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

After what has been a thorough debate, I've come down to the final round.=====================================================================================As As per my rules, I will not be introducing any new "rebuttals" - rather I will clarify misconceptions and discuss the points that stand.Before voting commences - I ask the VOTERS to once again view the Burden of Proof for this debate.BURDEN OF PROOF:As the "pro" debater for this resolution, I will prove why military force is justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's. I will argue that military force is justified under certain circumstances.The "con" debater for this resolution must prove why military force cannot be justified to prevent the proliferation of WMD's. Because of the way in which I structured the resolution, the con must show why military force is not good and why it is not justified even in certain circumstances.This debate is NOT about whether the proliferation of WMD's is good. It is about military force and whether it is justified. I urge the voters and opponent to keep this in mind==============================================================I Now I will mention certain clarifications.CLARIFICATIONS:1. The resolution was clarified (CON agreed to my clarification). Read the resolution as:Military force is acceptable in certain circumstances (when there is a threat) to prevent the proliferation of WMD's.2. The clarification between retalitory strikes (WMD retalitation) and military force was clarified (CON asked for clarification and I clarified this point).===============================================================I I will now go over the points made by both sides and discuss whether these points stand.REVIEWING POINTS:1. CON's Detterance point - While I made a counter argument, I believe CON defended this point better in round 32. CON's Point about nations consolidating interests - I believe CON made a good point and so I concede this point.3. PRO's point about damage of military less than potential WMD damage - I believe I took this point. CON did not contest this at that well - He mentions "He presents nations which would seek such weapons as "more irrational" and liable to carry out a strike uprovoked, while maintaining that miliary options not only are capable of stopping WMD proliferation, but can do so without any civilian casualites." This is not a rebuttal, but just to point out I said there ARE casualties however far less than the potential damage of WMD's. Refer to point 1.4. PRO's point about Non-state actors and further proliferation risk.Couple of points:- I made clear that it was difficult for nations to "Retaliate" since non-state actors do not have boundaries. My opponent asked for clarification and I explained to him as to why military force CAN target non-state actors but nations cannot. This made my argument stronger.My opponent rebutted saying WMD's are difficult to use/manufacture, but I countered by providing an example (Aum Shinrokyo) to show that WMD's however difficult CAN be acquired and hence posing a threat. This made my argument stronger. My opponent has conceded this argument "As to the second, point, I concede that it is indeed possible for foreign nation will have radical elements which may attempt to harm foreign nations. Additionally, I admit the risk that almost anyone in the world could self manufacture deadly weapons given enough time and initiative." However, he followed up saying that it is a nation's responsibility to prevent non-state actors from acquiring weaponry. I could counter by saying what if nations are developing and do not have the means to do so ? However I will refrain from developing a counter-argument. This point is weak to defend.I believe I took this point.5. CON's point about involving allies increases risk. This really depends on where you look at it from - whether superpowers would really support irrational WMD threats and thus come to aid them (unrealistic in my opinion) or whether a nation would still come to support thus escalating conflict (CON's opinion). This point could sway either way - I believe this is more of a draw.Now onto response based points:6. CON argues that the example of North Korea is futile because it is not perceived a threat. I countered by saying if that is the case - then why are sanctions imposed ? Because there is a perceived threat. I believe my rebuttal was more adequate by pointing out that international nations ARE in fact concerned.7. CON used the alternative options point by saying sanctions worked. I clarified that we were arguing the military force is used when sanctions and other alternatives failed to work. I also used the NK example of failed sanctions. CON said that sanctions are however more controlled and managed which really does not matter given the scope of the argument. I definitely believe I took apart CON's point.8. CON's point about not attacking a nation even if they were a threat, was subject to hypothetical situations. I said it missed the "inherent goal of prevention and protection" and used the example of a "cop shooting a man before he killed a child rather than shooting him after the child was killed" (refer back to Round 4). CON countered by saying that "This is more akin to shooting a man in a gun store when he tries to buy a gun, because you assume he will use it to shoot an innocent bystander. Without substatiation of that intent, you are not protected under "self defense". If you DID have evidence that said man was plotting to murder someone, then you could charge him with that, however, that is independent of buying the gun".However as I clarified in Round 3 - Nations don't attack simply people who have/acquire weapons, and that they attack when there is a threat. Attack is justified when they ARE carrying out events like the NK example where they went ahead and launched ballistic missiles despite warnings (Using CON's terms - this is "evidence"). CON's counter is therefore rather misleading and still does not offer a counter-argument to "prevention and protection". I believe however that this point can swing both ways to either PRO or CON depending on how the voters see it.9. CON's point about shutting down production of nuclear weaponry harms research in the fields of nuclear technology. To be quite frank, this point really did not see as much of a debate and is highly questionable because it lends itself to the fact that nations nations with nuclear research have nuclear weapons, however since this is not the case in real life (Slovakia, Romania, Brazil all have nuclear power) but no nuclear weapons - this point really isnt that debatable.For this reason, exclude this point in it's entirety.=============================================================CONCLUSION:As the tally stands in terms of arguments:PRO - takes 4 pointsCON - takes 2 pointsNEUTRAL - 2 pointsLEFT OUT - 1 pointI urge the voters to vote for PRO.==============================================================SOURCES:1.http://www.bbc.co.uk...2.http://en.wikipedia.org...3.http://dictionary.reference.com...4.http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu...5.http://www.fas.org...6.https://www.armscontrol.org...7. http://www.aljazeera.com...8.http://en.wikipedia.org...9.http://www.un.org...10.http://topics.nytimes.com...=============================================================I would like to conclude by saying that this has been an exceptional debate.My opponent was extremly strong and his arguments/language speak volumes about his ability - regardless of the outcome I certainly learnt a lot from my opponent's views.At the end of the day, I hope everyone remembers that win or lose - the best part is the inflow of ideas and observing the other person's view points (sadly most people disregard this).Anyway, Bannanawamajama - thanks for a great debate ! Should do another one sometime.