PRO 

Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation.

Observation 1: The existential threat from nuclear proliferation is so greatthat Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University states that preventingnuclear weapons from being used precedes all standard ethics. He arguesthat a world in which a nuclear weapon has a greater chance of being used ismorally bankrupt. Therefore, any ethical framework must be rejected due tothe unique lack of morality within the realm of nuclear weapons.

Observation 2: The impacts of this round should be weighed first onmagnitude, then on probability. Jonathan Schell of the Yale Center writesthat impacts like extinction should be weighed first due to their unique effecton the human race. Peter Zeihan, an expert at the Stratfor Institute,concludes that national leaders must weigh large scale impacts over

 probability as a matter of moral obligation to their constituents.

Observation 3: The Pro only has to prove one instance in which unilateralmilitary force is justified as a tool of international policy to win the round asno one policy is used in every scenario. Voting Pro does not mean that othermultilateral measures are excluded from consideration. 

Observation 4: Colonel James Helis of the Army War College definesunilateral military force as any operation where the US has total sovereigntyover the direction of force. If multiple states have operational sovereigntyover an operation, then the operation is multilateral. This means that USoperations with other countries are unilateral provided that only the USdirects operational resources.

Observation 5: Black’s Law Dictionary defines prevent to mean “to

obstruct”.

Contention 1: New types of warfare are justified to prevent nuclear proliferation

A.  Financial/Cyberwarfare is unilateral military force

Bryan Burrough of the New York Times in August 2013 writes that the 21st century hasushered in new types of warfare, specifically cyber and financial warfare. TheDepartment of Defense in 2011 released a report that officially named cyber warfare the

 

newest domain of war. Metz and Cuccia from the Strategic Studies Institute in 2013conclude that military force in its newest form includes the weakening of a state throughcyber and economic attacks. Financial warfare deals with attacks on the credit andcurrency of a nation. Thus we see that cyberwarfare and financial warfare are the newesttools through which the US can enact unilateral military force.

B. Cyberwarfare prevents proliferation

Tim Shia of the New York Times in 2013 writes that cyberwarfare is the cheapest andmost effective form of warfare. Cyberattacks eliminate the need to put troops on theground. Mark Hosenball in 2013 writes that cyberattacks on Iran delayed their program by three years and destroyed 15% of their centrifuges. Sanger from the New York Timesin 2012 writes that cyberattacks were crucial to avoiding a full-out military operation.Unilateral US cyberattacks such as Duqu, Flame, and Wiper are critical in the fightagainst proliferation. Since cyberwarfare costs no lives, and is effective against proliferation, it is justified.

C. Financial warfare prevents proliferation

Juan Zarate, chief architect of the Treasury Department’s financial warfare operations,finds that out of all types of aggression, financial warfare is the most effective way toreduce proliferation. His 2013 analysis concludes that the only time that North Korea hasever made concessions on its nuclear program was when the US used financial warfare tofreeze Korean assets and isolate them to the greatest extent possible in the internationalarena. He furthers that financial warfare provides the leverage necessary to conductdiplomatic operations, which means that diplomacy and multilateralism only work whenfinancial warfare comes first.

Contention 2: It is justified to use unilateral military force against terrorists

to prevent nuclear proliferation 

A. There is a greater than 50% chance of a nuclear attack in our lifetime, 30% in next

decade. 

Matthew Bunn Harvard Kennedy School of Government 2010 writes: 

A baby born today, with an expected lifetime of 80 years, faces a greater than 50/50 chance that anuclear weapon attack will occur unless the number of weapons and available weapons-gradematerial is radically reduced. Even if the horizon for a nuclear detonation were extended to 1,000years, with the threat calculated at 0.1 percent per year, a child born today would have about a 10 percent chance of not living out his or her natural life. A 10-kiloton bomb detonated in midtownManhattan in the middle of workday could kill half a million people and cause $1 trillion in directeconomic damage. It's not just nation states, such as Iran, Burma, and North Korea  who arelooking to create stores of weapons-grade material. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as wellas despots around the world, are looking to acquire nuclear materials from enterprising nuclearsmugglers.

B. Terrorists will inevitably attain nuclear weapons

 

Lawlor 11 

International traffickers have teamed up with nuclear insiders to trade nuclear materials.Organized crime has entered the market. Nuclear insiders steal; organized crime finds the buyerand arranges delivery. This alliance allows terrorists to become consumers of nuclear material,much like the buyers of illegal drugs. Globalizations and evolving technology have made theknowledge and equipment needed to build an atomic bomb available to anyone with a little timeand money. The increasing involvement of organized crime in the nuclear black market suggeststhat terrorists will be able to buy enough fissile material to build an atomic bomb.

C. A dirty Bomb will kill millions as well as devastate the global economy

Goodspeed 2012

The greater risk comes from a “dirty bomb” that uses common in nuclear material to threaten thehealth of thousands over a prolonged period, make entire cities uninhabitable, cause billions ofdollars in damage and destroy the global economy. Millions would die from radiological diseasessuch as cancer, trade to the entire region would halt, and

D. US forces key to protecting against nuclear threat

Crane 2013

The Obama administration has trained crack teams of commandoes to seize stores of nuclearmaterial from terrorists, smugglers, and unsecured storage locations. Already, two bombs worthof highly enriched uranium has been recovered, leading to the conclusion that much more hasalready been sold on the black market. These missions are overseen by the DOD and have the backing of top US military commanders. Thus we see that ONLY the US has the militaryMIGHT to fight the nuclear terrorist threat. Without using unilateral military force, there is aguarantee of nuclear terrorism