Preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons is Just (full resolution in 1st argument)

"No one deserves trouble, no one deserves illness, no one deserves death… (and depression)... The cruelty is that, whatever we DO deserve, we rarely achieve it."… because I agree with this quote from William Nelson, I must disagree with the resolution… -Resolved- It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat. -For clarification of the round, I offer the following definitions 1. Acquisition- The act of becoming the owner of certain property. -Black's Law dictionary----------- (1979, pg. 23) 2. Just- Consistent with what is morally right. -From American Heritage Dictionary; 2006; Downloaded January 2nd, 2008; www.dictionary.com -I reserve the right to define any terms of controversy throughout this round- I.My Value of Just Deserts. -Just deserts is defined by American Heritage Dictionary as being just in giving, "something that is deserved or merited, especially a punishment." - (American Heritage Dictionary, 2006; www.dictionary.com; Downloaded February 19, 2008) -When looking at the affirmative side, you must accept military force as being AT LEAST capable of killing people. However, what you must ask yourself is, What is the crime or action worthy of a just desert of death? The answer affirmative is offering is merely a "crime" of acquisition. What you first have to see is that an unjust act stopping an unjust act is still an unjust act. In America, we don't give deserts of death to past felony offenders for trying to acquire a gun UNLESS they use it. Furthermore, you have to see that military force affects the wrong people. For example, the people who are committing this so called "crime", (such as the government of the opposing nation) are not the people who will be affected by this unjust action (such as solders, families of solders, nuclear plant workers, random innocent people on the streets, or even just tax payers.) In the end, military force gives improper just deserts to the wrong people. II.My Criterion of Pacifism Pacifism is defined from American Heritage Dictionary (2006, www.dictionary.com; Downloaded February 13, 2008) as, "The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully." What you have to see is that by invading another nation before they have even ACQUIRED nuclear weapons is anti-pacifistic and unjust. Military force ought to be reserved for ONLY a moment of DIRE NEED… something that is impossible to have when you are invading a nation for something they DO NOT HAVE. Especially when nuclear weapons are something that takes decades to obtain and decades to learn how to use, such as situations in Iran where they have been trying to acquire nuclear weapons for nearly 50 years. After my value and criterion contentions, you have to see that military force is not pacifistic in giving improper just deserts to the wrong people to prevent a mere capability of nuclear acquisition, all of which proves military force as unjust. III.Military Force may provoke a revengeful attack. -From- Anthony H. Cordesman and Khalid R. Al-Rodhan; Investigative Authors; Iran's Weapons of Mass Destruction; The Real and Potential Threat; 2006; page 9 Quote- "Israel has argued that Iran must not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons… (but has also argued that the problem is an international, not an Israeli, problem)… The election in 2005 of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the presidency in Iran and his statements about wiping Israel off the map, however, make Iran's nuclear program an existential threat to Israel. Iran has also made its position clear: an attack by Israel on Iranian nuclear facilities will be met with total retaliation. Iran's minister of defense… (General Mostafa Mohammad Najjar)… had been quoted as saying, "Any attack against Iran's peaceful nuclear facilities will meet a swift and crushing response from the armed forces." Iran's foreign minister… (Manouchehr Mottaki) expressed a similar sentiment, asserting that Iran would respond to such an attack "by all means" at its disposal." END QUOTE -Why is it that when we try to keep pacifism, that we usually end up going overboard by actually increasing the violence. The truth is that by using military force, you merely double the amount of potential danger, therefore making the violence, all the more likely and the death, all the more conceivable. IV.Military force on affirmative has too many uncertainties to be just. -What most people don't realize when they look at the affirmative side of this resolution, is how many uncertainties there are… For example, we don't know… If nuclear weapons will be acquired… (if acquired), if they will be used…. (if they are used) how effective they will be …(if they are used)… why we deserved them… If the people that pose a threat, ACTUALLY ARE a threat… If this military threat will EVER become any sort of military ACTION… how many people from the nation that pose a military threat or the United States (for that matter) will be killed when military force is used… Who will get their TRUE just deserts… If military force will provoke a revengeful attack with weapons of mass destruction or just their own military force… If military force will be successful in removing the nuclear weapons... (and if successful) how long the military forced deterrence will last………. (and finally)… if the people that die from military force got their TRUE just deserts. -With all of these uncertainties, how do you know if you are truly just? My definition of just simply asks for two things, consistency and morality. My question is how can you be morally consistent when you have so many uncertainties especially when dealing with death…? I simply can not call this action… "just." Onto my opponent's case… Observation 1: This observation isn't that big of a deal. My perception of it is that we are debating if the attempt of the action is just or not. Observation 2: The second observation is similar… I agree that we are simply debating if military force is a JUST option. Framework: The framework he offers neither proves nor disproves the resolution. I really don't see how this has ANYTHING to do with this round. 1.--> Cross-apply his observations. There is no action that needs to be done to prove or disprove the resolution. Therefore we must see that we are only debating removing the acquisition and SMALL possibility of nuclear weapon use. A nuclear weapon has never been used on a civilization (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons are worse). With Mutually Assured Destruction backing up this world, the chance that nuclear weapons will be used are slim to none. Since we do not know if any nuclear weapon use is being prevented (if we were to use military force) then it is not CONSISTENT or MORALLY RIGHT let alone both (which is how I defined just as). 2.--> In argument 2, my opponent offers a relatively long quote, but never offers how this pertains to the round. As of now, all I see is a quote about dehumanization but if you look to his observations we can not debate any certain cases. WE DON'T KNOW if any nuclear weapons will be used or not until they happen. Therefore, military force is NOT consistent with what is morally right. >>>If I have a gun, am I dehumanizing if I don't kill someone? OR, am I dehumanizing if I do kill someone? The point I'm trying to make is that having a bad thing is only bad when it's used. I can take any object and kill a guy with it, but that doesn't mean we should try to prevent its acquisition. I could hurt more people with a pen in my pocket than someone with a nuclear weapon, BUT it only depends on how we use it. We don't know how these weapons will be used, therefore it is unjust to use military force to prevent a possibility. Therefore I urge voters to vote CON... Thank You!