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

I thank the con for what has so far been an excellent debate.=============================================================RECAP:Let us take a look at the opponents main points and responses.1) He has said that you cannot attack a perceived threat because that involves damage from one party without validation from another.2) Simply acquiring weapons does not means that it will be used and so you cannot attack3) Alternative options work - he gave the example of Syrian sanctions as an example of where sanctions worked.4) Engaging in military force draws the attention of allies which worsens the situation5) WMD's are difficult to use and manufacture and so there is no threat of non-state actors acquiring WMD's.6) Clarification on how military force and retatliation are different.===============================================================I will now proceed to rebutt his points1. Clearing the topic > rebutting the point about acquring weapons and not using themI will emphasize again that this is not about proliferation of WMD's rather about military force.Anyway, this argument of the opponents is quite simple, he says that you shouldn't attack a nation if they acquire nuclear weapons because there is no guarantee that they will use them.But I will raise the question, "What if the acquisition of WMD's itself posed a threat" ?If a country is to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or WMD's then it has to maintain these weapons and it needs to test these weapons for otherwise there is no point in simply holding onto weapons.Even carrying out a nuclear weapon test can be perceived as a threat because of issues regarding radioactive fall out and unauthorized weapons testing.When the US and UN imposed sanctions on North Korea for simply carrrying out nuclear weapons testing - was it fair ? They did it because they recognized that this is a threat in itself.Now I will clear up 2 things:- I acknowledge that attack should most definitely be used when there is a threat.This is precisely what my term "justified" means. It means under certain circumstances.These circumstances refer to when there is a threat. Read the resolution as: Military force is acceptable in certain circumstances (when there is a threat) to prevent the proliferation of WMD's.Con went by the assumption that this military force is simply used for any nation possesing WMD's but this is not the case at all. So his argument of attacking nations simply because they possess weapons is false, because under my definition of justified, nations are attacked in fact only when they are perceived as threats.2. Rebutting point about not attacking a nation even if they are a perceived threat.This argument I feel is the most flawed one. It basically says that we should not attack a nation with WMD's unless the nation uses them.I think that the opposition has missed the inherent goal of protection and prevention. Prevention is stopping something before it takes place. It is NOT action that takes place once something occurs.Let us take a situation. A man with a gun threatens to shoot a child, as a cop - do you shoot him to prevent the loss of the child's life (after giving the man enough warnings) ? or do you wait for him to shoot the child and then take action ?This is the same case with WMD's. If a nation is a threat and continues to possess WMD's even after multiple warnings and sanctions, then action must take place - rather than waiting for a nation to use WMD's and then attacking them.For this reason, I believe his point is flawed.3. Rebutting the point about Alternative options and sanctions.Now the opponent has provided an example of where sanctions have worked by using the example of Syria. However, sanctions do not always work out - take for instance the previous example of north korea. When the US and UN imposed sanctions on NK - they still went ahead to carry out nuclear tests. This shows how sometimes sanctions fail to work out. Anyhow, remember that I am talking about military force being justified when sanctions and other options fail. The opponent must consider this.4. Rebutting the point about WMD's being difficult to manufacture and use.I can acknowledge that to a certain extent WMD's are difficult to manufacture and use, however that does not guarantee that they cannot be acquired. In fact, one notable example was the 1995 tokyo subway attacks carried out using chemical weapons (Sarin gas) by the Aum Shinrikyo, Japanese cult group. This example demonstrates how non-state actors CAN get their hands on WMD's. To say that it is difficult does not in any way negate the threat.5. Rebutting the point about engaging forces would involve allies.My opponent cited that if the US were to attack North Korea - then China would get involved leading to more conflict. While China and North Korea do have a firm relationship - China have themselves declared that peace can be achieved only be de-nuclearization. While allies may get involved - being superpowers they would recognize the de-merits of being at war with each other, so really - the threat of increased conflict is unlikely.6. Clarification on how military force and retaliation are different.I used the example of Al Qaeda launching a nuclear strike on a nation A. Now since Al Qaeda does not have a defined border - I said that the Nation A cannot retaliate back with WMD's because that would mean targeting the whole nation Al Qaeda is based in. On the contrary - I mentioned that military force can be spec ops missions (for instance the US attack on Bin Laden in pakistan). Military force is different from retaliation in the sense that it CAN target non-state actors whereas retaliation (by use of WMD's) cannot.Apologies, if this was not clear to the opponent.==============================================================I hope the opponent continues to meet the burden of proof and rebutt my contentions as well.I look forward to a good debate.