The Instigator
mir9
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Jakeross6
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should South Korea be allowed to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves from North Korea?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/26/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 682 times Debate No: 44638
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

mir9

Pro

Conditions
Round one is opening arguments only.
Round two and three are for rebuttals only.
Round four is for closing arguments. No new evidence past round three.



These days, North Korea has been developing even more nuclear weapons as the new dictator, Kim Jung Eun, has taken charge. North Korea stands as a communist country with close political ties to China and Russia. On the other hand, South Korea stands as a democratic nation with political ties to the USA, North Korea's enemy. Therefore, I say that South Korea should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons for the purpose of national safety.
South Korea stands today with a forced military law. In other words, every male citizen of Korea is mandated to complete two years of military service, some time or another. The only reason for this is to protect itself from the threat of North Korean invasion. However, even a top-notch military cannot fight off the threat of nuclear weaponry. Therefore, the obvious method is to allow South Korea to develop defensive nuclear weapons.
Another statement that I have to offer is the fact that Russia and the USA own thousands of atomic bombs. They claim that this is to protect themselves and other allied or peaceful countries from nuclear attacks from unstable nations, such as Iran, or Afghanistan. However, it makes more sense to allow neighboring countries to have those nuclear weapons rather than countries halfway across the globe.


Jakeross6

Con

I would like too disagree with this idea of a Nuclear Armed South Korea for a few reasons.

Reasons Against a Nuclear South Korea

1) South Korean Warmongering

Within the last few years, both North and South Korea have been egging each other on many times. South Korea does military maneuvers within the 20 mile coastline of North Korea as well as on the border (http://www.foxnews.com...) and uses its extensive US backing to ensure that they can act like they invincible in some cases.

2) It would not act as a good deterrent.

"Pyongyang started its nuclear weapons program when U.S. nuclear weapons were still in South Korea, and it has continued to develop its own nuclear weapons even after the U.S. withdrew them. Pyongyang has made clear it does not consider possessing its own nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to induce Seoul and Washington to accept a nuclear-weapons-free Korean Peninsula. Instead, it wants nuclear weapons in order to exert its own deterrence on the United States, negating potential U.S. threats to attack the North. If Seoul deployed nuclear weapons, the most likely North Korean response would be to target them pre-emptively rather than agree to eliminate its own nuclear weapons program." (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com...)

3) The north has few nuclear weapons with little capability to deliver them.

The North has only recently been doing nuclear tests with weapons large enough to do much damage to Seoul. The most recent test in Febuary of 2013 was hardly worth noting compared to the massive artillery arrangement along the border that would turn Seoul into a "sea of fire". As it stands, North Korea does not have the resources to create the weapons that would do near as much damage as its artillery can currently do. We can even see here that the U.S. (which has promised it's wholehearted support in such a war) would easily defeat North Korea in any war if we attacked preemptively (http://www.globalresearch.ca...). So, with just traditional military technology, we can defend South Korea.

4) It would affect relations between the U.S. and China. (http://www.cnn.com...)

It would affect our relations with China simply because they frown upon both North Korea's nuclear weapons and South Korea's desire for a nuclear weapons program. If we gave our support for that in a time when China and The West are increasing tensions over the South China Sea and Tibet, it could be seen as an act of military expansion in the Pacific.

"But so far, China hasn't been pleased with Kim's nuclear ambitions, although it is North Korea's closest ally and economic supporter. China recently signed on to tougher U.N. sanctions against the north, targeting that country's nuclear program.
"China appears to be getting impatient on North Korea," Yang said. "The Chinese government does not appear to be controlling its public opinion on North Korea anymore. North Korea is not popular here." (Above source)

With China, North Korea's largest, most involved ally, condemning its nuclear weapons, it seems that the need for such weapons in South Korea is diminished. China is the one that should be worried about such a war in the first place as it is basically China's peninsula.

"China's attitude towards North Korea appears to be changing," Yan said. "But China's priority is peace and stability in the region. It wants to maintain good relationship with both South and North Korea."

I firmly believe that, if China maintains this attitude and the U.S. adopts it concerning the North, nothing either countries can do will ever bring them to war because their backers, the ones that made their existence possible, will not be supporting them.
Debate Round No. 1
mir9

Pro

I thank my opponent for accepting my challenge.

Firstly, my opponent has mentioned the 'egging on' from both sides of the 38 parallel. However, both Korea's are not simply egging each other but actually practicing there in order to be ready in a moment's notice. Also, the US has shown strong feelings against North Korean nuclear programs but has done nothing real to stop it.

Secondly, my opponent has stated the possibility of North Korea striking first in the case of South Korean nuclear possession. This is not a stated fact. It is actually true that North Korea uses its nuclear tests in close range of Korean harbors, seas, and sometimes hit South Korean ships and cities. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk...)
( http://www.bbc.co.uk...)

Thirdly, even though North Korea has a handicap of being unable to fire long range missiles, my opponent has overlooked that they don't need to. South Korea is right under the 38 parallel, within firing distance. Also, South Korea is an independent nation which should be able to defend itself when it needs to. Although the help of the US would be a large one, the US is across the Pacific Ocean, which proved to be the reason of the prolonged war against Japan in 1945. Also, the USA might decide not to participate in the war when the time comes due to relations with China.

Fourthly, the USA's permission has nothing to do with the Korean peninsula. It is the pact that South Korea signed that holds it bonded to not develop nuclear bombs, not the US's disapproval. Although it is true that South Korea is largely influenced by the US but that is not the key factor in this debate so therefore off topic. (http://history.state.gov...)

Also, I'd like to make a correction in my opponent's opening. "If China maintains this attitude and the U.S. adopts it concerning the North, nothing either countries can do will ever bring them to war because their backers, the ones that made their existence possible, will not be supporting them." According to history, it was the interference of the US, Soviet Union, and China that caused the splitting if the Korean peninsula in the first place. Therefore, the US and China did make the existence of the two countries possible, and also made the possibility of war possible as well.

I look forward to an exciting debate.
Jakeross6

Con

Jakeross6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
mir9

Pro

My opponent has failed to post his round of the debate.
I have no new rebuttals.

Vote pro!
Jakeross6

Con

Jakeross6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
mir9

Pro

mir9 forfeited this round.
Jakeross6

Con

Jakeross6 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
One could make that argument, and there's certainly a higher risk that they will acquire those rights as a result of those rights extending to new nations, but it's unlikely. It's not a very strong impact, you can give a large number of reasons why the international community would allow SK to have them but not Saudi Arabia, and an even larger number why Lebanon wouldn't get them too.
Posted by mir9 2 years ago
mir9
Yeah, I guess so cuz South Korea is in a more hostile environment....
But still, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon would demand nuke rights if South Korea gets them.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
Not necessarily. You could expand the pool of countries able to have nuclear weapons without including everyone. South Korea fits many more reasonable criteria than, say, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon.
Posted by mir9 2 years ago
mir9
I haven't thought that through but I think if SK is allowed to make nukes shouldn't the middle eastern countries near Iran be allowed to make nukes too?
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I am wondering what this would involve, though. Would South Korea leave the NPT, or would there be a provision in the NPT allowing them to proliferate? Would the goal be to allow them to develop their own nukes, or for other countries to give them nukes with which to defend themselves?
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Intriguing topic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.