark with candles, in glorious breach of the Guild's Health and Safety Policy in all probability!) showing the devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons including images of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He argued that the status quo was desirable as the past 60 years had shown that responsible nations could use nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent, but that to allow unstable dictatorships to also gain access to nuclear weapons would destabilise this. He elaborated that while it would be desirable to get rid of nukes altogether, this was an unrealistic aspiration.
Chris continued the debate by stating that the only real way to ensure no nation could bully any other is for every nation to be afforded the opportunity to possess nuclear weapons. That way no country would ever invade another as the threat of nuclear retaliation would be too great a risk to take. To allow every country to possess nuclear weapons, he argued, would maintain peace on the basis of mutually assured destruction and would thus never need to be used and would ensure safety and security for all.
Mohammed, by contrast, took the view that the cause of world peace would best be served by advocating the end of nuclear weapons worldwide as a gradual and incremental process. He elaborated that as a start, all nations of the world would need to acknowledge, by treaty or otherwise, that nuclear proliferation is a "bad" thing in the same way that every nation has officially condemned torture although some still practice it. It is hoped, he added, that this would spur the nuclear superpowers into a process of nuclear disarmament and dissuade non nuclear states from seeking to develop nuclear weapons. He stressed that this would need to be a gradual approach but could realistically could work in time.
There followed a passionate floor debate in which various issues were raised such as the practicality of disarmament, who should be in charge of who can and cannot possess nukes?, the realities of nuclear politics over the past 60 years, North Korea and doubts over the trustworthiness of dictators not to use nukes aggressively. The idea that civilian nuclear programmes should also be banned as they could easily be converted for weapons use or become a target was also discussed, as was the notion that terrorists could get hold of nuclear weapons on the black market if countries officially disarmed, but kept some nuclear weapons secretly hidden "in their back pocket".
A vote was held after a long series of discussions and the vote was cast in favour of David's proposition, followed by Mohammed's, then Chris's. It was resolved that the topic of next week's forum would be "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" following the recent controversies over religious forms of dress in Britain.
Monday 16th September 2006 saw the third Public Speaking forum of the 2006/2007 academic year. The topic of choice followed the announcement the previous week of the ascent of North Korea to the world's nuclear club. There were three speakers each presenting a different perspective on the issue; David Hewitt proposed that the status quo should be maintained, Mohammed Al Mannai spoke in favour of the idea that all nuclear weapons should be banned, and Chris Wright advocated allowing all nations of the world to have their own nuclear weapons. James Fraser acted as Chairman. Cakes present were: Chocolate Indulgence, Organic Flapjacks, French Fancies, Lemon Slices and Almond Slices (much to the delight of el Presidente!)
No vote was taken initially as it was felt that the positions of the speakers required further exposition before the audience could reach an informed decision.
David opened the discussion rather un-conventionally by presenting an audio-visial powerpoint presentation (done in the dark with candles, in glorious breach of the Guild's Health and Safety Policy in all probability!) showing the devastating consequences of the use of nuclear weapons including images of the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He argued that the status quo was desirable as the past 60 years had shown that responsible nations could use nuclear weapons as an effective deterrent, but that to allow unstable dictatorships to also gain access to nuclear weapons would destabilise this. He elaborated that while it would be desirable to get rid of nukes altogether, this was an unrealistic aspiration.
Chris continued the debate by stating that the only real way to ensure no nation could bully any other is for every nation to be afforded the opportunity to possess nuclear weapons. That way no country would ever invade another as the threat of nuclear retaliation would be too great a risk to take. To allow every country to possess nuclear weapons, he argued, would maintain peace on the basis of mutually assured destruction and would thus never need to be used and would ensure safety and security for all.
Mohammed, by contrast, took the view that the cause of world peace would best be served by advocating the end of nuclear weapons worldwide as a gradual and incremental process. He elaborated that as a start, all nations of the world would need to acknowledge, by treaty or otherwise, that nuclear proliferation is a "bad" thing in the same way that every nation has officially condemned torture although some still practice it. It is hoped, he added, that this would spur the nuclear superpowers into a process of nuclear disarmament and dissuade non nuclear states from seeking to develop nuclear weapons. He stressed that this would need to be a gradual approach but could realistically could work in time.
There followed a passionate floor debate in which various issues were raised such as the practicality of disarmament, who should be in charge of who can and cannot possess nukes?, the realities of nuclear politics over the past 60 years, North Korea and doubts over the trustworthiness of dictators not to use nukes aggressively. The idea that civilian nuclear programmes should also be banned as they could easily be converted for weapons use or become a target was also discussed, as was the notion that terrorists could get hold of nuclear weapons on the black market if countries officially disarmed, but kept some nuclear weapons secretly hidden "in their back pocket".
A vote was held after a long series of discussions and the vote was cast in favour of David's proposition, followed by Mohammed's, then Chris's. It was resolved that the topic of next week's forum would be "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" following the recent controversies over religious forms of dress in Britain.
posted by Debating and Public Speaking Society | 3:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home