Preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons is Just (full resolution in 1st argument)

For my final round, I am just going to summarize the round by crystallizing the most important arguments… If I was going to go line by line it would be unnecessary repetition of arguments that don't really matter. However, in my summarization, I will be arguing based off of important arguments made in my opponent's last round. My burden of proof is showing that using military force to prevent nuclear acquisition is NOT just which can be done by proving that it is unjust, not completely just, or an uncertainty of either. 1) Analysis upon both definitions of just. a) Pro's definition: In this round, pro insists that his definition is the one to be used… But what he doesn't realize is that his military force doesn't meet his own definition. He says that nuclear weapons are dehumanizing… but that is not what he has to prove… I ask the judges to analyze the resolution and see how it says that, "it is just for the United States to use MILITARY FORCE"… Therefore, you have to prove it is just to prevent this so called "dehumanization" rather than what you're preventing. If we used military force to stop 1 million deaths… then the 1 million deaths would be unjust BUT so would using military force. Furthermore, you have to see that nuclear weapons are NOT dehumanizing. If I have a nuke in my back yard, how many people does it kill? That answer depends ONLY on its use. When you use military force you risk destroying people's just desert in an unnecessary manner. It doesn't matter if you actually prevent the use in the long run… but it's that risk that is unjust… b) Con's definition: For my definition, I win the round as pro ignores it. He says that it gives no link to justice, but it gives a link better than his definition ever does. Doing what is "just" is doing what is right, therefore doing what is consistent with what is morally right is an applicable definition of "just." And yet, he COMPLETELY ignores taking on this definition. But my definition must be weighed within this round and creating unnecessary violence is not morally right (military force). The resolution specifies that we are preventing the acquisition of nuclear weapons… Look to all the nations that have acquired nuclear weapons in the past 40 years, now, how many people has that acquisition killed? NONE… Which leads me back to this dehumanization definition that he has given, but the only thing that has been creating dehumanization is MILITARY FORCE… He claims that nuclear weapons have no benefits, but as a response you have to see that it has 2 benefits… 1) energy benefits… 2) equal playing ground for all nations in negotiations (smaller countries taken more seriously)… Therefore, by using military force, you create unnecessary violence AND destroy national sovereignty by denying nations right to energy and equal playing ground… Thus military force is unjust no matter what definition you use. 2) Value- Just Deserts: The value of just deserts is the way to weigh this round and when you look to who creates the most "dehumanization" you have to see PRO as the person doing that. By using his observation, we don't have to actually put anything into action, but we MUST determine what is "just" and what is just is not causing the unnecessary violence that military force is. You deny nations their right to sovereignty and inevitably kill many innocent people in the attempt of preventing nuclear acquisition (which is not use and by his observations we can never look to if they would be used or not). Therefore the side that provides the most just deserts is CON. As a judge, you have no other way of determining what is just unless you look to either the definitions or the value of just deserts and CON wins all three of these… 3) Criterion- Pacifism: The way in which Pro achieves more just deserts (thus being just) is by being pacifist. I'm not claiming that NEVER using military force is a good idea (good ideas are not in the resolution) what I claim is that when you use that military force, you are unjust. BUT, when you use military force in order to prevent nuclear acquisition, you may provoke a revengeful attack AND there are many uncertainties… which only proves more that military force is unjust. By risking more violence (by failing pacifism) you decrease the amount of just deserts which is truly the goal of justice. Therefore, you are unjust. In the end, Pro is simply unjust in too many places. He is not consistent with what is morally right AND he pushes more dehumanization (when military force is used) AND he fails pacifism THUS he gives fewer just deserts (which fails justice)… Military force comes with multiple uncertainties and may actually provoke a revengeful attack (even possibly a nuclear attack from another nation)… therefore, it is NOT just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat. So please vote CON… Thank You!