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

My first contention is... While it is very true that there are over 17,000 nuclear warheads in the world, every single one of those nuclear warheads are in the possession of a country that is a member of the U.N [1][2]. This is an important point, as the first resolution adopted by the U.S. was the "establishment of a commission to deal with the problem raised by the discovery of atomic energy" [3]. Lastly on this point, while you assert that the U.S. is justified in a unilateral approach to nuclear non-proliferation due to our unilateral approach of military threats, 62% of people think that the Iraq war (which was based heavily on the pretense of W.M.Ds) was a mistake, and furthermore the would-be unilateral approach to Syria was opposed by 48% of the population, with only 29% in favor [4][5]. How much is it worth to a leader to deal with the possibility of a nuclear proliferation in a country if his people (whom democratically elected him) are against him? My second contention is... While you assert that the U.S. has proven the danger of a nuclear attack simply by mere threat, you fail to cite one single time where the U.S. merely threatened nuclear attack. Secondly, while the number you assert for the power of the bombs is probable (33 billion pounds = 16,500,000 T = 16.5 MT = about 1/3 the power of the largest nuclear bomb ever detonated), those bombs are in the hands of the U.S., and such weapons took decades to develop [6]. It should be noted that the first atomic bomb ever detonated was only 20 KT, or only 12% of 1% the yield of the Tsar Bomba. I would find it highly doubtful that either one of our allies (who has a proficiency in nuclear arms manufacturing) would turn on us, or even less so that a terrorist would be able to make one as it cost the U.S. $2,000,000,000 in 1945, which is about $25,000,000,000 today [7][8]. Lastly on this point, while you assert that it would be saving the lives of our citizens, and those of our allies, I would like to refer back to my previous point about how the Iraq war was based on such a pretense. My third contention is... Firstly, I would like to indoctrinate you on the accuracy of Fox News. There is an entire Wikipedia page with 169 sources devoted to "Fox News Channel controversies" [10]. Secondly, you use the example of the Cuban Missile Crisis to show how the U.S. succeeded at preventing nuclear war. While it is known that the Cuban Missile Crisis was the closest that the U.S. ever came to nuclear war, it should be noted that neither country actually wanted to go to war as messages were sent from Khrushchev to President Kennedy, therefore it was not technically unilateral, as both sides were trying to avoid a nuclear war [11]. In conclusion, unilateral military force by the U.S. for the purposes of nuclear non-proliferation is unjustified, because all known nuclear weapons are in the control of members of the U.N., the cost to produce a nuclear bomb is far beyond that which any terrorist group could allocate money to, and lastly because there are no historical examples to show that such unilateral approaches are justified. 1. http://www.un.org... 2. http://armscontrolcenter.org... 3. http://www.un.org... 4. http://www.pollingreport.com... 5. http://www.people-press.org... 6. http://en.wikipedia.org... 7. http://news.google.com... 8. http://www.westegg.com... 9. http://www.salon.com... 10. http://en.wikipedia.org... 11. http://microsites.jfklibrary.org...