Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

"My opponent's first point seemed to just talk about why its a bad idea, but the question is: do we have good reasons to (Justification)? Nuclear proliferation is one of our largest threats to our security today which is in itself a perfectly good reason to use unilateral military force. We use it to fight all our other threats, so why not this one?" As pro, it is your job to assert burden of proof for your statement. I saw your assertion, and gave it a firm rebuttal, therefore showing that there is not good reason to partake in unilateral military action for the prevention of nuclear proliferation. Nuclear threats are not one of the largest threats to our security today, because such threats haven't even happened. No terrorist group has ever acquired a sufficient amount of nuclear material to make a bomb, as the only time anyone has ever illicitly acquired nuclear material was 79.5 grams of 89% enriched uranium, which isn't even weapons grade [1][2]. In fact, what should be considered a real threat to the U.S. is the possibility of another biological attack, as unlike nuclear attacks, a biological attack did occur one week after the September 11th terrorist attacks which infected 23 people, five of those people died. "His second point was on the improbability of another country being able to use these kinds of weapons. The billions of tons of TNT was an example of what these bombs can do, and now even Iran is coming into possession of them according to the New York Times and The Economist. If Iran could get them, who knows who else? We need to stop this before anyone gets a chance to uses them offensively. Again, we are also getting rid of ours so it would not be hypocritical if we got rid of these. These are not for defense either so it we are not taking away their protection either. How do I know they are not for defense? Well, next time an army is marching toward you, try firing a nuke straight at them and see what happens. Oh wait, you would be dead. Burnt to a crisp to be exact. Ah, but Iran doesn't have a nuclear warhead. In-fact, news agencies have been saying that Iran has been close to acquiring a nuclear bomb for years. According to a CBS report from over a year ago, Iran was allegedly able to get the needed material within four months, and this just isn't so even 13 months later [3]. Iran's nuclear capability has been grossly over-exaggerated. I would concur that we should not be hypocritical, and keep hostile nations from acquiring nuclear bombs, but why does do this alone when we could have the entire force of the U.N. behind us? Surely, this would look much better from a foreign relations standpoint as our unilateral approaches haven't even been liked by our own country. "Thirdly he tried to disprove that the Cuban Missile crisis was unilateral, but that is defined as common knowledge that is is. If you would like proof even though it is not needed, ask. He also used Wikipedia as his source which is terribly unreliable which makes his argument... That's right: unreliable." Where is such alleged common knowledge? I cited a letter from Khrushchev to the President of the United States showing how both sides did not want to go to nuclear war. This shows that both sides were interested in the idea of cutting down their nuclear arms, thereby causing a non-unilateral approach to nuclear non-proliferation. Also, Wikipedia is considered a legitimate source by my college professors, and as I stated, the page I cited has 169 external sources. If you wish to call that article unreliable, then you must show that those 169 sources of information are too unreliable. In conclusion, America is not justified in a unilateral approach to nuclear non-proliferation as the threat of nuclear attack on the U.S. is historically not the highest threat, Iran has yet to make a nuclear bomb, regardless of what mass media asserts, and lastly that there is historical evidence to show that even when tens of thousands of nuclear warheads are on the line, a non-unilateral approach is still feasible. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org... 3. http://www.cbsnews.com...