We affirm todayâ€™s resolution, Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation. First, I would like to begin by establishing a framework through which to evaluate the round.
The following definitions come from Merriam-Websterâ€™s Dictionary
Proliferation : to increase in number or amount quickly
Nuclear War Prevention
KHALILZAD, RAND Analyst, 1995 (Zalmay, The Washington Quarterly , SP)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term ...view middle of the document...
However, there are a number of countries-Pakistan, India, Israel, Argentina, and Brazil, to name a few-that are now capable of equipping themselves with nuclear armaments and of constnlcting or purchasing sophisticated long-range missiles. When we add the so-called "rogue" nations like Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, North Korea, and Afghanistan, for instance, some of whom have actively pursued nuclear capability, we have a growing list of nations that could pose a real threat to the security of their neighbors, not to mention the interests of the major powers. What is more, it may be premature to envision a new era of permanent cooperation and peace between the United States and Russia. The political, ethnic, and economic volatility of that region is still troubling. It remains to be seen if Russia's challenge to the West is truly over, or for that matter the challenges raised by Marxism or some other brand of authoritarianism. German reunification is a fact and it is unlikely that Russia will regain its influence over Poland, Hungary, or the Czech Republic. The situation in the Balkans, however, is less stable or predictable. It is possible that at some time in the future the struggle between different national or ethnic groups might lead to regional conflict. It is possible that such a struggle might encourage the Russians or the Germans to extend their influence in the Balkans. Turmoil in Albania and conflict in Serbia's Kosovo province in late 1998, is a concern, as are the irredentist populations in some of the former Soviet republics., So we now face a Wider range of contingencies. There is the possibility that nuclear weapons will proliferate to rogue states and terrorists. There remains the risk of accidental or unauthorized use by nuclear states. This threat increases if more states or groups have access to the weapons, Finally, there is the possibility of deliberate use of nuclear weapons by existing states and threshold states; Israel could believe itself sufficiently threatened to resort to a nuclear strike; Russia could feel itself threatened by neighboring states or China; an India-Pakistan war could erupt. One suspects that political and military leaders are scrambling to think through the implications of these new threats, and only the most sanguine observer can assume that they will get it right on ~y occasion, But what would "getting it wrong" mean; f
3. Prolif has disasterous environmental consequences.
Stephen Starr and Peter King 8-2-09,
Nuclear suicide, http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20090208-19496.html
But there is little evidence yet that either the government or the Commission is fully alert to the most momentous truth of the present era: Our best science now predicts that nuclear arsenals are fundamentally incompatible with continued human existence. It is imperative that the message coming from scientists in the US, Russia and elsewhere about the environmental consequences of nuclear war be...