The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

The U.S.A should intervene with military force in 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: 4/8/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 882 times Debate No: 51920
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Round 1 is an acceptance of my rules.
No prejudice should be present in this debate against any racial, religious, or sex.
No use of bad language allowed.


I thank Con for starting this debate.

Since Con leaves the military intervention open for definition, my view of a military action in North Korea would entail bombing raids of key military and federal targets, physical isolation, and a strongly surrounded "net" of anti-missile and aircraft weaponry.

Therefore, my contention is that for the reason I will present in following rounds, the abuses of threat of North Korea must be responded to and dealt with in the safest and cleanest way possible.

Good luck to my opponent, and I anticipate his first round arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Though it is entirely tempting to stop the horrible threats the North Korean's face with their government it would risk nuclear war, it would obviously result in deaths of are own people, and china would most likely not allow us to attack North Korea without some consequence. America is not the world police, but the North Korean situation would be concerning enough to take all the risks I mentioned, but there is one thing that undoubtedly would make it a foolish move, the fact that North Koreans haven"t begun to rebel against there own leader.

THE RISK OF NUCLEAT WAR AND LOSS OF AMERICAN LIVES: Because North Korea is a nuclear power in the world, attacking them risks nuclear war. This is a pretty big commitment for a country so far away. Also, war is pretty. It unquestionably will end with the deaths of people in are country and North Korean civilians.

AMERICA SHOULD NOT RISK WAR WITH CHINA TOO: North Korea and China are really pretty close, and china would probably not like the USA invading one of their ally"s countries. War with China and North Korea is extremely threatening. It would be useless to undergo this threat.

IF WE DID HELP NORTH KOREA WE WOULD BE WASTING A LOT OF EFFORT, LIVE, AND TIME: If USA did go into North Korea we would probably win, have the motive, and be able to handle all the risks. We would have won North Korea"s war for them, but pretty soon it would be inevitable for some power to try to rise again. Because North Korea hasn"t started a revolution, the USA intervening would not help much. Without the passion to start a revolution themselves, it wouldn"t be very productive for us to go in. I"m not saying it would be easy, but until they are ready to risk life and limb and use there own kitchen knives to bring down their government America should not get involved. Once there is a mass desire for revolution absolutely America should help, but not before.


I thank my opponent for his opening statements.

Since it seemed mostly ignored, I would restate my would-be plan of attack, consisting of strategy airstrikes, complete isolation of the state of North Korea, and a strong sea based anti-missile wall. While casualties would be unavoidable in such a conflict, I plan to show why these would be minimal. My opponent seems disposed not to dispute the moral justification, but instead the feasibility of a war. Thus, my primary arguments will consist more of dispelling these ideas, and less on the justification.

The North Korean Military (or lack thereof)

With a reasonably impressiveness number of soldiers and moderately powerful artillery, the North Korean "People's Army" is nothing to balk at. However, the outdated technology and pitiful budget makes this mostly harmless.

The first step in deposing the regime would be to eliminate the North Korean Air Force and navy. This would be no difficult task. The North Korean military, boasting 820 warplanes, sounds threatening. The Huffington Post reports that "The reported number of North Korean aircraft is meaningless, because many of them cannot fly, and North Korean pilots have little training in the air." The airforce is also prone to "chronic fuel shortages". (1)

The rogue-state's navy similar is condemned to defeat in the case of a war. In an investigations of NK's military prowess, The Nation says "the North Korean navy is clearly outmatched by the South Korean navy, which has far superior warships than the NK's naval force (21 frigates and destroyers versus three frigates)." (2) Indeed, most of the warships come from the Soviet Union in the 60's and 70's, and would be easily crushed by South Korean and US artillery and aircraft.

With both of these non-threats exterminated, the west would have their way to use well-placed airstrikes and target military and federal positions and people, who would be unable to respond regardless of their manpower.

The Nuclear Option

In today's global circumstances, North Korea cannot be mentioned without additionally talking about the nuclear tests NK loves to conduct so much. (3) While liberal estimates claim enough plutonium has been enriched to construct 8 atom bombs, many sources cast doubt onto the North's capability to use these.

"The evidence suggests that North Korea's nuclear warhead designs are either inefficient or faulty. Hence, Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal appears to consist of atomic squibs, and even if its estimated warhead inventory has increased from six to eight to six to 18 warheads, the inaccuracy of its current missiles as warhead delivery vehicles renders the nuclear arsenal ineffectual against military targets." (4)

Going on the describe the great weapons as "unusable", The Nation reveals the desperation that North Korea does not want the world to know it has. Simply put, the atom bomb is not a viable threat, which if launched, considered unlikely given their conditions, would be easily handled by the US's imposing missile defense capabilities.

Why Action Must be Taken

And now I can discuss why a military operation against North Korea is justifiable, if not needed. The outdated state of the nation's military is the very reason that action must be taken. At some point, Kim Jung-Un will snap, and makes almost annual threats of nuclear strikes. Currently not a true threat, if left to its own devices, "a preemptive nuclear attack on the United States, could use a long-range missile to orbit a satellite over the South Pole, putting it in line to fly over Omaha, Neb., and explode it at a 300-mile altitude where U.S. Aegis anti-ballistic missile systems cannot reach". (5) Such an eventuality cannot be permitted. The well-documented humanitarian crimes of NK, committed for decades, is a powerful argument, but ironically, the great need for military response is the threat of military itself. While "get them before they get us" is generally a bankrupt philosophy, the substantiation of these dangers and promises of suffering by such evil forces cannot be neglected.

I have more rebuttals and points to make, but I am running out of characters, and so must hold out for future rounds.

(2) (4)
Debate Round No. 2


pianodude2468 forfeited this round.


Arguments extended through round 3.
Debate Round No. 3


pianodude2468 forfeited this round.


Con forfeits.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
Do you have a specific idea of what that intervention should be, or are you leaving it open to Pro to define it?
No votes have been placed for this debate.