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

I believe that in the proper circumstances Unilateral military force by the United States would be justifiable to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons. If all multilateral and bilateral efforts are unable to prevent a volatile country from acquiring and pursuing nuclear weaponry, then I believe that the US should do whatever is necessary to stop them. With that being said, i believe that unilateral action requires a declaration of war through congress and an extremely thorough, public and independent investigation to determine if the intelligence is credible and conclusive. In my personal opinion i believe it is constitutionally illegal for a president to start wars through executive order, and this power should be removed at all costs. In this new age of technological advancement and innovation, it is absolutely essential that the international community do everything within their power to ban and attempt to destroy nuclear arsenals. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty should be expanded to not only prevent vertical and horizontal proliferation but also to destroy existing arsenals. If the proper steps are taken to foster enough trust and diminish the realist paranoia around the world, then i believe global nuclear disarmament is a real possibility. However, until the process of nuclear disarmament becomes a reality, I believe that nations should do WHATEVER is necessary to stop other nations, especially those in regions of constant conflict and radicalism, from obtaining nuclear centrifuges. Imagine the scenario where the public finds out that Iran has finally acquired the technology to arm nuclear ballistic missiles. This revelation would lead to a cold-war like nuclear proliferation race throughout the entire region (the Sunni governments would without a doubt recognize their lack of leverage without the weapons). Once the Sunni governments have a hold of the technology there would be nothing stopping them from handing over a dirty bomb to an extremist terrorist network to set off in any country in the world. This is especially risky for the United States because they would be one of the primary targets. Although this scenario is just speculation we have seen time and time again that the Sunni governments in places like Saudi Arabia are the primary financiers and supporters of groups like Al Qaeda. Now I know that I said that the international community should do whatever they can to stop nuclear proliferation, but in the climate of geopolitics and the way the united nations is structured (UNSC system), there will undoubtedly be situations where a consensus cannot be reached due to conflicting interests. So in a situation where the UN fails, the only other option is to act without the approval of the international community. Now while the discussion is about unilateral action, i believe it is more accurate to call it multilateral action, because whenever the United States decides to act alone, they will almost always have the support of their allied countries. In the case that their allies (such as Britain, France, Canada, etc.) decide to condemn their actions, then chances are the American government is trying to intervene not because of irrefutable evidence of proliferation of WMDs but rather on manufactured evidence to achieve a political agenda (Such as the Iraq war). I am not advocating unilateral action in that scenario. I am saying that there if there is ABSOLUTELY irrefutable proof that a country such as lebanon or Iran are building nuclear reactors and also are developing a nuclear weapons program, than it is without a doubt justifiable for a country with the resources and strength of the US to intervene to prevent it.