The US is justified in preempting the spread of nuclear arms.

Deterrence Con says a policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) worked between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, and among other major powers. Con did not address the reasons I gave for it not being reliable in the future. MAD requires: The power first using the weapon to believe they will be identified and located. The power first using the weapon to believe the other side will retaliate. The power first using the weapon to fear potential destruction. Those conditions have been met in the past, and there are cases where they would be met in the future. For example, if Japan chose to acquire nuclear weapons in the face of North Korean demands for bribes it might well decrease the likelihood of a nuclear attack. The North Koreans might believe that the U.S. would never actually retaliate, while the Japanese would. A rational actor like the Soviets worries a great deal about the risk of nuclear destruction. However, we now have jihadists on the world stage who believe their place in heaven is secured by suicide bombing. The leadership of Iran says that Armageddon will usher in the 12th Imam who will lead radical Islam to world domination. They are probably just posturing to impress allies and opponents, but that is not a safe assumption. The Middle East is full of nutcase jihadists who really believe they will get their 72 virgins by killing everything in sight, including themselves. With an unstable undemocratic regime in Iran, there is significant risk that such a person could come to power. If the resolution is adopted, we must suppose that unstable regimes like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, or Yemen might also obtain nuclear weapons and come under jihadist rule. Short of anticipating suicide, a leader may miscalculate the risks involved. According to the UN, Kim Jung Un, the boy wonder of the tyrant world, is currently diverting $600 million from his impoverished nation to support his indulgent lifestyle. [14. [http://english.chosun.com...] Kim has only two large sources of money: bribes extracted from other countries and sales of nuclear weapons technology. If cash gets tight, he might decide that selling a nuke to jihadists would be an acceptable risk, or he might demonstrate a nuclear strike on some isolated Japanese Island to boost enthusiasm for paying protection money, in the belief that retaliation would not be triggered. Iran, having acquired nuclear weapons, may calculate that nuclear weapons are then off the table. They may then feel safe in carrying out their promise of destroying Israel using conventional arms. It does not require belief in jihad, just a willingness to accept higher risk. With no restrictions on nuclear weapon production and sale, we can expect a free market to develop for the weapons. Suppose that al Qaeda acquires a weapon and takes out New York City. They might get the weapon from Hamas who got it from Iran, or maybe it came from North Korea who sold it to Egypt who sold it to the Muslim Brotherhood. MAD works poorly in those circumstances. Al Qaeda delivered the weapon, but they are a franchised operations worldwide, so there is no apparent target of retaliation. Nukes may eventually be available on a roadside stand between Tehran and Damascus. Who in the chain of sales should be the subject of retaliation, assuming that the chain of sales could even be discovered? Keep in mind that under the resolution, US policy is not interfere in the market for nuclear arms. National sovereignty Con supposes that a small nation might need to sell nuclear materials for it's well-being, and if that means New York City gets nuked, the economics must nonetheless prevail. That's obviously wrong in the primary assumption that economic well-being trumps self-defense against nuclear attack. Part of Con's argument is that the U.S. has traditional pursued it's economic self-interest over the rights of other nations, and that's evil. But wait, Con is arguing that the economic self-interest of small nations ought to prevail over the human right's interests of the United States. He cannot have it both ways, either economic self-interest is above all else or it is not. I'm firmly on the side of placing self-defense above economic interests. If the US has placed it's economic interests above the self-preservation of others, that's wrong. (Whether that's the case is another debate.) Similarly, small nations don't have the right to aid murdering large ones for economic reasons. The hypothetical is also wrong because the conceived dilemma does not actually exist. There is a large and expanding market for nuclear materials to fuel nuclear power plants [15.http://tinyurl.com...], so excluding the weapons market is not going to do any significant harm. In fact, the preferred method for the U.S. to preempt use of nuclear materials is to buy them from the producing country. That was done to absorb the left-over Soviet materials. History of Preemption Con ignored the important case of preemption that succeeded in securing the nuclear materials left over by the Soviets. I think it is absurd to suppose the U.S. should have stayed out of it and let the materials be sold off to terrorists. Con must argue why that would be better than US preemption. Currently forty nations are capable of producing nuclear weapons, but have not done so. That is because the US has used preemption to minimize the spread of nuclear weapons. One mechanism is to enter into alliances where the US provides the nuclear deterrent. That's worked well. Con argues that because no nuclear weapons were found in Iraq, we should just assume that none exist anywhere. Interviews with the captured Saddam by FBI agent George Piro revealed that Saddam had visions of developing nuclear weapons. [16. http://tinyurl.com...] The intelligence agencies of the US, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, and Russia all thought he had an active nuclear weapons program. Saddam wanted to keep Iran under the impression he had WMDs.[17. http://tinyurl.com...] The FBI interrogations of the toppled tyrant - codename "Desert Spider" - were declassified after a Freedom of Information Act request. ... The records show Saddam happily boasted of duping the world about stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. [18.http://tinyurl.com...] Saddam's idea was that the nuclear (and other WMD) story would deter Iran from invading. Saddam firmly believed that the US would never invade. [19. http://tinyurl.com...] The US invasion was only partly to preempt nuclear weapons. Saddam had amassed a million tons of conventional weapons and announced plans to rule the Arabian Peninsula, had killed about a quarter million Iraqi's to keep authoritarian rule, was in violation of UN resolutions, and was actively attempting to shoot down US airplanes. When a ruthless dictator claims to be developing nuclear weapons, shows brutally aggressive behavior, and announces plans to take over US allies, preemption is justified. North Korea developed nuclear weapons because the US decided not to carry out a program of preemption. The world would be a better place had the US chosen to preempt them. The US did not succeed in preempting Pakistan because China defeated the controls. "China played a major role in the development of Pakistan's nuclear infrastructure, especially when increasingly stringent export controls in western countries made it difficult for Pakistan to acquire materials and technology elsewhere." [20. https://www.fas.org...] If Pakistan maintains a stable government, MAD will work. Summary We are debating whether US preemption is justified. Preemption is justified even if it is not completely successful because it lowers the risk of nuclear weapons coming into the possession of jihadists or foolish risk-taking dictators. Nuclear weapons are not comparable to markets for ordinary commodities because nuclear weapons they have unique destructive potential.