Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferati

Thank you for a timely answerFirst I want to go to framework, then go over my opponent's argumentsFor framework, I believe that they agree with our framework as there has been no contest about it. It is too late for my opponent to refute the framework if they disagree as this is Round 3 and it should have been done in Rounds 1 and 2. Continuing with framework, my opponent agreed with my Abraham Sofaer evidence. Let me read it to you. "According to Abraham Sofaer, a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Affairs and National Security Affairs at Stanford University, four criteria must be fulfilled to justify unilateral intervention. They include:1. The nature and magnitude of the threat involved;2. The likelihood that the threat will be carried out unless preemptive action is taken;3. The absence of alternatives to using force in the situation4. Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the U. N. Charter and other applicable international agreements. To show that entering a country unilaterally is justified, our opponents have the burden show you that all 4 of these criteria are met so there are no doubts on the merits of the action. "Now, my opponent says that he doesn't need to show that there are other options, just that unilateral will work. However, he needs to prive the above four to prove that unilateral action by the US is JUSTIFIED. If he doesn't prove one or more of the above, you have to vote CON. Now, lets look at the standard, "The standard, or most important issue of the debate, comes from the word justified. Judge, if we can prove that unilateral military force isn"t the correct path for our country to take, and/or there are other more viable options, then we should win this debate. " My opponent needs to prove that there are no other viable options in order to win. If he doesn't, which he has NOT DONE SO FAR, CON should win this debate. With that said, I will be going into my opponent's argumentsSo first, my opponent says that this debate is not about multi vs unilat, however, just look at the above words to see why this is false. Second, they talk about how the UN is going to fail. However, this was not my only rebuttal. There are other multilateral actions, and UN is just one of them. Some examples are US + NATO, US + EU, US + Israel, and more to name. However, multilateral sanctions by the UN HAVE worked, as stated in my first argument. My opponent's next argument is about the nuclear arms race. The Atlantic reports that Once again,there's not much evidence to support these assertions. Although a few countries have built nuclear weapons because a rival acquired them, these are the exceptions to the general rule. Of the quantitative studies done on reactive proliferation, none have found a nuclear-armed rival makes a state more likely to eveninitiate a nuclear-weapons program, much less succeed. Furthermore, as the political scientist Jacques Hymans documents in a forthcoming book, despite the diffusion of technology, nuclear aspirants have become increasingly inefficient and unsuccessful over time. It's therefore not surprising that in-depth case studies of Turkey's, Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia's nuclear prospects have found no cause for concern. Response to Turkey: Turkeyis the most capable of building nuclear weapons but alreadyhas a nuclear deterrent in the form of an estimated ninety nuclear warheads hosted on its territory for the United States. This is far more than what it is capable of producing indigenously. Additionally, it's hard to square Turkey's supposed nuclear ambitions with therecent removal of its entire stockpile of highly enriched uranium. Response to Egypt: Egypt is far less capable of building a bomb than Turkey. Indeed, it already had a dysfunctional nuclear program during the 1960s that was abandoned despite Israel, its archenemy at the time, acquiring a nuclear capability. Even before the onset of the Arab Spring, proliferation analyst Jim Walshargued it was "not likely that Egypt will seek, let alone acquire, nuclear weapons. " In the aftermath of the [Egyptian President]'s overthrow, any government in Cairo will be preoccupied with improving the lot of its people, lest it too wind up on trial. Achieving economic growth will requiresustained access to foreign capital,markets and financial assistance, none of which would be forthcoming if Cairo initiated a nuclear-weapons program. Response to Saudi Arabia: If Saudi Arabia did pursue nuclear weapons, however, it would be almost certain to fail. Even those most concerned about a Saudi bomb don't claim it can build one itself. Rather,they contend Riyadh will buy a ready-made nuclear deterrent from Pakistan. Pakistan's willingness to take this unprecedented action is based onpure speculation, past Saudi aid to Pakistan and a host ofunsubstantiated claims,most notably those made by Mohammed al-Khilewi, a Saudi diplomat at the UN who defected in 1994. In seeking to gain asylum into the United States, al-Khilewi told U. S. authorities that in exchange for financial aid, Pakistan had agreed to provide Riyadh with a nuclear deterrent should the need ever arise. Besides al-Khilewi's obvious motives for fabricating this story, it's doubtful Islamabad would uphold its end of the alleged bargain. After all, in the wake of 9/11 Washington gave Islamabad$22 billion to fight terrorism and later found Osama bin Laden living amongst Pakistan's military cadets. Furthermore, Pakistani leaders are exceedingly paranoid their nuclear arsenal would not withstand an Indian or U. S. first strike. It's therefore difficult to imagine them willingly parting with any nuclear warheads. Not only that, but Judge, if a country is proliferating, then there are other options than just attacking the country straight away. There are several factors that need to be considered at the end of the day, such as how enriched uranium will be used and the capability of weaponizing the fuel.