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 great that Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University states that preventing nuclear weapons from being used precedes all standard ethics. He argues that a world in which a nuclear weapon has a greater chance of being used is morally bankrupt. Therefore, any ethical framework must be rejected due to the unique lack of morality within the realm of nuclear weapons. Observation 2: The impacts of this round should be weighed first on magnitude, then on probability. Jonathan Schell of the Yale Center writes that impacts like extinction should be weighed first due to their unique effect on 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 unilateral military force is justified as a tool of international policy to win the round as no one policy is used in every scenario. Voting Pro does not mean that other multilateral measures are excluded from consideration. Observation 4: Colonel James Helis of the Army War College defines unilateral military force as any operation where the US has total sovereignty over the direction of force. If multiple states have operational sovereignty over an operation, then the operation is multilateral. This means that US operations with other countries are unilateral provided that only the US directs operational resources. Observation 5: Blacks 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 has ushered in new types of warfare, specifically cyber and financial warfare. The Department 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 2013 conclude that military force in its newest form includes the weakening of a state through cyber and economic attacks. Financial warfare deals with attacks on the credit and currency of a nation. Thus we see that cyberwarfare and financial warfare are the newest tools 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 and most effective form of warfare. Cyberattacks eliminate the need to put troops on the ground. 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 Times in 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 fight against 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 Departments financial warfare operations, finds that out of all types of aggression, financial warfare is the most effective way to reduce proliferation. His 2013 analysis concludes that the only time that North Korea has ever made concessions on its nuclear program was when the US used financial warfare to freeze Korean assets and isolate them to the greatest extent possible in the international arena. He furthers that financial warfare provides the leverage necessary to conduct diplomatic operations, which means that diplomacy and multilateralism only work when financial 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 a nuclear weapon attack will occur unless the number of weapons and available weapons-grade material is radically reduced. Even if the horizon for a nuclear detonation were extended to 1,000 years, 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 midtown Manhattan in the middle of workday could kill half a million people and cause $1 trillion in direct economic damage. It's not just nation states, such as Iran, Burma, and North Korea who are looking to create stores of weapons-grade material. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, as well as despots around the world, are looking to acquire nuclear materials from enterprising nuclear smugglers.

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 buyer and 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 the knowledge and equipment needed to build an atomic bomb available to anyone with a little time and money. The increasing involvement of organized crime in the nuclear black market suggests that 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 the health of thousands over a prolonged period, make entire cities uninhabitable, cause billions of dollars in damage and destroy the global economy. Millions would die from radiological diseases such 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 nuclear material from terrorists, smugglers, and unsecured storage locations. Already, two bombs worth of highly enriched uranium has been recovered, leading to the conclusion that much more has already 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 military MIGHT to fight the nuclear terrorist threat. Without using unilateral military force, there is a guarantee of nuclear terrorism