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

Glad to be competing with you ! Hopefully we will have a great debate. =====================================================================================Before I explain my arguments/contentions, I will talk about the burden of proof and then recap what the opponent has accepted. BURDEN OF PROOF:As the "pro" debater for this resolution, I will prove why military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's. I will argue that military force is justified under certain circumstances. The "con" debater for this resolution must prove why military force cannot be justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's. Because of the way in which I structured the resolution, the con must show why military force is not good and why it is not justified even in certain circumstances. This debate is NOT about whether the proliferation of WMD's is good. It is about military force and whether it is justified. I urge the voters and opponent to keep this in mind. RECAP:The opponent has accepted all of the definitions put forth by me and has elaborated on the definition of justification to include not only impact on a nation but also impact on world. Bear in mind that as the opponent accepted my definitions:1) He has accepted that WMD's are specifically weapons (and not just nuclear technology). This will prove to be important later on in the debate.2) He has accepted the definition of justification - which states that military force is justified under certain circumstances. This will also prove to be important later on in the debate3) I defined justified with regards to a net decrease in societal danger, so when the opponent expanded the definition to include impact on multiple nations (world) - I am at liberty to use this definition if I wish to do so. ===============================================================I will now proceed to explain my arguments. POINTS OF ARGUMENT:1) The damage caused by military force is far less than the potential damage of WMD's. WMD's also known as weapons of mass destruction are terrifying for a good reason. They are usedbecause they result in HUGE casualties. Not thousands, rather hundreds of thousands and this is precisely why they are so terrifying. The Hiroshima bombing in 1945 alone resulted in an estimated 135,000 deaths and this is just ONE instance. However it's not just this, the effects of WMD's are so much more devastating than conventional warfare. It results in the COMPLETE annihilation of whole cities, has long term effects on health such as radiation poisoning and lasting economic impact. This is limited not just to nuclear weaponry by also chemical and biological warfare. Having established it's destructive potential, it becomes apparent that the proliferation of WMD's presents serious threats to global security. This is where military force is required. Military force tactics such as airstrikes, special operations and surgical insertions are methods of engagement that are able to prevent/hamper the proliferation of WMD's. The real question now is "Why should military forces intervene" ? . The response is fairly simple. It is their duty to do so. Every military force aims to defend its citizens and nation from threat, whether this threat is global or local and when the threat is that of WMD's, there is a clear reason for militaries to take action to protect its nation. After the 9/11 attacks, under president Bush, the US and NATO intervened in the Afghan war in an attempt to depose the Taliban. Having been victims of a previous attack, the US utilized military force to attack the perpetrators (Taliban). Even in cases where WMD's are not a threat - nations have the need to protect their citizens. So when nations are faced with threats of WMD's, military warfare can well be utilized. With regards to my 1st contention and my definition of justified, I argue that military force is justified under certain circumstances. If a nation like Iran (who hold WMD's) threatens to use WMD's on other nations then the first attempt by countries and international bodies are negotiations. But negotiations do not always work out, so countries may proceed to impose hardline sanctions. Sanctions not only fail to prevent the possession of WMD's but they can also harm the prospects of a developing nation (which is one of the opponent's arguments). In the certain circumstances wherein these 2 fail, military force can be justified. Military force is a faster approach that can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Now while I acknowledge that military force often results in collateral damage (civilian casualties), it is crucial to understand that the potential damage of WMD's far outweighs the potential collateral damage of military intervention. This is because of the fact that militaries use conventional warfare means which have FAR less impact than WMD's. In fact special operations and airstrikes generally have low collateral damage. Testament to this is the Navy seal operation in which Osama bin laden was killed, resulted in only 5 deaths (collateral damage). When you talk about losing 1000 lives in order to save 100,000 lives then there is an inherent justification. It is important to understand that military force against WMD's not only protects one nation but it also protects global security thereby re-affirming it's importance.2) Further proliferation increases the risk that non-state actors are able to gain possession of WMD's. As mentioned earlier, my definition of proliferation not only extends itself to the creation of WMD's but also to the trade and possession. For this reason, it is important to consider the risk involved when non-state actors get their hands on WMD's. Non-state actors refer to any organization that "lacks a border" and cannot be retaliated against. A clear example would be terrorist groups such as the Taliban or Al Qaeda who do NOT have a border. My opponent has mentioned that he will not argue this because he feels that my 2nd definition limits itself to legitimate nations only. This is an incorrect assumption because there is no method of discerning what a "legitimate" nation is. Furthermore, these non-state actors are present WITHIN these nations, so if proliferation occurs WITHIN these nations then non-state actors can get their hands on WMD's. For this reasons, my opponent must consider non-state actors as a risk involved. Now if proliferation takes place in say developing nations - there is always the risk that non-state actors like Al Qaeda could get their hands on WMD's. Imagine the threat nations would face if Al Qaeda had a nuclear warhead. Firstly groups like Al Qaeda are irrational in nature, methods such as negotiation is almost certainly a failure. Secondly, in case of where a COUNTRY possessed nukes, a nuclear strike by one country would cause a retalitory strike by another but in case of groups like Al Qaeda where there is no defined border or state - retalitory attacks are not possible. For this reason, military force (such as spec ops) must be used not just to prevent large destruction but also to prevent the possession of WMD's by non-state actors. Military force can be used to specifically target non-state actors whereas sanctions and negotiations cannot.3) Increased proliferation increases brinkmanship which calls for military force. To help put this into context, let me explain what brinkmanship is. Let us say there are 100 rational countries and 1 irrational country. If this 1 country possesses WMD's and threatens to use it, then it forces the remaining 100 states to comply with their demands and this leads to WMD intimidation (bullying if you like to call it that) and a decrease in global security. In more formal terms, it is the "practice of pushing dangerous events to the brink of disaster in order to achieve the most advantageous outcome". We have seen this happen with North Korea - a state that has been making WMD threats and refusing to co-operate with other nations. While there is not much that can be done when a nation utilizes brinkmanship, military force can prevent the proliferation of weapons and therefore prevent further brinkmanship. As the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch and that is precisely the case. If need be, I shall elaborate on this contention further on in the debate. ===============================================================Having explained my contentions, I will go on to rebutt one of the opponent's points (I will rebutt the rest in Round 3). COUNTER ARGUMENTS:A) Deterrance argument:The deterrance argument is a very common argument. The simple logic behind those who propose the argument is that - if a few countries have WMD's, let other countries also have WMD's in order to "protect" themselves. Firstly, in my BURDEN OF PROOF, I have clearly mentioned that this debate is NOT about whether proliferation is good but instead it is about whether military force is justified. The opponent needs to recognize this because his deterrance argument not only argues wrongly about the "proliferation being good" but it also does not contest the "use of military force and the justification". Anyway, I shall explain my rebuttal. First of all world superpowers refuse "total disarmament", so should other countries be allowed to pursue these weapons ? No. Understand that the idea of "fairness" is bleak in the face of WMD's. It is either let everyone have WMD's or let no one have WMD's. If you consider developing nations and nations ruled by dictators then there are a set of problems that come with proliferation.1. These developing nations expend money in order to maintain and purchase WMD's. This is money that could easily be used elsewhere for greater benefit2. If such nations possess WMD's, then there must be constant monitoring.3. These nations tend to be more irrational which threatens overall global security. I will post my sources in Round 4.