Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons

Question

I need some Affermative Positons and Negative Positons on this New LD Topic. Any help would be apperciated. I just need like contentions to make my case... Thank you for your helpp :)

Answer 1

It is not only just, but to not do so could be the demise of the US. The acquisition of wmd is not a problem, the stated desire and intent to use them is what matters. Iran has left no doubt when it feels capable, it will attempt to destroy Israel, and the United States. We (the US) should deal with Iran right now. It would prevent much greater loss of life than waiting will result in. The fantasy land many of our citizens live in will prevent us from doing what needs to be done.

Answer 2

Justified, not really. But it is smart. It is the most powerful force, militarily speaking, on the planet. And the ones who usually go for it are the ones that don't like America. But America doesn't have a justified positition if it refuses to give up its own (and the reduction Bush just did is only that, a reduction). But again, giving up our own when so many enemies are attempting to attain theirs is probably not our brightest move either.

So the question is whether the US should avoid hypocrisy or stay safe from enemies. Got to go with keeping the hypocrisy and staying safe.



Having said that, most people should realize that nuclear weapons in their current form are fairly irrelavant. The basic fact is they are nearly useless in war right now for America. It has to do with our moral center. We find it distasteful to use nuclear weapons unless it is necessary to save ourselves from destruction. Which means the only two enemies we have that we'd really be willing to use it on would be the Chinese and the Russians. The terrorists aren't advanced enough to launch a missile at us.

And the basic fact is, China and Russia have intercepting missiles that are much too fast for our weapons to get through (the same is true for our intercepting missiles). Nuclear ICBM (Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles) missiles move at a speed of about 18,000 miles per hour. The interceptor missiles on both sides travel at just under 186,000 miles per second (not per hour, per second--just under the speed of light). Nothing will get through.

The reason we want to keep nukes out of the hands of countries like Iran is that they may give them to terrorists. Iranian leaders aren't foolish enough to launch a missile at us; they know it wouldn't get through and they do know we would respond in kind. And despite what it looks like, the leaders themselves want to stay alive. Terrorists have been convinced their whole lives of a heaven with women providing for every need if they die like martyrs, so they are willing to die. But the leaders of Iran have a bigger reason to stay alive, they have power. They don't want to lose it in death, so they don't make decisions that will end in their death.

But what we are afraid they will do is that they will give the nukes to the terrorists; who, rather than launch a missile, will attempt to hand deliver a nuke to a city in America. Of course, this isn't enough to topple America (and the terrorists are incapable of that, no matter what George Bush tries to tell you), but none of us want to be the ones who die if they should get one through.

So we try to prevent them from getting nukes the only two ways we can, diplomacy and military. Diplomacy is the better choice for now, we can't handle another war. The government has neither the support of the American people nor the military strength anymore (we stretched it too thin with the two wars already added to protection of other interests around the world). But military will probably be an option soon, somewhere there is someone looking to add a nuclear weapon to their arsenal. And if world opinion is any clue, that country probably won't like us.

Answer 3

No, it is not the right if the United States to dictate to the world who should and should not have the nuclear capabilities.
Many nations believe, and rightly so, that they will eventually need them as a deterrent from the aggression of both the United States and Israel.
We signed the npf treaty, and was one of the first to violate the terms of that document, by giving the technology and bomb to Israel, whereas Iran signed the treaty and so far has not been prov en by anyone to have violated any of terms.
It is their right, as provided by this treaty to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes, and only the US and Israel has accused them of doing otherwise.
Isn't it amazing we can spend trillions of dollars to try and protect Israel from their neighbors, but can't control our own borders, and feed the homeless and hungry here at home.
So far, 1.9 trillion for Iraq, and congress just gave Bush another 70 billion for more war. How many kids here would that feed?

Answer 4

Nobody has established a rule that only the United States can do so. Any country that wished to stop another from acquiring nukes would, theoretically, be free to try and stop them with military force.

That said, only a handful of countries would have a reasonable ability to accomplish such a goal.

Answer 5

International affairs are based on hypocrisy and the law of the jungle. Every thing else is theater.