Resolved: Unilateral military force by the US is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Thank you, Ajabi. I would like to note the resolution does not specify nuclear proliferation in a specific country or area. Also, justified, as shown above, means that it is marked with any good or legitimate reason. That does not make it right. Thus the BoP is shared. ==Contention 1: The US’ right to self-defense== In the world, there are quite a few countries that pose a threat to the United States [1]. Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen are the top three countries to pose the biggest terrorist threat to the US, and there are other possible threats as well [1]: In regards to the Cuban Missile Crisis of the Cold War, former President John F. Kennedy said both during [2] and after [3] the crisis that if countries that already pose a threat to the US, which are at quite a large number, acquire nuclear arms, the US could be at a critical state: “"I see the possibility in the 1970s of the president of the United States having to face a world in which 15 or 20 or 25 nations may have these weapons," he forecast. “I regard that as the greatest possible danger."” [3] As of now, the US regards Iran as one of the biggest military threats to them [4]. Although its plan to create a nuclear weapon has been postponed, “they do seem to have had such a program and are no capable of enriching their own weapons-grade uranium.” [2] Literally if multiple countries, most or all of which are a threat to the United States, acquire nuclear weapons, the US will have no choice but to unilaterally use military force to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms and weapons. Really, countries like Israel are seen to pose a bigger threat on the US than Iran [2]. Even though protecting Israel is optional, however, it should be noted that the US should be obligated to protect the peace for both itself and the rest of the world, even if there is no or little threat. ==Contention 2: Preserving peace and the US as the only world superpower== If the US were not to use unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons, obviously the result would be the possible rise in nuclear weapons. P1) Lack of unilateral military force by the US helping counterproliferation against nuclear weapons causes nuclear proliferation to be POSSIBLE P2) The US currently is not using unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons C) Nuclear proliferation is possible The Cold War was almost an all-out nuclear war due to the Cuban Missile Crisis [5]: “It played out on television worldwide and was the closest the Cold War came to escalating into a full-scale nuclear war.” If we don’t use unilateral military force by the US to counterproliferate these nuclear weapons, chances are a nuclear war will start. As the world’s only superpower, the US should try to preserve peace in the world. Thus, it is justified for the US to use unilateral military force to counterproliferate nuclear weapons. ==Contention 3: Owning nuclear weapons is immoral and unethical== To many people, it is thought that unilateral military force is not justified as the US owns nuclear weapons themselves. However they never stop to realize that doing this would include counterproliferation of nuclear weapons in the US as well. If the US uses unilateral military force for nuclear counterproliferation because owning nuclear weapons is immoral, obviously counterproliferation would happen in the US as well and they would have to trash their stockpile of nuclear arms. It is unjustified to own nuclear weapons. It is also unjustified to use military force unilaterally IF the country using it continues to possess them. However it is justified to do so if the US agrees to dispose of their nuclear weapons. ==Conclusion== I have no more arguments to make since I am drawing a blank after contention 3. However, I have shown exactly why unilateral military force by the US used to prevent nuclear proliferation is not necessarily right, but justified. Thus, the resolution is affirmed. I pass the floor to con. Thank you. [1] http://www.businessinsider.com... [2]http://debatepedia.idebate.org... [3] http://www.foreignaffairs.com... [4] http://www.reuters.com... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...