Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferati

Thanks for accepting this debateI hope we have a great debate!Evidence is only to be presented when asked forLast speeches, no new evidence is to be presented1st speech- opening2nd- rebuttals3rd- more rebuttals4th- summary5th- Closing statementGood luck!CON- CaseTo clarify the round, we offer the following definitions...Unilateral as done or undertaken by one person or party; of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject;[Merriam Webster]Nuclear Proliferation as the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons-applicable nuclear technology and information, to nations which are not recognized as "Nuclear Weapon States"[USLegal]Military force as an attack by armed forces through conventional weapons, espionage, and informational technology, as these are the most common methods of attackNext, we offer the following observations on this topic...OBSV A) According to Abraham Sofaer, a Senior Fellow in Foreign Policy Affairs and National Security Affairs at Stanford University, four criteria must be fulfilled to justify unilateral intervention. They include:1. The nature and magnitude of the threat involved;2. The likelihood that the threat will be carried out unless preemptive action is taken;3. The absence of alternatives to using force in the situation4. Whether using preemptive force is consistent with the terms and purposes of the U.N. Charter and other applicable international agreements.To show that entering a country unilaterally is justified, our opponents have the burden show you that all 4 of these criteria are met so there are no doubts on the merits of the action.The standard, or most important issue of the debate, comes from the word justified. Judge, if we can prove that unilateral military force isn"t the correct path for our country to take, and/or there are other more viable options, then we should win this debate.Contention 1: Multilateral EffectSubpoint A: SanctionsSanctions have been effective at halting Iran"s nuclear program. According to Business Insider, oil revenue has fallen in Iran by 58% since 2011 directly because of sanctions. Moreover, sanctions against Iran have caused Iran to not be able to spend 44% of its crude oil income. Also, both the New York Times and the Carnegie Endowment write that sanctions have been detrimental North Korean efforts, mirroring many of the effects in Iran. The impacts here are important. Sanctions are stopping Iran"s actual proliferation efforts. According to the Institute for Science and International Security, the sanctions placed on Iran led to a freeze in total number of centrifuges installed, and that, "Iran"s nuclear options are more limited now." The same source later notes that Iran has tried to substitute carbon fiber for maraging steel, but recent reports show that this steel is not providing fiber adequate enough for centrifuge use. Because sanctions have proven to be effective in addressing the current nuclear situation, it would be unjust to use a military attack.Subpoint B: Securing Nuclear MaterialsThrough multilateral efforts, the United States has been able to foster great success in detecting nuclear material to put an end to the nuclear terrorism threat. This is currently seen in both the GICNT and CTR, two multilateral groups with the purpose of achieving this goal. The State Department notes that since 2006, the GICNT has conducted more than 40 multilateral operations in all regions of the world, strengthening our policies. Moreover, the CTR group has found much success over the past years, and will continue to do so. The White House reported that over 7,600 nuclear warheads have been deactivated, over 900 ICBMs have been destroyed, and 24 Russian nuclear sites have undergone strict security checks. Seeing as that in the status quo, multilateral efforts have clearly done a more than adequate job of securing weapons and stopping proliferation, a unilateral attack would only harm our collaboration as of now. Contention 2: Deterrence This can be seen in 2 historical examples:Foreign Affairs- In 1991, the historical rivals India and Pakistan signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other's nuclear facilities. They realized that the instabilities created by provoking a nuclear armed country were much deadlier than the nuclear threats of either side. Since then, even in the face of high tensions, the two countries have kept the peace. Israel and Iran would do well to consider this precedent. If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have.CNN- Both Iran's and North Korea's supreme leaders will be deterred, just as were successive generations of Soviet leaders. Both would not authorize the use of nuclear weapons, for fear of seeing their nations destroyed, their people wiped out, and their ambitions for themselves and their countries turned to dust.Impact: For that reason, the United States and its allies need not take such pains to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. Since there is still a solution that is more justified than Unilateral Military Force, you must vote Negative.