If a crazy person gets a nuke the chances of it leading to world termination is like a billion to one. It is very likely which is exactly why the US should be allowed to use nuclear proliferation when needed or when necessary . This is exactly why the uS should be allowed to use military force.
Man kind is often fearful that a war may escalate and lead to nuclear strikes. If countries need to combine their military forces against a nation in order to prevent nuclear war, than they are justified with using the force necessary. It may kill many people but that number will not exceed an atomic blast and the radiation that kills people slowly after the initial attack.
I believe that it is our duty as Americans to prevent other countries from using any type of Nuclear Energy to bring harm to anyone or anything. We all saw what happened when we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it wasn't very pretty. Millions of people died. We did this to stop Japan from taking over the Pacific in WWII; imagine what would happen if another country got possession of a Nuclear Weapon. Millions upon millions of innocent people could die. And as I said before, it is Americas duty to prevent and protect other people from Nuclear Proliferation.
We cannot let others countries who may be crazy enough to start a nuclear war gain the ability to do that. For example, Iran has promised to launch a strike against Israel if they do gain nuclear weapons. Israel, being our ally, needs to be protected, so we must stop Iran in its track.
If a crazy person gets a nuclear missile an he fires it anywhere the after math will kill thousands or millions of people. What if your family ,freinds,or you die huh and the mad man fires more missiles at your country the contanet the world may end to and that is why USA should use milatery force to prevent nuclear proliferation
While many arguements state we shouldn't spend money we don't have and meddle in other countries affairs, this arguement is completely overlooking a few basics categories of a US citizen. The basic rights to live is directly harmed ifa terrorist group gets nuclear weapons harming more lives than ever before. Infact doing something is better than doing nothing.
What if we don't stop a possible nuclear attack against the US before it happens? What if something happens and we didn't take previous action to prevent it and the domestic security of our homeland is threatened? As a soldier in the United States army I feel that it is my duty to take whatever action that is necessary even my life to defend and ensure the safety of our nation and all that lives in it.
I the US were to organize a joint military strike with other countries that are against North Korea and Iran having nuclear proliferation it would take a long time and prevent the US from destroying both countries nuclear capabilities as soon as possible. While this may create backlash in the short term it will be better for the long term.
I believe that unilateral military force to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation would make complete sense. This would allow for less complications in military strikes and a more efficient method of striking. The one thing we ought to be wary of is what country we are facing off against as the country could require special consideration
We cannot allow unauthorized countries to obtain nuclear weapons. Only countries approved by the NPT should be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. If psychotic nations such as North Korea obtain nuclear weapons, our position as the most powerful nation in the world will be threatened. North Korea will use the weapons regardless of recoil.
The use of nuclear technology, weapons, and such is immoral . We should try our absolute BEST to prevent the growth of nuclear weapons. The more nuclear weapons, the greater risk to human life.
The United States should outlaw nuclear weapons because of how deadly and harmful it is. Countries are more likely to have a civil war, in which they can use nuclear weapons against each other, which could prove disastrous to the ENTIRE globe.
If Apartheid South Africa and North Korea, two nations in complete diplomatic and economic isolation, could make nuclear weapons, then anybody can. All that is required is a limited infrastructure and a few raw materials. Besides, the USA is the world's most powerful terror state, and is far more irrational than Islamist governments and banana republics. If you were Iran, a country surrounded by nearly two hundred permanent US military bases containing half a million personnel, who is in the most threatening position? They key to non proliferation is to not give the countries any reason to build and use nuclear weapons, not penalise them for making slight efforts to protect themselves from US tyranny.
When we invaded Iraq in 2003 we were looking for nuclear weapons, were we not? What did we find when we invaded? Absolutely nothing! We went in there so ignorantly and discovered diddly-squat. We murdered anywhere between 11,439 and 125,360 civilians. Do we really want to do that kind of damage again?
Unilateral military force is not needed because diplomacy works! The US has been keeping the North Koreans calm, and having them abandon their nuclear ambitions by offering them incentives such as food.
On 9/9/13, the Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov called Syrian leadership to place their chemical weapons storage sites under international control. He also prompted Syria to join the treaty on prohibition of chemical weapons. Syria shortly after agreed. President Obama had said that the Russian proposal was a “possible breakthrough” and a “positive development.”
The U.S.’s national debt is $16trillion, the largest sum, $3.8trillion of that is owned by China. If we decide to take military action to eliminate all nuclear production, we would be confronting our biggest benefactor, because; “As of December 2012, [China] was estimated to have about 140 warheads assigned to land-based missiles and 40 warheads assigned for aircraft” (CNN), along with ourselves; “. . . The United States was estimated to have about 2,150 operational warheads -- weapons that are deployed or could be deployed at short notice” (CNN).
“Every hour, taxpayers in the United States are paying “$10.45 million the War in Afghanistan Since 2001”, as well as $824,328 for the War in Iraq Since 2003 (nationalpriorities). That’s a total of $11,274,382. Last year our GDP was 15.68trillion. Coming close to the entire debt sum, ($16trillion), the United States shouldn't’t risk any more money with unilateral action for preventing nuclear production.
Basically we don't have the means to go through another fight.
According to historian Thomas Risse, “unilateral and even imperial tendencies in contemporary U.S. Foreign policy and particularly its official discourse violate constitutive norms on which the transatlantic security community has been built over the years, namely multilateralism and close consultation with the allies.” Currently, the United States is a global hegemon, but if the United States acts without it’s allies, then international organizations such as the UN will become obsolete, thus disrupting the stability in the international community. The Research Institute for European and American Studies states that “To sustain the consent of other states, and as an extension, international order and stability, the U.S. Must resist the pull of domestic politics and do two things. First, it must maintain the basic procedural norms of the system, which means recognizing the legal equality of all states, observing the rules like others, permitting their responsibilities to delimit their freedom and accommodating secondary powers. Second, the U.S. Must recognize that new procedural and substantive norms must be negotiated, not dictated”. Sacrificing international stability for solely the interests of the United States is morally unjustified as the US has a duty as an international hegemon to protect the interests of not just itself, but the whole world as well.
I am not saying that nuclear proliferation is not a threat, because it is. Unilateral action by the US has never worked except for maybe once in Japan. The last time the US tried to stop Nuclear Proliferation was in Iraq. That was highly ineffective not only because the casualties were extremely high, but there were no nuclear weapons! Multinational strike would counter the fact that Iran could use its allies in the middle east because the combined strength of the US and it allies is much higher then Iran and its allies. North Korea threat is also small because there defenses are so weak that a simple airstrike would set them back. The problem is that North Korea would rather sell their Nukes. At that point a multinational sanction that prevents Korea from selling its nukes would help end that threat.
Iran has been aggressively trying to possess nuclear weapons for years, yet now they are closer than ever. With help coming in from Russia and North Korea (both countries claiming to possess nuclear weapons) in order to develop their nuclear capabilities, Iran is coming closer and closer to obtaining nuclear weapons. If the U.S. Military already failing to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, who is to say that they won't fail again?
Those who think USA (and Western countries in general) are some kind of freedom's bringer or something couldn't be any more mistaken - NATO isn't moved by ideals, but for the biggest corporations' interests, thus they have overthrown many democratic, legitimate governments. Here's an (incomplete) list of the USA's interventions and military bases all over the world: http://usahitman.Com/wp-content/uploads/USA_intervention_bleu.Gif . Who wouldn't want to take precautions against such a record?
We should focus our spending towards crime rates and problems that happen and are on the increase in the United States. We can attack when and only if there is a threat, you wouldn't slap someone because you THOUGHT they were THINKING about slapping you. It doesn't make sense to engage in war activities without a decent explanation.