Patient diplomacy with North korea
Debate Rounds (2)
"Through the years The US and North Korea have been participating in multiple peace treaties"
Peace treaties? We never officially declared war on North Korea in the first place despite having troops there, so I assume you mean other treaties which have got us absolutely nowhere, North Korea still shells the South, North Korea is still developing a nuclear weapon while we try to engage in diplomacy, North Korea's citizens are still dying from a famine which could easily be helped if they stopped the nuclearisation process.
So where have all these treaties got us? Absolutely nowhere, North Korea is simply using "diplomacy" to bile they develop weapons capable of wiping out the South and millions of civilians. We cannot allow that.
"China, North Korea's ally, is a major trade partner with the US and by declaring war with North Korea we are losing a big part of US economy. By starting a war, we are losing a business partner and placing ourselves in an unwinable war much like te Vietnam War"
We would not go into an all-out war, the most likely situation is that we simply take out the nuclear sites and destroy their capability to fight, they are half a century behind in weaponry so resistance or casualties of any kind are unlikely.
China would only react to an invasion, simply taking out their nuclear capability would cause a substantial reaction.
In the end, I think it is idea of forcing North Korea to stop that will force them to take diplomacy seriously, which would also be better for their civilians.
I believe that humanitarian concerns are much more important than what has turned out to be useless diplomacy.
Thank you for the debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con had two args-that N Korea was becoming less aggressive and that China would stop trading with the US if they took action against them, and Con refuted them fully.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.