Military force should be used in a conflict if peace can not be achieved rapidly.

Interpretation of Resolution: 1) "Non-lethal military force" (NLMF) is interpreted as military force that relies heavily on the use of non-lethal weapons. 2) The Resolution is to be evaluated in terms of real-world implementation at the State level. That is, when Pro says "A third party could intervene in this situation and arrest fighters from both sides and confiscate weapons," this is equivalent to "State X will use its military to arrest fighters from both sides etc." 3) Pro advocates for a) the use of NLMF b) to confiscate all weapons involved c) and arrange for a local referendum on the country's governance that is free of third party influence. 4) In advocating for b) and c), Pro is only advocating for a course of action. Pro may not assume that b) will successfully occur or that itis possible to establish sufficient security for c) to occur. These assumptions would remove the debate from the real world and leave me no ground to argue. Non-Violence: A) Use of NLMF does not preclude the use of traditional weapons of war, serious injury, or fatalities. U.S. policy on non-lethal weapons (NLW) affirms this [1]: "Non-lethal weapons may be used in conjunction with lethal weapon systems to enhance the latter's effectiveness and efficiency in military operations. This shall apply across the range of military operations to include those situations where overwhelming force is employed." "Non-lethal weapons shall not be required to have a zero probability of producing fatalities or permanent injuries." The use of NLMF is therefore inherently a choice to use violence as a solution to a political conflict. B) The idea that the use of violence is a solution to the problem of violence is a myth. Any apparent resolution of violent conflict by the application of violence is just that - appearance. Embracing the use of NLMF as a solution to political conflict is a resignation to the illusion that violence is the only answer to human conflict, perpetuating the cycle of human violence. Regardless of the political outcome of a violent conflict, the ultimate result is the same: the use of violence is reaffirmed as the ultimate and inevitable solution to political conflict. Political disagreement is then reduced to a power game in which the side with superior military force determines the outcome of a conflict. C) In a nuclear world, the cycle of violence has stakes on par with extinction. History bears out that relatively small conflicts often escalate to much larger acts of violence. Historically, the assassination of Franz Ferdinand triggered the start of WW1, resulting in the death of 16 million people. Recently, attacks of the U.S. on 9/11 resulted in the War in Iraq, the War in Afghanistan, and repeated aerial drone raids in Pakistan. The presence of a global nuclear arsenal places a limit on the escalation of conflict. Should a conflict escalate to the point of nuclear conflict, the result could be extinction of humanity. NLMF, as an endorsement of violence as a solution to conflict, not only creates opportunity for escalation in each individual conflict it is employed in but also normalizes the use of violence, ensuring that violence will continue to be used as a solution to political conflict and making escalation a virtual certainty. NLMF supports the construction of conflict as a game of power and ensures that future conflict will be viewed as such and therefore approached with a violent solution. D) An alternative to violence exists in Civil Disobedience (CD) and Nonviolence (NV). Both methods have proven success in the gain of independence of India, the civil rights movement in the U.S., and the People Power Movement that removed the authoritarian Ferdinand Marcos from power in the Philipines. The 20th century provides countless empirical examples of the viability of CD and NV as tools to effect political change [2]. Furthermore, CD/NV can be utilized effectively to resist military forces. Peace activism led to U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, the 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty, and prevented military intervention in Nicaragua by the Reagan administration [3]. Additionally, non-cooperation can cripple the infrastructure of an occupying force. The teacher's resistance during Nazi occupation of Norway completely blocked attempts to establish a school system designed to support Nazi principles [4]. More importantly, the advocacy of CD and NV prevent the perpetuation of an inevitable cycle of violence and delegitimizes all use of violence. Only by embracing a categorical condemnation of violence can we hope to escape a future of war and nuclear annihilation, a future made inevitable by the continued use of violence as a tool for political change. Whereas the use of violence turns conflict into a game of forceful control, CD and NV expose conflict as an inherently oppressive activity. Rather than responding to violence with more violence, CD/NV responds to violence with behavior that forces reflection on the oppressive nature of the violence being inflicted. The U.S. Civil Rights movement centered around marches and protests against overt acts of discrimination. This forced U.S. society to look at its collective conscience and instigated widespread social change. [1] https://www.jnlwp.usmc.mil... [2] A Force More Powerful: A Century of Nonviolent Conflict. Ackerman et al, 2000. [3]http://www.globalpolicy.org... [4]http://www.salsa.net...