No, unilateral military force is not justified by the US in order to prevent nuclear proliferation, because the United States is doing an exemplary job of working with other countries, through the United Nations, to address the issue of nuclear weapons. This is an issue that the whole world has an interest in, so the other nations are willing to help with enforcement.
The United States is justified because the United Nations takes too long to respond and its an imminent threat to the United States if terrorist groups gain hold of these weapons from countries like Iran and potentially Pakistan. Also, countries like Iran and North Korea are threatening the United States with nuclear weapons and Iran is closer than ever to reach nuclear capabilities and North Korea has been conducting nuclear weapons threats and with a recent one this year, it is becoming more and more of a threat to the United States. Russia is an ally of Iran and it is one of the five countries with the veto capability in the United Nations so if we try to come to an effective solution with the United Nations, then Russia will use its veto power to stop the resolution.
The United States, as the sole global military hegemon, has a responsibility to protect against rogue and dangerous nations from obtaining the world’s most powerful and horrific weapon of mass destruction. This is true for three reasons: First, that the United States ensures the greatest good when it protects its own people; Second, that the US can maneuver much more quickly and decisively than regional or global alliances; and third, because of terrorism and dangerous, politically unstable regimes.
A lot of, in fact most people would probably agree that unilateral military force is not initially justified to prevent nuclear proliferation, and there are indeed other more peaceful ways to approach the situation. However, in the event that an act under the category of nuclear proliferation were to ensue and we used an alternative that later failed, unilateral military force would be the most reasonable and efficient secondary option because it can be quickly arranged and executed. As such- while unilateral military force by the united states may not be initially justified, it is at SOME POINT.
The United States bill of rights says: A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” (US Const. Amend. II) As a country we are given the rights to possess a strong militia. Is it not then hypocritical and wrong to take away the rights of other countries to defend themselves? Do we not pledge liberty and justice for all in our pledge of allegiance? We stand for liberty when we are in truth trying to monopolize the world supply of nuclear power. Instead of taking away the progress of nuclear proliferation (which is not limited to nuclear weapons) we could reuse Theodore Roosevelt's idea to "speak softly and carry a big stick."
The U.S. has a long history of acting unilaterally, and not accomplishing the goal, for example, Iraq. We thought they had WMDs, we went in unilaterally, the resulting war cost 3.2-4 trillion dollars, and thousands of lives. Also, the Middle East is angered with the U.S. because of our power-grabs so acting unilaterally would paint a big red bulls eye, and a target for the nukes we are trying to be ridden of.
I know that nuclear warfare is a pressing problem in todays international society. I believe that America needs to act to prevent nuclear proliferation. But we can not do it UNILATERALLY. We cannot be the international police Teddy Roosevelt envisioned. The world has changed since the early 1900's with many others nations having powerful military forces at their disposal. If we act in accordance with other super powers such as Great Britain, France, etc. We will be able to have more resources, more valuable input, and more power in general. That is why we need to lose the act that we're the biggest kids in the sandbox. Only by combining our forces can we keep our citizens safe as well as other countries.
If there is an alternative to military force that is more effective and has less harm, then that means that military force cannot be justified. There are, in fact, multiple ways the US could prevent nuclear proliferation without using military force, all of which are more effective than military force. As said by CATO, the US can also encourage potential adversaries to engage in strategic dialogues to delineate the kinds of provocations that might cause them to contemplate using nuclear weapons and outline the doctrines that would govern their use. Washington can also strongly encourage new nuclear powers to configure their arsenals solely for defensive, second‐strike roles rather than provocative, first‐strike capabilities. Also, new nuclear states may lack the financial resources or the technical expertise to establish reliable command‐and‐control systems, or to guard their arsenals from theft or accidental or unauthorized launch. Washington can help minimize such problems by disseminating command‐and‐control technology and assisting in the creation of crisis management hotlines and other confidence‐ building measures among emerging nuclear‐weapons states. That would reduce the danger that a country might adopt a ‘‘launch on warning’’ strategy—launching its weapons on the basis of an indication that the other side has launched an attack without waiting for confirmation that an attack is actually under way.
If military force is deployed overseas by the US, it cannot prevent, or even slow down nuclear proliferation. In fact, chances are that it may even speed up the process. In his 2002 State of the Union speech, President Bush linked both North Korea and Iran to Iraq in an ‘‘axis of evil.’’ As said by the CATO Institute, It is hardly surprising that Pyongyang and Tehran concluded that they were next on Washington’s hit list unless they could effectively deter an attack. Yet neither country could hope to match the conventional military capabilities of a superpower. The most reliable deterrent—maybe the only reliable deterrent—is to have nuclear weapons. In other words, U.S. Behavior may have inadvertently created a powerful incentive for the proliferation of nuclear weapons—the last thing Washington wanted. We need to face the reality that America’s foreign policy may cause unintended (and sometimes unpleasant) consequences on the nuclear proliferation front.
If we look at the specific example of Iran, there is a very large chance that if we moved in military force there, it would not prevent nuclear proliferation, but simply drive it underground, where the US cannot control it at all. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, also suggested Iran in such a case could kick out IAEA inspectors and install its uranium enrichment centrifuges in "more secure" places. This only shows that by moving in our military, we wouldn't slow down any nuclear proliferation, but in fact, help it along. As said by Debsy and Montierez of Yale, As we have seen, containment can have counterproductive
effects. Engagement, for its part, presents serious commitment problems. There is no good reason for Iranian leaders to believe the credibility of U.S. Promises of greater future cooperation, were they to stop their nuclear program. There is no good reason the United States would keep any promises of better relations in the future, once the object of dispute – Iran’s nuclear program – is no longer an issue.
Military force would also cause increased anti-American sentiment, and cause unrest in the Middle East, which is against our security interests. As said by the Wilson Center, an attack on Iran would most certainly provoke increased hostility toward Israel, which could escalate into a regional conflict or, at the very least, undermine prospects for progress on the Israeli Palestinian peace process, which would have a direct effect on U.S. Security interests. In addition, we believe that an attack on Iran would enhance the ability of radical Islamist groups, including Al Qaeda, to recruit in the region. It is hard to quantify the scale of this effect, but if Iraq and Afghanistan are models, one could anticipate that an attack on Iran will boost the popularity of groups and leaders who claim that the U.S. Is the enemy of Islam.
Unilateral, in the context of the resolution, means performed by one group against another.
This means that the pro team needs to justify us military action in lieu of another nation.
Justified intervention meaning it has more benefits than harms to the world as a whole
Nuclear proliferation can be defined in two ways
- There is vertical proliferation, meaning a country that already has nuclear weapons gains more
- There is also horizontal proliferation, which is when a country that does not have nuclear weapons gets them
Observation: The Pro Team has to prove the resolution for both of these cases.
Military force encompasses sending the US fighting forces overseas to stop the creation and use of nuclear weapons.