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

The crux of my opponent's argument is that the United States is justified in preempting the spread of nuclear arms because of the chance of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and dictators. I am going to show why neither of these things is a big worry for the status of nuclear arms in the world. 1. Dictators Everyone believes that dictators are more unstable or unpredictable than democracies or accepted nations but this is a misconception. Dictators have the same incentives as democracies to act within a rational action model. Dictators still act under the threat of massive retaliation by global powers for use of nuclear weapons same as any nation. The idea that they would somehow misuse their nuclear weapons because they are not a democratic force is inaccurate. In fact, Kim Jong-Un, while a brutal dictator, has been labeled a ration actor [1]. He can be expected to act in similar ways to the United States, China, Israel etc. There is no reason to proclaim some countries better than others because you disagree with their government type. Again, despite some proliferation and an increase in the number of nuclear nations increasing over the years no country has used a nuclear weapon and there has not even been a credible threat to use of nuclear weapons by any nation. Just blindly declaring dictators unstable as a reason to preempt the spread of nuclear weapons is a weak argument. Dictators don't want to face the threat of massive nuclear or conventional retaliation. No country does which is why the threat of nuclear weapons is so successful in creating peace. Also, the threat of retaliation is more comprehensive than my opponent has let on. Due to the United State's nuclear umbrella the credible deterrent threat of nuclear retaliation is spread across most of the globe [2]. With the United State's and their allies the presence of a credible deterrence is not only widespread but effective. The increase of the presence of nuclear weapons can only add to this effective nuclear peace. Dictators or not. Countries have no incentive to act in an irrational matter. 2. Terrorists My opponent seems to think that a free market in nuclear weapons would supply terrorists with nuclear weapons but such a claim is completely unfounded and paranoid. Like other weapons of destructive potential such as heavy missiles, fighter planes, war ships, tanks etc. there is a lot that goes into the creation, handling and deployment of a nuclear weapon. Terrorists have not obtained fighter planes, tanks or other heavy war equipment because a) countries rationally guard them jealously and b) it takes a lot to operate and maintain such weapons. Terrorists don't have these capabilities. My opponent tried to use a shock value argument by giving stats about a 150 KILOTON nuclear bomb detonating in New York City. The Fat Man bomb that detonated over Japan in 1945 was only 10 kilotons [3] which means my opponent is supposing a terrorist organization could both assemble a bomb 15 times bigger than the one dropped on Japan, get the ~100 pounds of plutonium needed [3] and then get it to New York City and detonate it. It's a completely unrealistic situation. The transport and collection of 100 pounds of plutonium seems to be outside of the ability of terrorists groups alone much less assembling a working bomb which isn't as easy as it sounds. Most nuclear weapons have a large chance of "fizzling" if not assembled and executed correctly [4]. Considering these are the same people who could not detonate an underwear bomb after it was already on a plane, I think the likelihood of terrorists obtaining and assembling and transporting nuclear weapons and materials successfully is remarkably small. Nations such as the aforementioned Iran have no incentive to give nuclear materials to terrorist groups. If such a transaction was traced by rival nations they would prompt a potential military retaliation. My opponent forgets that the majority of terrorism in the Middle East is not focused on the United States but is rather Sunni vs. Shia tensions. Spreading nuclear material through terrorist groups has a chance of causing an unfavorable situation for the nation that spreads them. Terrorist groups aren't loyal to any nation and despite your geopolitical loyalties there is no guarantee that spreading nuclear weapons won't hurt your own country. Therefore, no country has an incentive to spread nuclear weapons to non state actors. The incentive just isn't there. It's an irrational move. States have an incentive to guard and protect their nuclear weapons. Pakistan has protected their nuclear weapons besides their anti-US leanings and political instability because it is too dangerous to not protect such weapons. The arguments about the history and effectiveness of preemption is superfluous and distracting because I am arguing that it is unjust. The justness of nuclear preemption is independent from the success of past preemption because past preemption was also unnecessary and unjust. The two primary concerns for my opponent were dictators and terrorists. I have shown that these two groups of people are feared irrationally. In order for something to be "just" it has to be done for legitimate reason. In order to preempt the spread of nuclear weapons there must be a legitimate reason for doing so however there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for doing so. History is on the side of proliferation. Nuclear peace is a theory that has not been given a serious intellectual challenge by theorists or my opponent. The only two avenues left were terrorists and dictators who have been shown to be trumped up threats and not truly legitimate. - Nuclear deterrence works. It is widespread and credible. - Dictators are rational actors and act within rational means. There is no incentive for dictators to act outside of this model and risk retaliation. - Terrorists don't have the means to acquire and deploy nuclear materials. - Nations don't have any incentive to share nuclear weapons with terror groups or non state actors. Therefore, as nuclear deterrence and nuclear peace is a time tested success and dictators and terrorists are not a legitimate threat to national security when concerning nuclear weapons the preemption of the spread of nuclear weapons is not just. [1] http://news.softpedia.com... [2] http://nwp.ilpi.org... [3] http://www.atomicheritage.org... [4] http://www.unmuseum.org...