# FILE NAME: 00001648.soc
# TITLE: Should there be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs? [6d52572ff3656148c1386431ae7ecad8]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - While it is an important goal to reduce the risk of warfare and bombs in general, we do not believe that a blanket ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs would be the most effective way to achieve this. Many chemicals that could potentially be used in bombs also have many other beneficial uses, and so banning them would make everyday life much more difficult. In addition, people are often resourceful, and if the desire to build a bomb is there, banning the chemicals used in bombs would simply result in the chemicals being sourced from somewhere else. There are likely to be many ways of building bombs and so we would rather address the cause of war and attempt to reduce the risk of warfare in general rather than focussing on the components of bombs.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We think there should be a ban on chemicals that are used exclusively for bomb making. This is because it will stop them being used in bombs. The ban should also be for the type of chemical rather than the exact name of the chemical. This is because, as is seen with DDT, other chemicals will be developed that are just as dangerous but aren't banned because they aren't the exact same chemical.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - There should not be a ban on all chemicals that could be used in bombs. This is because many chemicals have standard uses in life and are not harmful when used on their own. Banning all chemicals assumes that the public are dangerous and evil people- a highly pessimistic view. This ban could lead to many chemicals being banned and annoy the public and make it annoying to do standard things, such as cleaning up. If someone wants to make a bomb, a ban on chemicals will not deter them. They will instead look for chemicals from other sources. Moreover, a ban will publicise how to make a bomb using chemicals- something which people know very little about currently.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - Chemicals are a useful part of life, and banning all chemicals would make life more difficult. However, if a chemical is only used in bombs, then it should be banned. This is because it has no other use, and would not be missed by society.
2: 1,2,3,4
2: 1,3,2,4
1: 1,4,2,3