Debate: Ban on battlefield lasers
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Should lasers on the battle field be banned internationally?
|
Background and Context of Debate:
|
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Effects: Are lasers egregiously harmful to soldiers?
|
[  ] Yes
- Laser-induced blindness is severe and cannot be cured. It is clearly cruel and any victim who suffers temporary or permanent eye damage will most likely rather have been killed.
|
[ ] No
- However "cruel", laser-induced blindness is usually temporary, death is not. Given that the only other option in stopping the enemy is a bullet in the brain, battlefield lasers are still the lesser of the two evils.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] History: Does history indicate that lasers should be banned?
|
[ ] Yes
- Lasers should be banned like blinding gases were banned after WWI. "Ban cruel laser weapons' says Red Cross". New Scientist. 19 Nov. 1994 - "SEVENTY years after the spectre of soldiers blinded by gas during the First World War led to an international ban on chemical weapons, the Red Cross is campaigning for a ban on the use of battlefield lasers to blind the enemy. This time around, says Louise Doswald-Beck, a senior legal adviser to the Red Cross, it should not take a practical demonstration of the effects to convince nations that they should be banned."
|
[ ] No
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Impact on wars: Do lasers have a positive impact on the outcome of wars?
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
- Lasers are undermining military tactics. Lasers cause only temporary damage, which means more prisoners will be taken, costing countries more. Lasers weapons will allow more soldiers to return to their families and this is not the objective on the battlefield. This may lead to higher world population as well.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con resources
|
[ ] Yes
|
[ ] No
Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here
|
See also
External links and resources
|
