Pf con case
PF FINAL DRAFT
Israel Onabanjo My partner and I stand in negation of the resolution, “Resolved: unilateral military force is justified by the United States to prevent nuclear proliferation” for three reasons. First, interfering with foreign affairs using military force gives many countries all the more reason to undergo nuclear proliferation. Second, the fact that military force by the U.S. is unilateral, many countries are in disfavor of it and finally, preventing nuclear proliferation is too great for the U.S. alone to handle.
Contention 1, United States intervention in foreign affairs using military force provides many countries more reasons to undergo nuclear proliferation.
Subpoint A – Nuclear proliferation is an action fueled by fear and if there is increase in military force interference, that fear will be legitimized. According to the article “Why Countries Build Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century” by Zachary Keck, “Iran’s nuclear program is better explained, then, by the rise in the potential conventional threat the U.S. poses to the Iran.” As many countries are, Iran was obviously intimidated by the massive military force of the U.S. and made the decision to begin proliferating nuclear weapons. And if the U.S. uses military force as an act to prevent nuclear proliferation, that goal may not be fulfilled.
Subpoint B – Interference by the U.S. using military force exacerbates conflict. According to the article, “The Struggle For Syria” by Majid Rafizadeh “Any direct or indirect intervention by the U.S. would exacerbate Syria’s internal conflict and increase the number of people being displaced and killed.” For example, if the U.S. uses military force against North Korea or Syria, it can anger them and they might respond in the manner of aggression and this can lead to catastrophic events such as large scale wars that break out in the pacific and middle east. This easily explains that using military force to prevent nuclear proliferation would only
Israel Onabanjo My partner and I stand in negation of the resolution, “Resolved: unilateral military force is justified by the United States to prevent nuclear proliferation” for three reasons. First, interfering with foreign affairs using military force gives many countries all the more reason to undergo nuclear proliferation. Second, the fact that military force by the U.S. is unilateral, many countries are in disfavor of it and finally, preventing nuclear proliferation is too great for the U.S. alone to handle.
Contention 1, United States intervention in foreign affairs using military force provides many countries more reasons to undergo nuclear proliferation.
Subpoint A – Nuclear proliferation is an action fueled by fear and if there is increase in military force interference, that fear will be legitimized. According to the article “Why Countries Build Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century” by Zachary Keck, “Iran’s nuclear program is better explained, then, by the rise in the potential conventional threat the U.S. poses to the Iran.” As many countries are, Iran was obviously intimidated by the massive military force of the U.S. and made the decision to begin proliferating nuclear weapons. And if the U.S. uses military force as an act to prevent nuclear proliferation, that goal may not be fulfilled.
Subpoint B – Interference by the U.S. using military force exacerbates conflict. According to the article, “The Struggle For Syria” by Majid Rafizadeh “Any direct or indirect intervention by the U.S. would exacerbate Syria’s internal conflict and increase the number of people being displaced and killed.” For example, if the U.S. uses military force against North Korea or Syria, it can anger them and they might respond in the manner of aggression and this can lead to catastrophic events such as large scale wars that break out in the pacific and middle east. This easily explains that using military force to prevent nuclear proliferation would only