It would be just for the US to use military force to prevent the aquisition of nukes.

In this debate, Justice will be defined as giving each their due. Military force is the only action available and capable of deterring nations from acquiring nuclear weapons Zbigniew Brzezinski explains: "Short of a unilateral military action - the world's only superpower could not dissuade a country firmly determined to acquire nuclear weapons." So, in order to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons military force has to be used. We must, in this debate take into account the obligations of the United States. These are determined through the agreements the government has made to its people and through what international laws they have agreed to follow. If the United States doesn't follow through with its obligations, the world will end. The proliferation and acquisition of nuclear weapons would lead to extinction. Utgoff explains: "Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand." The United states has the obligation to protect the rights of it's citizens and the right to life is the most important of all rights. If we become extinct, there is obviously a violation of the right to life. If the terrorist nations in the world get a hold of nuclear weapons, they will undoubtedly use them on the United States. Vikram Dodd who was the Journalist of the year at the 2000 EMMA awards explains: "UK officials have detected "an awful lot of chatter" on jihadi websites expressing the desire to acquire chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons. Asked whether there was any doubt that al-Qaida was trying to gain the technology to attack the west, including the UK, with a nuclear weapon, a senior Foreign Office counter-terrorism official said: "No doubt at all. "The official explained: "We know the aspiration is there, we know the attempt to get material is there, we know the attempt to get technology is there." With the number of mujahid's growing every day, the threat also increases. There are millions of radical mujahid's and if they got a hold of nuclear weapons, it would be detrimental to the world. The United States has an obligation to protect its people and when a terrorist nation that will undoubtedly use nuclear arms if they get a hold of them will be a military threat to the United States. The United States is the only country that is capable of stopping this proliferation, and looking back at my observation, military force must be used. Zalmay Khalilzad, who was the 26th Unites States ambassador to the UN writes: A world in which the United States exercises leadership would have a better chance of dealing with nuclear proliferation, renegade states, and low-level conflicts. U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the world to avoid another global war and global nuclear exchange. So, the United States is the country to stop this proliferation and acquisition and it would increase our hegemony to do so. Increasing our hegemony would create a forced peace, not extinction, and as no country is strong enough to oppose us, it would fulfill the obligations of the United States because its main obligation is to protect the rights of its citizens. Because the United States has the obligation to protect the right to life, which is the first and foremost right, it then has the obligation to get rid of the thing that will take it away–and the United States is the only country capable of ending the acquisition and proliferation and nothing but military force will work, you must vote pro.