The United States should use "hard power" in order to stop countries from gaining nuclear weapons.

My Points 1. Protection of Citizens "When people begin to give up their rights in order to be protected by the government we will have a huge problem." -When people give up all their rights to be protected their is a problem. But the government CANNOT protect it's citizens without power. The government "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed" I assume that you accept this line because you used it to attack me :) So the government, as we both agree, gets it's power from the people. Thus people must give power to the government. "This only says it is the governments job to make sure all of it's citizens maintain their unalienable rights" -Yes, and one of these rights is LIFE. THE government, as you just said my friend, only guarantees rights. guarantee = Protect and Unalienable right = life. So, the government must protect our life. "It says that when the government begin's to become oppresive and take away rights, that it is the peoples responsibility to either change the government, or overthrow it." I kinda agree. The government MUST fulfill its obligation in the social contract. If they don't, they will be overthrown. When teh government forcefully takes rights away that are not needed to protect the people, is when the government must be overthrown. You mis interpret my social contract argument. What my first point dictates is that 1. Govt. gets power from people 2. Ppl overthrow Govt. that does not protect 3. Govt. must fulfill Social Contract IF #3 is true, then it shows why we MUST do something that works. Hence, my Second argument. 2. Why hard power is effective "Well, the only country to ever use nuclear weapons, is in fact, the United States. According to this sta" im guessing you left something out. but yes the USA is the only country SO FAR to use nukes. But Iran's prez. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stated that he WILL USE NUCLEAR FORCE TO DESTROY ISRAEL. Thus, teh danger of a nuclear attack is plausible by other countries. "The United States can not afford to use hard power." I never said that we would use hard power on every country all at once. You ignore that hard power is also threats, not only violence We should means we need to start making measures to The United States spends trillions of dollars on defense a year. the only reason Iraq is so costly is because we are using urban warfare and cannot fully use of military. If we,as my teacher has said, "went world war II on their a**es" the war would be over in weeks. Neither Iran nor North Korea could withstand an all-out fight with USA. besides, Israel would mainly fight Iran for us, and the UN would sponsor the enforcement of non-nuclear proliferation and help the US if we asked for it. 3. Reputation You completely ignored the fact that we must uphold our reputation. Thus you accept it as standard in debate This means that the use of only soft power will result in future attacks on the USA. This is bad -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Only natural to want nuclear armament it is natural for me to want a wide screen tv. should i steal from a store it is natural for me to want a cookie. should i take one when im not supposed to it is natural for me to want to drive 120mph. should i do so when its against the law Just because they want it, does not mean they should have it. Protection, like India, is one thing. Promising violence, Iran, is another. 2. Fear small countries The story of David and Goliath The story of the American Revolution Small enemies aren't always going to lose. These countries already have nukes. we should try to be peaceful with them. Voting for hard power only affects future countries, not Russia or China. These countries that we both agree we should be nice to SUPPORT US IN STOPPING NORTH KOREA FROM GAINING NUKES