The use of military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's

I. PRO ARGUMENTS1. WMDs are a large threat with devastating capabilities, therefore they must be treated as a threat at all times. -I conceded that the potential damage from a WMD exceeds almost anything else. My counterargument is that despite the number of WMDs existing globally, there is a very small rate of actual use, near zero for some classes of weapons. Meanwhile, while damage from counter-WMD actions are smaller, they are very more prevalent and more likely to cause damage. If you factor in the odds of damage occuring along with the severity of potential damage, I argue that more harm comes from counter WMD military actions than WMDs themselves. I believe I have supported this with explanations that modern politics deter nuclear action and that America's targeted use of the military has led to many civilian deaths. It is up to the voter to decide which of the two threats causes more damage.2. Some enemy nations are inherently malicious and always constitute a threat, so we should never allow them to obtain weapons as they will certainly use them. -My counter to this point was that the designation of malicious nations ends up in the hands of powerful military nations with the muscle to enforce their views. I explained that we have evidence, specifically the proven motivations behind the American war in the Middle East, that such authority can and will be abused to justify attacking nations for non-defensive reasons. 3. If sanctions or political action can be considered to have failed than military action is the only remaining option-My counter to this was that sanctions work better than military action and are ongoing, and so do not "fail" simply by having not worked yet. Pro claimed that there are times when political action fails and only military force can be effective. This may well be true, however it is difficult to establish what conditions constitute that. Pro did not offer any specifics on this. I presented Syria as a time when sanctions have worked in the past, even though they did not immediately work and for a while looked like a failure. In the long term, sanctions worked.4. Proliferation increases risk of non-state actors to become WMD armed-My counter to this was that it is very difficult to manufacture WMDs alone. Pro argues that certain types of weapons can be manufactured easily, even in ones home basement. However, there is no way to stop these, by military force or otherwise, because their ease of manufacture measn they will always be available no matter what. I also argued that despite the real risk, it is a violation of international law to interfere in a nations criminal justice system, and provided precedent through Edward Snowden. While the threat is real, a nation cannot go into another nations borders and tell them how to enforce the law. II. CON ARGUMENTS1. Detterence is already a viable method of preventing strikes, preventing imminent threats-Mutually assured destruction already stops the threat of WMDs being used on us. I argue that military action is only justifible in self defense, but without an imminent threat, any attack is pure aggression. Pro claims he argues only for when there is a threat, however, he does not provide a convincing argument as to why there is any such threat.2. A potential threat of attack is not alone enough to justify military action. Having a weapon is not intent to use it. -Lots of nations have WMDs, yet we do not go to war with them and they do not use their weapons. I showed the number of nations with nuclear capabilities, and many of them are our allies. Proliferation does not show an intent to attack, so it does not justify self defensive warfare.3. Non military action can stop proliferation-I gave evidence of economic sanctions working in the long term in Syria to work toward disarmnament. Military action has no track record of getting an armed nation to give up its arsenal. Military action can at best only delay such development, and therefore has little benefit, but has very real consequences. I showed that military strikes cause civilian casualties.4 Distinguishing WMD production from science is difficult or impossible--Pro disputes that this point has any relevance. Justification for attacking another nation to stop proliferation involves confirming proliferation in the first place. This is difficult or impossible to confirm because developing technologies can look like WMDs. Without sufficient evidence that WMDs are produced, there is not sufficient justification to attack. III. CLOSINGAs I have stated, the debate boils down essentially to whether the cost of taking military action is greater or less than the threat that is averted. Pro claims that because WMDs are more dangerous, the threat is higher. I argue that because the threat is unsubstantiated, the cost is higher. It remains up to the voter to read our arguments and decide who is right. I have provided specifcs to back up my points, so I believe them to be credible. Each argument made either makes the case that military action is harmful to innocent people and unnecessary/ineffective, or that WMDs are not the threat they are made out to be and that attacking a nation without proven malice does not follow from weapon acquisition.