Only twice in the Earth’s history has man been witness to the tremendous and awful power of nuclear bombs dropped in populated areas. The two bombs dropped in Japan effectively ended the Pacific’s engagement in World War II, but the age of nuclear threats was just beginning. Though the first to discover and test the technology, the United States certainly wasn’t the last. Unilateral military force by the US is justified to prevent nuclear proliferation for the following reasons: the US has a just cause in using unilateral military force and nuclear proliferation in itself leads to many negative impacts.
In order to validate our first contention we must look to the Just War Theory which states we must have a just cause to go to war. The fact of the matter is nuclear proliferation not only affects the US but it also affects the entire world. Proliferation of nuclear weapons leads to more proliferation. Almost every nuclear power decided to develop nuclear weapons as a response to another countries nuclear research. The U.S. began its nuclear research because of intelligence that Nazi Germany had a nuclear weapons program. The U.S.S.R. developed nuclear weapons in response to the U.S. England and France pursued nuclear weapons because of the U.S.S.R. China made nuclear weapons because of the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. and so on and so forth. So many are rightly concerned that nuclear proliferation would lead to the spread of more nuclear weapons.
For example in the case of North Korea, the case for just cause to take unilateral action against North Korea hinges on three considerations: (i) North Korea already has the requisite material to create nuclear weapons, (ii) North Korea is led by someone who has threatened nuclear force and is not rational and (iii) North Korea expanded its missile technology for the express purpose of creating a warhead that could reach the United States. We also have to look in the case of Iran in which we would have just cause for unilaterally attacking Iran to minimize nuclear weapons proliferation. This is due to the overwhelming implications that Iranian proliferation would have, not only in the Middle East but also across the world. Matthew Kroenig, former Special Adviser in the Office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense on Iran, paints a troubling picture of a world wherein Iran possesses nuclear weapons: A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit U.S. freedom of action in the Middle East. With atomic power behind it, Iran could threaten any U.S. political or military initiative in the Middle East with nuclear war, forcing Washington to think twice before acting in the region. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy, and the battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel, for example, could escalate. But the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw the United States in, as well.
For our second…