The Instigator
TheRuSSian97
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RedMoonlight
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

Should we send a task force int North Korea to neutralize the nukes and wmd"s

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 4 votes the winner is...
RedMoonlight
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 833 times Debate No: 35662
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (4)

 

TheRuSSian97

Pro

I believe if we send a task force into NK and neutralize the nukes before they actually get the technology to launch them into the us and other countries.
RedMoonlight

Con

I recently read an article pertaining to this exact topic, which got me considering it much more thoroughly. Seems to me like a very interesting and relevant thing to debate. I accept, and good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
TheRuSSian97

Pro

Good luck to you too. And if I can say that North Korea has openly threatened us with nuclear missiles, and that is a huge threat that endangers not only American citizens, but also endangers all of their enemies (which is about everyone.) True they don't have the proper technology to send a nuclear missile very far, but what happens when they do and we've all just sat around waiting for the inevitable? By sending in a covert ops group to defuse the weapons or disable them the world would be able to take a breath of fresh air knowing we've just stopped a huge practically terrorist act. And you may be saying they'll only make more. we can close off their ports because according to abc news they stopped a Cuban trade ship on the way to north korea with nuclear warheads. it would be much harder for them to get their hands on these weapons.
RedMoonlight

Con

Thanks for the argument Pro. While I agree that this is a relatively risky situation, and some form of action (not necessarily militaristic) is necessary, I will base my rebuttal around the assertion that the type of mission proposed by my opponent is out of the question. I will not claim that it is impossible, but rather that it is foolish and we "should" not do it, in response to the resolution.

Let's begin.

Ave.

Pro states: ""that endangers not only American citizens, but also endangers all of their enemies (which is about everyone.) True they don't have the proper technology to send a nuclear missile very far, but what happens when they do and we've all just sat around waiting for the inevitable?"

LIKELIHOOD OF NORTH KOREA'S THREATS

Pro operates under the assumption that a nuclear strike from North Korea is a very real, likely and even "inevitable" danger. Yes, the threat has been made, however, anyone following these hostilities should be aware of North Korea"s blustery nature. America and its allies have been receiving these very same threats for years. None have materialized so far. What evidence is there that the latest one warrants this "covert" mission you speak of?
My opponent claims that their technology is advancing, which is probably true. What he fails to realize is that their missiles are fairly advanced as it is. It"s been theorized that North Korean weapons currently have the potential to reach a U.S. military base in Guam [1]. Even if this is false, they could obviously strike South Korea without much effort, an equally satisfying target in their eyes. So why haven"t they?
I can say with the utmost confidence that North Korea will NOT nuke the United States, or even South Korea for that matter, for the same reason the USSR didn"t nuke us during all the years of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction. There are many reasons why NK has not acted, and never will act on its threats, and this is a primary one. Our missile defense techology is so advanced that they could likely not even land one strike before retaliation from the US and all of its partners, and they know it. This has been a basic principle of nuclear warfare since it was conceived. As long as both sides are armed, neither will pull the trigger. Therefore, as there is no imminent threat, military action at this point is unnecessary. Not only that, it could even serve to cause or hasten a nuclear strike/war, as I will soon demonstrate. Pro"s first point is refuted.
Pro states:"By sending in a covert ops group to defuse the weapons or disable them the world would be able to take a breath of fresh air knowing we've just stopped a huge practically terrorist act"

VIABILITY AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF MILITARY ACTION

The first and most demanding flaw in Pro"s plan is that a covert ops mission to defuse nuclear weapons is not nearly as simple as he makes it out to be. Understand, their warheads are likely at many different locations, with unpredictably high levels of protection. Introducing American operatives into such close quarters with each of their many bombs is borderline impossible. Furthermore, I don"t claim to know much about nuclear weapons, but I highly doubt they are designed in such a way that they can be rendered useless as if by the push of a button. It is a far more complicated system [1], and surely a time consuming process.. Each team (I"m assuming you need one team per bomb, if this is to be done simultaneously and "covertly") would require technological experts as well as military personnel, extremely thorough intelligence, and a plethora of cover stories convincing enough to allow them to infiltrate the most secure ranks of one of the most secure and repressed countries on earth. Need I say more? If this could be done, we likely would have done so already. Discovery of the covert team would be enormously likely, and would have SEVERE ramifications.
While the prospect of success in a mission like this is bleak, a few may still want to give it a shot. However, an additional, and very compelling reason not to attempt it are the catastrophic results that come with failure.
Implanting spies in a sovereign nation with the goal of assault on military equipment is an act of war by anyone"s standards, and NK"s standards for what constitutes an act of war are likely very loose, again, given their blustery nature. Formal war with NK is not in any way a desirable outcome at this point in time. If anything, being caught in an offensive maneuver like this would only encourage and provoke them to launch their missiles. Even if nuclear strikes were avoided due to M.A.D., the ensuing war would be bloody and extremely damaging to our country and the stability of the world. The Chinese (one of NK"s only remaining allies) would be particulary displeased and could very possibly side against us if war were to break out. All of this could easily transform into a "World War 3" type scenario in the blink of an eye. As you should now see, the action you suggest seems highly unwise when considering all factors, and compared with other approaches such as trade sanctions and international pressure to disarm.

Pro"s second point is negated.

Pro states: ""and you may be saying they'll only make more. we can close off their ports because according to abc news they stopped a Cuban trade ship on the way to north korea with nuclear warheads. it would be much harder for them to get their hands on these weapons.

PRACTICABILITY OF INTERCEPTING NUCLEAR MATERIALS

Suppose we go through with this task force mission. In the exceptionally unlikely event that it succeeds, you are very correct that they will "only make more". They will replenish their supply, probably full of rage at having them dismantled in the first place, and with far more intent to actually utilize them. You suggest a blockade of North Korean ports to prevent this, but you fail to understand how NK procures their nuclear weapons. Very few, if any of them come from imports. Even in the case of the Cuban trade ship you reference, there have not been any nuclear weapons found aboard as of July 17th [2]. All they have found is highly outdated Soviet-era weaponry (all non-nuclear). As for the nukes they do have, they were likely built domestically, with uranium from NK"s active mines [3]. The total yield of these mines is estimated at four million tons of uranium, more than enough to supply their nuclear program for many years to come. Hence, a naval blockade would serve no purpose but to provoke the situation further. This is a poor outcome, even assuming that your suicide mission is a success (again, tremendously unlikely).

Pro"s third and final point is rebutted.

I have dismantled all three components of my opponent"s argument, proving a covert mission to disable NK"s missiles would be a very poor decision indeed, putting Con in the lead of this debate. I eagerly await Pro"s next statement.

Vale.

Sources

[1] http://mashable.com...

[2] http://abcnews.go.com...

[3] http://www.fas.org...
Debate Round No. 2
TheRuSSian97

Pro

TheRuSSian97 forfeited this round.
RedMoonlight

Con

Shame, I was really looking forward to hearing what you had to say. If the FF was accidental or due to something out of your control, I'd be happy to debate this topic again with you. Oh well, extend all arguments I suppose.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
TheRuSSian97RedMoonlightTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: *votebomb* Conduct: Single round forfeit. S&G: Well spelling was not that bad, the structure without proper punctuation was difficult enough to impede consideration of arguments. Arguments: Pro made a clear case for why such a strike team would be a bad idea. Sources: Con shared his research with us, for why North Korea isn't such a credible threat as pro would have us believe.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 3 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
TheRuSSian97RedMoonlightTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
TheRuSSian97RedMoonlightTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: FF and for same reasons as the person below me
Vote Placed by DeFool 3 years ago
DeFool
TheRuSSian97RedMoonlightTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I am forced to award conduct to CON for the FF, S&G for having presented a clear and easy to understand argument, and sources for CONs having been the only player to have done so. Arguments: PRO's presentation was not a fully-formed argument, but rather a suggestion or opinion. It is rare, but I have little choice but to award a full 7 points to CON.