PRO Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation Before I introduce my main

points I would first like to go over some key vocab. Only twice in the Earths history has man been witness to the tremendous and awful power of nuclear bombs dropped in populated areas. The two bombs dropped in Japan effectively ended the Pacifics engagement in World War II, but the age of nuclear threats was just beginning. Though the first to discover and test the technology, the United States certainly wasnt the last. Russia then the UK, France and then China, and those are just the countries who signed the non-proliferation treaty. Then, entering the nuclear fray was India then Pakistan . . . and now the list extends to Iran and North Korea. Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation for the three following reasons: because it is the right thing to do, because we can, and because, if we do not, the result may be global annihilation.

When is someone or a country justified in its actions? When the act was the right thing to do. We need only look to the worlds paralysis as a despotic leader slaughters his own people inhumanely using chemical weapons. The worlds leaders are standing idly by as women and children, exposed to nerve gasses, suffocate and die in the streets of Syria. Prime Minister Cameron wanted to intervene only to be voted down by parliament. Likewise, Obama wants to prevent further attacks and has called for Congress to act. Unilateral action by the United States is always justified if it is the right thing to do. If Syria had nuclear weapons and was increasing armaments and weaponry, then, no doubt, the United States would be justified to prevent such proliferation even without the aid, agreement or consent of other nations simply because it would be necessary for humanity and

thus fundamentally right. Aside from Syria, even the new president of Iran (Rouhani) recently conceded that Iranian proliferation would destabilize the region, would start an arms race, and would be bad for Irans economy, particularly noting the United States support of Israel (Hassan, Time, 2006). Second, unilateral military force by the United States is justified because preventing global catastrophe is a moral imperative if we have the capability and the information. Again, when is someone justified in his or her actions? When he or she is free of blame. Does anyone blame the United States for the 400,000 American soldiers who died to prevent Nazi domination in Europe and stop the genocide of the Jewish people? And yes, during World War II, numerous nations were involved in the fight, but the battle against nuclear proliferation is very different. This is not a land-based conflict with an occupying nation. Such conflicts spur nations to action. The construction of deadly weapons in an underground bunker in some out of the way location on the globe does not exactly rally the troops. But is it every bit as dangerous to our way life? Not every country is able to mount a targeted attack to prevent nuclear proliferation. Not every country has our resources, our technology, and our manpower. For instance, preventive use of military force against Iran would effectively neutralize their nuclear assets. According to Luttwak, author & senior adviser Center Strategic & International Studies in 2006 (Edward; Commentary; 121:5; May; Three reasons not to bomb Iran- yet), said, The fact is that the targets would not be buildings as such but rather processes, and, given the aiming information now available, they could indeed be interrupted in lasting ways by a single night of bombing. An air attack is not a demolition contract, and in this case it could succeed while inflicting relatively little physical damage and no offsite casualties. To expect other countries to join us when they are not capable is unrealistic. To hope that other countries join us when politics intervene is dangerous. The

United States must act and would be justified to prevent nuclear proliferations. Finally, unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation because the good of preventing nuclear proliferation, which could result in catastrophic global warfare and the possible annihilation of humanity, will always outweigh the negative. Lets examine hostile nations with nuclear capabilities. North Korea has engaged in tests and has unknown number of gulags or concentration camp-like prisons where alleged citizen dissenters die in shameful conditions. Pakistan possesses weapons, and the United States has alienated itself from Pakistan after unauthorized drone strikes and the capture of Osama bin Laden. Iran, an Islamic theocracy, spouts anti-western rhetoric and continues to defy global cries for nuclear monitoring. According to Kroenig, a professor of government at Georgetown, Proliferation in North Korea or Iran would create a cascade of new nuclear states (09 Matthew; Working Paper 2009-14; Beyond optimism and pessimism: the differential effects of nuclear proliferation; November). If any one of these countries is found to be building functional nuclear weapons, then the United States even alone must use force and would be justified to use force because the risk is just too great.

Technology moves at a rapid pace. And, in most cases, technology has greatly benefited the human race. One may even argue that the advent of nuclear fission resulted a relatively cheap and an emission-free power source, thus benefitting humanity. However, the awesome power of nuclear bombs with the two that have been dropped in warfare killing over 200,000 people is incredibly destructive. To find in favor of the pro team, you need only find that the United States alone is justified in using military force to prevent nuclear proliferation. We believe this country is justified when the benefits so outweigh the risks. Nothing strikes fear like the image of the mushroom cloud, and nothing will cause so much

devastation as allowing unstable nations to possess and grow their nuclear arsenal without United States intervention.