Unilateral military force by the United States is not justified to prevent unclear proliferation.
“Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war than we know about peace, more about killing than we know about living. We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the Mount.” This quote is the wise words of Omar Nelson Bradley and I agree with him, therefore, I must disagree with the resolution: “Resolved Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent unclear proliferation.
Unilateral military force will merely destroy both the United States itself, and the alliances we have worked so hard to form.
Contention One: Military force spurs countries to develop nuclear capabilities
Butt, Yousaf, Christian Science Monitor, 9/5/2012, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0905/AnVIsraeliVstrikeVwonVtVdelayVIranVsVnuclearVweaponsVprogram.VItVwillVstartVit) Yousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist, is professor and scientist-in-residence at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
If we allow military forces to go into a country and attack, then we are giving that country a reason to come after the United States. As a result, that country will be more determined to make nuclear weapons and our plan would have backfired. We look to history to for support here: In 1981 Israel launched an attack against Iraq. Iraq responded by developing a nuclear reactor complex. Saddam Hussein then demanded nuclear deterrence and was the actual trigger for Iraq launching a full-scale effort to weaponize. A decade later, by the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability.
Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer explains,
“Preventive attacks can increase the long-term proliferation risk posed by the targeted state.”
Therefore, Military force will cause failure rather than success.
Contention Two: Non-military intervention is more effective
Tata, Samir, “Confronting Iran”, 10/4/13
http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/confrontingViranVredVteamVperspective)
Unilateral military force will merely destroy both the United States itself, and the alliances we have worked so hard to form.
Contention One: Military force spurs countries to develop nuclear capabilities
Butt, Yousaf, Christian Science Monitor, 9/5/2012, http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2012/0905/AnVIsraeliVstrikeVwonVtVdelayVIranVsVnuclearVweaponsVprogram.VItVwillVstartVit) Yousaf Butt, a nuclear physicist, is professor and scientist-in-residence at the Monterey Institute of International Studies.
If we allow military forces to go into a country and attack, then we are giving that country a reason to come after the United States. As a result, that country will be more determined to make nuclear weapons and our plan would have backfired. We look to history to for support here: In 1981 Israel launched an attack against Iraq. Iraq responded by developing a nuclear reactor complex. Saddam Hussein then demanded nuclear deterrence and was the actual trigger for Iraq launching a full-scale effort to weaponize. A decade later, by the time of the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq was on the verge of a nuclear weapons capability.
Malfrid Braut-Hegghammer explains,
“Preventive attacks can increase the long-term proliferation risk posed by the targeted state.”
Therefore, Military force will cause failure rather than success.
Contention Two: Non-military intervention is more effective
Tata, Samir, “Confronting Iran”, 10/4/13
http://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/confrontingViranVredVteamVperspective)