Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

We are all aware that there is a McDonalds in about every city in the world. Imagine if for every other one, there was a nuclear weapon in the world. According to McDonalds, that would be a lie. There are actually even MORE nuclear weapons than that. I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation. First I would like to define a few terms: Unilateral Military force: Force or action preformed or supported by the armed forces of only one country. Justified: Decision, action, or idea that is good, reasonable, and acceptable Nuclear Proliferation: The spread of nuclear weapons or ability to make them. My three contentions are nuclear proliferation is a threat today, nuclear weapons should not be able to be used, and we can stop wars and violence. My first contention is nuclear proliferation is a threat. There are over 17000 nuclear weapons in the world today. These are not in just large powerful nations such as the US or Russia though. They are spreading rapidly and causing more of a threat. The International Atomic Energy Agency predicts even Iran and North Korea are coming into possession of them in less than 10 months. This just shows how nuclear proliferation can happen anywhere. This is a dangerous situation to not act against. This is the weapon that the first two built destroyed an entire city. Now there is not one, two, but 9 main nuclear weapon countries holding a total of over 17,000 warheads that have many enemies including each other. At least 5 of these at this moment could destroy the world many times over. The President calls nuclear proliferation "the single biggest threat to U. S. Security, both short-term, medium-term, and long-term. " We unilaterally fight our own problems in regard to our security every day such as cyber threats, economy threats, and military threats. If we are justified to unilaterally prevent these threats, then what changes that fact when we face our largest threat? My second contention is nuclear weapons should not be able to be used. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous to anyone threatened to be attacked by them which we proved many are so. These are weapons that have in the past, told by PBS, had the power of 33 BILLION pounds of TNT. According to a New York Times statistic, an average of 99.5% of those people would be innocent civilians that had nothing to do with the conflicts between the fighting nations. Also from the New York Times, the United States is even cutting down on their own supply. So this is not a case of us wanting more power than other countries. We are not being hypocrites. Not we nor anyone else should have these kinds of weapons. THAT is why we are so worried and anxious to get these WMDs out of enemy hands. We would not only be saving our lives but the lives of our fellow countries and the safety of the entire world. So why wouldn"t we be justified in doing so? My third contention is that we can stop wars and violence. We are talking about being justified, or being just in our actions. How is letting nuclear strikes and war more just at all? We should be more worried about not taking action. Fox News says that if a nuclear weapon was fired then it would likely cause allies to join in fighting like a domino effect. They give North Korea and China as example which happen to be two of the nuclear weapon states that threaten us. We should do everything it takes to stop a war to break out because of this lie we did in 1962. That was the date of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Russia, another threat, was transporting nuclear weaponry to Cuba that could have easily caused another world war if they had succeeded as said by the National Government Archives. We stopped them with a peaceful military force in the form of a blockade and ended this crisis without a single shot being fired. This saved so many lives and we should be able and justified to do so again if the problem arises. In conclusion, being justified by the Collins English Dictionary is being good, reasonable, and acceptable. Saving lives from being destroyed by nuclear weapons is a good deed, it is more reasonable then allowing them to die, and will be accepted by all countries who would value life. This does not mean unilateralism is the only way. It means it is a way and is justified with or without others.