The Instigator
Blakeypooter
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Juris
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Juris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,118 times Debate No: 38584
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Blakeypooter

Pro

Have you ever heard of the word "obligation"? Obligation means an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. The United States has an obligation to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is our job to use military force to protect the United States. That is why I know that unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.
Nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace. Paul D. Miller, assistant professor of international security studies U., has evidence stating that t"he single greatest danger to global peace and to the United States is the presence of powerful autocratic states armed with nuclear weapons. Ask yourself this question; If Iran, or any others for that matter, was to launch an atomic weapon at the United States, would you want to shoot back? Or would you want to let them hit us, making it a possibility for them to attack other regions? I would want to shoot back. But we don"t have to if we use military force to stop nuclear proliferation. Not only will they be stopped, but it could pose threats to other autocratic adversaries making them less of a threat.
A nuclear Iran would trigger Middle East proliferation. My theory is, and other political leaders also, that Iran will not be the only one in the region to equip nuclear weapons. This is because of Iran. Iran is making them jealous of their power. According to a National Review, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are all likely candidates, and Libya"s Moammar Qaddafi may well decide that his 2003 decision to give up his program was ill-advised and get back in the game. Others are most likely to follow. But I am going to concentrate this more on Iran .A nuclear Iran will increase terrorism. Last year an associate professor, Colin H. Kahl, of the school of Foreign Service in Georgetown University, gave evidence stating the following. A nuclear-armed Iran, believing that it possessed a powerful deterrent and could thus commit violence abroad with near impunity, might also increase the frequency and scale of the terrorist attacks against U.S. and Israeli targets carried out by Hezbollah and the Quds Force, the convert operations wing of Iran"s elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.
Juris

Con

Rebuttals


Have you ever heard of the word "obligation"? Obligation means an act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. The United States has an obligation to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Yes, the United States has that kind of obligation, but the question: Is the United States the only country that has the obligation to prevent nuclear proliferation? Obviously it’s not. The United States is not the world government nor the world police. It must respect the opinions and the words of other countries. Taking a unilateral military action without considering other options given by other states is very assumptive act. Take for example in Syria, the US was about take a military action against Assad’s government, but with both Russia and UN intervention, the worst was prevented. In connection with this, I am not saying that there should be nuclear proliferation, but any action taken against another country should come from a collective decision.

Nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace. Paul D. Miller, assistant professor of international security studies U., has evidence stating that t"he single greatest danger to global peace and to the United States is the presence of powerful autocratic states armed with nuclear weapons. Ask yourself this question; If Iran, or any others for that matter, was to launch an atomic weapon at the United States, would you want to shoot back? Or would you want to let them hit us, making it a possibility for them to attack other regions? I would want to shoot back. But we don"t have to if we use military force to stop nuclear proliferation. Not only will they be stopped, but it could pose threats to other autocratic adversaries making them less of a threat.

That’s right! Nuclear proliferation is the greatest threat to world peace(take note: you said world peace, this means it is the world’s responsibility, not US alone)

I am not here to refute whether or not nuclear weapons are dangerous, because apparently, they are very dangerous to everyone. Why I am here is to dispute on whether or not the United States has the sole responsibility of taking unilateral action against any state suspected proliferating nuclear weapons.

So far, my opponent has yet to provide any arguments as to why US unilateral military action against nuclear proliferation is justified. He was just explaining the danger of nuclear weapons(we all know that it’s dangerous), which is not even the subject of this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Blakeypooter

Pro

Blakeypooter forfeited this round.
Juris

Con

With respect to my opponent, I will not post in this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Blakeypooter

Pro

Blakeypooter forfeited this round.
Juris

Con

Please vote...
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by snowypolarbear 3 years ago
snowypolarbear
wow guys you must be great debaters because your arguements are solid!
Posted by snowypolarbear 3 years ago
snowypolarbear
wow guys you must be great debaters because your arguements are solid!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
BlakeypooterJurisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: interesting resolution. Pity the ff.