The Instigator
Tedoken119
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Leaning
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The U.S should attack North Korea

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 12/31/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 6 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 580 times Debate No: 106267
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Tedoken119

Pro

I say it's dumb for the U.S to be leaving North Korea be; my argument will explain why this is, and the Con would be arguing why they shouldn't.
Leaning

Con

Sure I'll argue against.
Debate Round No. 1
Tedoken119

Pro

The U.S is waiting, but insted of waiting we should be preparing for an all out war. North Korea makes a lot of claims like the number of nukes they had.

Most were proven to be fakes at some propoganga marches. His nukes can't even currently reach the U.S, but if they keep waiting, they could.

The same thing happened with Germany and the Nazis. The UN let them continue doing suspicious, like quick invasions to take few amounts of land, building a huge army, etc. But no other country wanted to deal with it, so they were just left alone,

Next thing they knew, World War II started and the Nazis became a great foe.

For the comment's part about allies, we have far greater allies, and they're only real dangerous allie in China, but they are breaking ties.

It's either we attack now with a higher chance of victory, or later with a lower chance...
Leaning

Con

We do not need another inconclusive Korean War.

The USA is still involved in conflicts in the Middle East, despite the numerous defeats of ISIS. I say again we are still involved in terms of soldiers, monies, and public weariness.

It is the job of the UN, NOT America. The UN is admittedly often ineffective time and time again, but one nation cannot be burdened with the worlds problems and expect such action to be sustainable over the long term.

North Korea is a buffer zone used by China, and it seems doubtful that they would stand by and let America dictate policies in it's backyard alley.
China also is the minimum, and does not take into account the rest of the world and how they might respond.

Why must we be concerned with a country approximately 82 times smaller than us?

http://www.mylifeelsewhere.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Tedoken119

Pro

Debating with people like you is cool. I'm guess I didn't realise that North Korea wasn't just the U.S's problem. But the nation may be 82 times smaller than the U.S or who knows tinier than all of the UN partners combined, but NK has something that we should all be afraid of...

nuclear bombs. Or potiential ones. It's not like back in the day when if a nation is bigger with more numbers they'd win. Now, if a country has just one of these "Death Grenades" they'll be a threat. NK has the military power of Belgium, but one of those nations has nukes.

It may not be the U.S's problem, but they are arguably the leading nation in defense and military power. And if theirs a nation NK hates the most other than South Korea... it's the U.S. Since SK and NK are currently at a sort of declined war... NK will turn to America.

If not just the U.S, but UN keeps waiting, it'll be a WWII with nukes. Sadly it would probably be a WWIII no matter what, but one fate would allow one with far less casualties.
Leaning

Con

While I admit it to be dangerous to allow North Korea to develop nukes, it seems doubtful that they would ever be able to build enough to pose a serious threat to America. Even if supplied them. As I believe the building and research of such technology is highly expensive.

Cuba for instance, I do not believe anyone thought that Cuba by itself was capable of destroying the United States even with it's nukes, but we found them far to close for comfort and considered them to be cats paws of Communist Russia, thus the failed Bay of Pigs Invasion which proved to be a major embarrassment to the current USA administration at the time.

I believe that Germany was mostly alone before WW2 unlike North Korea. Making it easier to intervene in that case(Which we failed to do) than North Korea.

People tend to want the power to control their own destinies, be it theirs or their countries. It seems hard to put an actual number or power on who is "allowed" nuclear weapons. The current rule seems to be the major powers, regardless of actual power. Over time it is possible that countries who have not made advances past nuclear warfare in the ways that more advanced countries have, will use nukes to the detriment of the world, but I do not expect it to destroy it, nor do I expect that time has come yet.

If I have incorrect information that anyone notices, I would appreciate it being pointed out in the comments.

This link does not apply much, but it is where I got people number concept for nukes.
https://www.quora.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Tedoken119

Pro

I very much agree with you in how NK can't affect the U.S. But like I said, leaving them alone won't do anything but make there "tiny" threat grow larger and larger until it's a big one.

Also Like how you said It's not only the U.S's problem, how about other nations that can't defend themselves. Are we going to wait until our allies are attacked, or attack the enemy first.

NK must realise sooner or later that they're no match for the U.S, so they could change their aim at an easier target, or take advantage of the time the U.S isn't intervening. I understand the U.S is occupied, but if they're so much stronger than NK, why don't they get the highest potential threat over with while they're weak.

What do you think the U.S or other UN allies should do?
Leaning

Con

I do not feel it is in our best interest to force the issue with North Korea specifically because it would turn a tiny threat into a larger one due to friction that would be caused with the first class powers who could take issue with our handling of the problem ourselves.

Waiting until an ally is attack would allow us justified war which can have a large boosting effect to morale. If we were to launch a preemptive attack then there would likely be large public backlash, which would be damaging in a small war and debilitating a large one.

I think that most of the countries in the vicinity of North Korea such as South Korea and Japan are able to defend themselves sufficiently enough to guard against North Korea by itself, were major powers to be involved it would be a different problem.

I believe we originally got involved in Korea because of the domino theory that countries weak to communism would fall one by one. Countries have proved to be less connected by the spirit of communism than the founders of that movement hoped. North Korea and communism pose little threat to the world at the current time.

I do not care for individual countries involving themselves in crusades against injustice, I see our governments purpose as
to protect us, mostly that's it.

An individual can pursue his ideals, but I hold our government to a different standard. Not to mention the fact there are easier to involve ourselves in action which can help people in need.

I am unsure about the UN or it's policies, Sanctions? Protective treaties? Actually decide as a group that North Korea commits atrocities on it's own people and should be dealt with by a unified world movement? I am unsure of actual extent of North Korea atrocities and can only remember rumor.

I would like to thank my opponent for the debate and say it has helped me consider how I am weak on a number of facts and knowledge for what this debate question entails.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by whiteflame 6 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Flatstanley// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Arguments), 1 point to Pro (Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: M yersyesr

[*Reason removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by Nd2400 6 months ago
Nd2400
Nevermind about voting, just because it would be a bias vote.
Tedoken119: Be lucky you did debate me on this issue. I know a lot about this issues, and reading your argument would be easily defend by me.... So consider yourself lucky....
Posted by Nd2400 6 months ago
Nd2400
Russia and China are not breaking ties with NK. Have you heard the illegal oil sells by both countries selling to the North. Anyways i will vote on this debate. But it will happen later.
Posted by Tedoken119 6 months ago
Tedoken119
Well, Russia and China are breaking ties with NK (North Korea). So this could be there chance.
Posted by SirNoodles518 6 months ago
SirNoodles518
"We have far greater allies"

Not if Russia or China step in which they probably would. And then imagine what would happen when nukes started flying around.
Posted by Leaning 6 months ago
Leaning
I do not have any hard facts for how damaging nukes can be, how much they cost, or official regulation on them, or information regarding UN policies, or State relations with each other, alas.
Posted by SirNoodles518 6 months ago
SirNoodles518
While what North Korea is doing is atrocious the US definitely shouldn't attack them. Because there's no doubt it'd lead to an intervention from another country.
No votes have been placed for this debate.