USA Unilateral Military Force Is The Best Thing To Do To Prevent Immediate Nuclear Proliferation

Contention 1: Multilateral military force will be more effective to prevent nuclear proliferation. according to Joseph S. Nye, a former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council "polls show that two-thirds of Americans prefer multilateral actions to unilateral ones" This piece of evidence suggest that even American citizens agree that multilateral military force will be more effective than unilateral. According to Joseph S Nye, unilateral military force may be effective for a country's very own survival, but for an issue like this that affects the whole world multilateralism will be the most effective. Multilateralism helps us keep allies, if we do everything alone, it is taken as arrogance and it will only gain us more enemies. We aren't really losing anything by getting the help of others The definition of unilateral is emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.-thefreedictionary.com. But as we know nuclear proliferation is not a one sided argument. This is a global topic. Contention 2: The United States can no longer afford to act as the world"s "policeman". History has proved that all great empires fall when they grow too large. Prime examples of such are Rome, Persia, and the British Empire. Many could argue that the same is occurring to the United States today. The country is currently $17 trillion in debt; this figure is rising by nearly $800 billion annually. To put this vast number in perspective, each taxpayer would need to pay $150 thousand to pay off the current debt. Furthermore, our yearly deficit is 106% of GDP. It is only a matter of time before the US defaults on its obligations. All these figures are courtesy of usdebtclock.org. Additional military action will only increase spending and ultimately widen the budget deficit. For example, the combined costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were estimated to be roughly $4 to $6 trillion dollars (A study by Harvard University). Even a short term conflicts are expensive. For example, the establishment of the no-fly zone over Libya in 2011 cost the United States over $1 billion. This was with NATO support as well (Courtesy of NPR).Imagine the costs if the US had been solely involved. Simply put, further unilateral military force by the United States would bankrupt the nation. After WWII the United States channeled over $13 billion dollars to finance the economic recovery of Europe, which due to inflation is equal to about $163 billion dollars in today's money according to www.history.com. If we were to use military force, after all is done the money that would go into funding for recovery would only add to the US"s debt. Contention 3: It is not justified because the US is not responsible enough to act as the worlds police. The US almost detonated an atomic bomb by accident over north Carolina in 1961 "The bomb was 260 times more powerful than the one that devastated Hiroshima in 1945, according to the Guardian"-foxnews.com If the US is irresponsible enough to accidentally almost destroy one of its own states then, it surely should not be enforcing its military on other countries it suspects of having nuclear weapons The United States was estimated to have about 2,150 operational warheads -- weapons that are deployed or could be deployed at short notice" (CNN). "President Obama"s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel"s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny" -washintontimes.com This piece of evidence is saying that the US is helping one of its hide nuclear weapons from the scrutiny of other nations. If the US is going to be trusted to unilaterally use military force against other nations with nuclear weapons, then it cannot hold back on force against its allies if the pose a threat to other nations. Israel is the only Middle east nation that has not signed the landmark 1979 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Rouhani says that has prevented the region from establishing a nuclear-free zone. -mauinews.com The only country to use nuclear weapons, the US has developed warheads up to 25 megatons, which would be thousands of times more powerful than either bomb used on Japan at the end of the Second World War. Most are in the 5 to 400 kiloton range. -telegraph.co.uk The US is the only country to actually use nuclear weapons in battle, other countries have tested them in fields, but the US has actually killed millions of people with this, why should they be allowed to enforce their military against nuclear weapons? The United States even with a 17 Trillion dollar debt, bought a 80 billion dollar F-22 Raptor that has never been used even after it has been 5 years since it was bought. Not only that but the US has sent over 220 Fighter Jets and over 200 Tanks costing around 3 billion dollars that Egypt doesn't really need according to NPR. So why would we allow the US to go in?