The use of military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's

As pro wished to clarify the positions of the argument last round, I will present my thesis now so as to avoid confusion.I. BASE THESISThe possession of a weapon of any sort is not a threat of attack. The ownership of arms is no more a direct threat to another party than the establishment of a standing army, which most countries have, without contention. Therefore, the use of force to deter this is unjustified, because it is an act of real damage and harm inflicted on one party in response to a percieved and unvalidated threat of harm by another.II. JUSTIFICATIONIt is important to designate conditions that WOULD justify military force so as to make a distinction. Military force should only be used as a last resort of self defense in international diplomacy, and restricted to militant combatants. This means that:1. There is a direct, imminent threat to the aggressor by the target.2. All other options of engagement are inviable. Economic or political sanctions cannot be enacted for whatever reason.3. Civilians are not targeted or harmed.Without these conditions filled, a military strike is either unwarranted or premature.III. INTENT OF USEThe possession of a nuclear weapon does not mean a country will use it. There are currently 9 nations currently believed to posess nuclear capabilities[1]. At least 2, India and Pakistan, have a known history of conflict and have engaged eachother in the recent past. Despite this, there have been no nuclear strikes between the two. This is because of the theory of mutually assured destruction, where no party will risk using nuclear weapons because of fear of retalliation and escalation into full nuclear warfare. Nuclear armnament is here visibly shown, even in wartime scenarios, to not result in a nuclear strike. Therefore treating any percieved threat as necessarily true is not supported.IV. ALTERNATIVE OPTIONSThe use of diplomatic means to stop the proliferation of WMDs is equally if not more effective than military action.Last year Syria, a nation which is infamous for the use of chemical weapons to annihalate dissidents, agreed to surrender its arsenal to the United Nations[2]. This agreement is largely attributed to the economic sanctions imposed on the nation by the international community, which crippled Syria's economy and drove the government to negotiation. The US has previously attempted the use of targeted strikes on sites suspected of being weapons development centers, with limited results. Military strikes in this manner can never be used in any way but reactionary in this strategy. Development can be slowed, and arsenals reduced in this manner, however without the cooperation of the target nation, these small scale operations will not stop the effort to obtain WMDs, and therefore will not halt proliferation, whereas political discourse can, and is thus the prefferable option.V. CONSEQUENCES OF MILITARY ACTIONThe Geneva Convention strictly bars military action intended to harm civilian interests as unacceptable[3]. However, civilian interests are almost guaranteed to be entangled in research and development. Military research into producing weapons grade plutonium, viral agents, or chemical agents for use in WMDs are indistinguishable from research into reactor grade uranium, gene therapy, or pharmaceudicals, respectively. The targeting of civilian research facilities in these fields are not justified, however, it would be necessary to ensure that WMDs are not being developed if a militaristic approach is adopted.Further, engaging in conflict in the modern political age will involve the allied forces to both parties. For example, North Korea, which has repeatedly threatened violence against both the US and South Korea for years, now has conducted nuclear tests and claims to have at least one weapon. Despite this, the US has not taken military action against North Korea. It is fairly well known that North Korea's communist regime relies heavily on propoganda and an image of power among its people to keep control over its populace. Regardless of their threats, Korea is aware of the consequences of beginning a nuclear war, and will not preemptively attack. However, taking military action against North Korea would draw the defense of China, its ally which has a vested interest in preventing the US from holding any political power in Asia. A conflict between the US and China is a far more serious issue, as both are world superpowers, and such a conflict would likely have a far greater effect on the world as a result in terms of economics and politics. This would cause a degree of turmoil throughout the world as a whole that would outweigh the small sense of security gained by the US, and thus be a net increase of societal danger.VI. RESPONSESAs to the points raised by pro, I will give a brief response to each now, and likely expand in round 3, which will be more rebuttal focused.1. Damage caused by a WMD is a percieved threat. The existance of a weapon does not ensure its use, and therefore any potential damage is a worst case scenario. However, direct military action has specific measurable consequences of death and destruction to the target nation, intentionally by the aggressor. It is unfair to measure the worst possible effect of a nuclear weapon against the optimal possible military insertion when it is also possible that the nuclear weapon will never be used and that any military intervention might spark a war between nations.2. The threat of mutually assured destruction, discussed earlier, has proven effective. No nuclear weapons have been used since their first implementation in WWII, despite a number of nations being in possession of them.3. The use of military force under the guise of preventative action can be used by more powerful nations to control others without open malice. Pro brings up the 9/11 attacks, however it is now understood that the second Iraq war was initiated under false pretenses[4]. Evidence in the link provided suggests this was a power play intended to manipulate the control of oil by the Middle-East. This is an example of powerful nations claiming to be policing WMDs in order to control the international dynamic.4. It is the threat of attack, not the posession of arsenal, which designates hostile nations a threat. Iran or North Korea both have threatened to attack the US in the past, and thus there can be considered justification to attack either nation, but not due WMD proliferation. It is the declared intent of malice on that would allow for military action, however, this can be considered independent of efforts to obtain WMDs because such actions would be condemned even in nations not capable of obtaining such weapons.5. WMDs are incredibly difficult to manufacture and even more difficult to properly implement in combat without advanced technology. "Non-State Actors" mentioned by pro are typically guerrila groups which lack the resources and knowledge necessary to produce such weapons. Such groups would only be able to obtain such weapons through an organized government, which would not do so for fears of A. Retalliation by the victim nation, and B. Potential treason by the group in question.6. Pro claims both that a non state actor cannot be retalliated against and that military force can be used to pre-emptively target these same groups. I would ask for some clarification on how these two are not contradictory.7. Pro's example of North Korea is one I believe I addressed earlier. North Korea is generally condemned for its inflamatory threats, however due to detterence by the threat of retallition, any threat they pose is neutralized to the point that the international community isn't particularly concerned with idle remarks. This is why the fact that North Korea boasted its first nuclear test caused little disturbance to the international community.I await Pro's next round.VII. SOURCES1. http://www.infoplease.com... 2. http://www.nti.org... 3. http://www.icrc.org... 4. http://www.globalresearch.ca...