USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation

I'll go off case. Sorry for forgetting to do round 2 tho. C1: Multilateral military force will be more effective to prevent nuclear proliferation. Multilateral force is not a better option compared to unilateral force in numerous ways: If the US were to get involved multilaterally, it would take a longer time. The US must inform the UN about their proposal, and wait for other countries to decide. Time frame is vital because nuclear weapons are proliferating right now. The sooner we respond to this issue, the better. Additionally, it would be more hassle for the US. The US would have to communicate and correlate with other countries, resulting in slow progress. Multilateral agreement will work. 1. This is not true. For example, multilateral force isn"t working in Syria. i. UN approval before using military force lacks widespread global agreement By: Bruce Stokes, Director of Global Economic Attitudes at the Pew Research Center"s Global Attitudes Project August 30, 2013 http://www.pewresearch.org... The UN Security Council failed Wednesday to reach agreement on a British-sponsored resolution authorizing "necessary measures" to protect civilians" in Syria. It was an effort to gain multilateral approval for the impending use of military force by the United States and like-minded allies against the Syrian regime of president Bashar al-Assad for its alleged use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians. If the UN can"t reach an agreement, they can"t use multilateral force, which means that it will not work in the first place especially when Syria had chemical weapons and chemical weapons banned many more nations. If the UN can't make a decision on something more drastic than chemical weapons, then there could be no way they can make their minds up on unilateral military force. C2: The United States can no longer afford to act as the world"s "policeman". The opponent talks about how we are in debt and yes I agree, we are in debt. Also with that, there is no impact in this argument. Even at 2012, we still spend most of our money on the military and a good way to put this is: It's better to use money than lose lives, because you cannot buy lives. Its better to take preventive measures than just stand there. As I have knocked down your C1, you have no alternative at all so we would just assume MAD works but, as I have stated in my Contention 1 subpoint B irrational leaders will get these nuclear weapons. As I have stated in my definitions, immediate means now and we cannot wait for multilateral force. C3: Contention 3: It is not justified because the US is not responsible enough to act as the worlds police. You give evidence on how there was almost a nuclear accident in 1961. I have 2 responses to this. 1) You're evidence is clearly outdated. You stated 1961. There is a 53 year span from then and now so unless you provide more recent evidence, we cannot see to this argument in today's round. 2) This argument is irrelevant. The resolution clearly states USA unilateral military force is the best thing to do. You state evidence about nuclear weapons from the U.S. This does not clearly refute the resolution as you are not saying why the U.S military is bad you are just saying the nuclear program is bad. You only use a weak link to saying because they had one accident, they are a bad country in everything but this link can be easily broken. You cannot assume that if they made one mistake, then they cannot govern their own country. Like I said before, please provide recent evidence refuting the resolution or saying the U.S had a nuclear accident recently. Now on to the evidence from Washington Times. It says that its hiding information about Israel and then the next evidence says they did not sign the NPT. Yes, it is true Israel did not sign the NPT, but they do have an opacity regarding its nuclear weapons program. What I am saying is, they have their own law on what nuclear weapons they should have and their laws about nuclear weapons. So they do not have to sign the NPT. The rest of your contention 2 is also irrelevant as it talks about cost and not why the USA military force is bad. It just says they buy things that they haven't used. Summary of these rebuttals. The whole time, the opposition's arguments do not specially say unilateral military force is bad. They try to give an alternative of multilateral force, but that takes too much time and it doesn't work. They only state that they can't do it but, we can still see now that the U.S is still the world police. Also, they talk about nuclear accidents, but first of all the evidence talks about 53 years ago which is a big span of time. Like I said before terrorists and countries like North Korea are getting nuclear weapons and if we don't stop them then, drastic things will happen. For these reasons, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot.