You are on page 1of 3

CON Speech

Resolved: Unilateral military force by the United States is not justified to prevent nuclear
proliferation.
Definitions:
Justified to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done [Stanford.edu]
Nuclear proliferation more nations developing weapons from nuclear materials [NPT
and AEA]
Prevent to keep from happening or existing [Merriam-webster.com]
Unilateral done or undertaken by one person or party [Merriam-Webster.com]
Military force of or relating to soldiers, arms, or war [Merriam-webster.com]
1

Contention 1: Unilateral force is counterproductive)


a It is unlawful.
i.
From the HREA: According to the UN Charter, states are only allowed
to threaten or use force against another state for reasons of selfdefense or when it is authorized by the Security Council. SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon recently confirmed this. [Reuters]
b Disrespecting rules leads to further violations and conflicts.
i.
Lloyd Cutler perceives in Foreign Affairs it does matter whether our
actions comply with international lawTo sustain free-world support of
our leadership, our actions must comply with international law. From
Stromseth of Cambridge University: breaches of international law
could lead to questioning the legitimacy of legal rules themselves.
ii.
Likewise, Kofi Annan: Is there not a danger of [unauthorized acts]
undermining the security system and of setting dangerous
precedents?
c It compromises international organizations.
i.
Both the ICJ and the UN condemned US interventions in Panama and
Grenada as flagrant violations of international law and of the
independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of States. Illegal
intervention would undermine the UN.
d It would cost us moral authority.
i.
From Cartwright and Yadlin the Atlantic: Washington's ability to serve
as an honest broker in international relations would be diminished by
an attack.
e It is no guarantee of success.
i.
PBS recounts many intervention disasters, including Somalia and
Beirut.
ii.
For example: BBC: drone strikes are counter-productive, generating
more radicalism and hatred of the West as a Taliban recruiting tool.
Recent polls show 69% of Pakistanis now see the US as more of an
enemy than a partner. From Cohen concerning proliferation, a
preemptive attack would actually engender support for the target
and spur an increased commitment to develop the bomb.

Contention 2: Lawful, multilateral measures are preferable)


a These measures are multifaceted.
i.
Unilateral use of force might undermine what Joseph Cirincione
describes as the comprehensive, interlocking network of treaties,
agreements, inspections, export controls, and enforcement
mechanisms designed to stop proliferation.
b They have been successful.
i.
From Csisdev: Far from increasing, the number of nuclear states [has]
actually decreased.
ii.
NY Times: What most people dont realize is that 12 countries have
either abandoned nuclear programs, dismantled existing weapons, or
handed them over
iii.
From Mueller, Foreign Policy: a sort of negative arms race has taken
placethe number of deployed warheads has dropped from 70,000 to
fewer than 10,000.

Contention 3: The measures of unilateral military force taken against nuclear


proliferation are un-proportionally drastic to the situation
a War is not eminent.
i John Mueller, Foreign Policy 2010: Nuclear Weapons Are [not] the
Greatest Threat to Humankindthe conversation is based on false
assumptionsfor more than 60 years now all they've done is gather
dust while propagandists and alarmists exaggerate their likelihood of
exploding.
b The dangers of nuclear proliferation are exaggerated.
i.
John Mueller, Foreign Policy 2010: Its a myth that terrorists could
snap up Russias loose nukes. In 1998 the head of the U.S. Strategic
Command made several visits to Russian military bases and pointedly
reported, "I want to put to bed this concern that there are loose nukes
in Russia. By all reports, Russian nukes have become even more
secure in recent years.
ii.
Stephen Younger, former head of nuclear weapons research and
development at Los Alamos National Laboratory, stresses, few people
in the world know how to cause an unauthorized detonation of a
nuclear weapon. Even weapons designers and maintenance
personnel do not know the multiple steps necessary.
iii.
As the 2005 Silberman-Robb commission pointed out, "simply
because a state can buy the parts does not mean it can put them
together and make them work."

As Mueller concludes, the solution should beto establish orderly deterrent and
containment strategies and avoid the temptation to lash out mindlessly at phantom
threats.
Johansen and Oberg, Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research [2002]:
international law holds no provisions forpre-emptive policies or wars. Accordingly, the
resolution is not proven.

You might also like