“I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.”
Ronald Reagan

With these words in mind, I stand firmly AGAINST the resolution which states that is it unjust for the U.S to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

For the sake of clarification in this debate, I would like to define the following terms from Websters Dictionary:
Acquisition: Means something or someone gained.

My value for this debate is safety and security because it is unjust for the U.S to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

My value criterion is utilitarianism because it is the best tool with which to measure if my value is being upheld in this debate.

I have three contentions, each of which upholds my value.
My first contention is that the entire world would be more secure if the planet were free of nuclear weapons.
My second contention is that the threat or even the use of nuclear weapons has been declared generally illegal by the World Court.
My third contention is that nuclear weapons have not prevented wars, which is what they were supposed to do.

Contention one: The entire world would be more secure if the planet were free of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are the one type of weapon in existence that even have the capacity to annihilate the human species and countless other species. The existence of nuclear weapons leaves open the possibility that a nuclear exchange might take place. This could happen intentionally, recklessly, or even by an accidental launch. The fewer nuclear weapons there are in the world, the fewer there are for terrorists to try to steal. Every step toward the elimination of nuclear weapons would increase our security. Without the elimination of these nuclear weapons, there is always the danger that nuclear weapons will escalate, more and more countries will obtain them. It is ultimately unrealistic to expect that in a world in which some nations rely upon nuclear weapons, other nations will not seek to obtain them. A world where there are many nuclear-armed countries, would be even more dangerous, not just for us in the United States, but for everyone in the world. Contention two: The threat or even the use of nuclear weapons has been declared generally illegal by the World Court. Nuclear weapons are also morally reprehensible. The rightness of many issues is debatable, but nuclear weapons are morally insupportable. Even possessing something so deadly is wrong. These radiation-laden bombs can destroy most life on Earth and would be better described as national and global suicide devices rather than weapons. If it is wrong for me to kill you, it is wrong for me to even plan to do it. If i get my gun and go into your house to retaliate for a wrong done me, then find there are police guarding your house, I have already committed murder in my eyes. I have intended it. Likewise, if i intend to use nuclear weapons in massive