The United States should increase its military presence in the Pacific-Asia region
Debate Rounds (3)
Interesting... Admittedly I did not originally intend to accept this debate as I do not know much about the subject, but I believe this will be an interesting debate nonetheless.
On a side note, if Kim Jong Un will nuke someone if he can't do well in a video game, what will he do if the US sends massive warships to patrol his borders. Shudder.
It's also great to know (if you are true to your age) that I am debating someone around my age. Also for clarity, I am a Chinese-American, just fyi.
To start off, I am a firm believer in the idea of "Peace through strength." But let's break up this debate into 2 parts: regarding China and regarding North Korea (which, seeing from your meme is your favorite topic)
China in recent years has begun to maneuver for territorial superiority in the Pacific region. In doing so, the PRC has begun to square off with our allies in the region: Japan and Taiwan. China, in vying for the Senkaku/Diayou Islands has used an over excessive amounts of military force to assert its claims in the South China Sea which is cause for concern (Ex: est. of No-Fly Zone and the ramming of Japanese ships with ships flying under the Chinese flag). Furthermore, China, as you probably know, still considers Taiwan a "renegade" province and still considers it a hostile for aligning itself with us, the US. China has made threats in the past to retake Taiwan, militarily if necessary, which is also another cause for concern. China also supports North Korea, which, in and of itself is an argument for increasing our military presence in the region. But hey! This is a perfect segway into North Korea.
Regarding North Korea:
North Korea, although seemingly erratic is actually quite rational. The only reason they threaten the world nearly every day is to extract food and energy aid from the rest of the world. But however, they have followed through with some of their promises and shelled Yeonpyeong Island (2010), sunk a South Korean Naval Boat (ROKS Cheonan, 2010) . So I believe that to deter NK from killing innocent South Korean civilians and soldiers, we should increase our naval presence in the region. Furthermore, recently Kim Jong Un has been noted to be missing. It is possible, as an article notes on CNN, that a possible coup has occurred, which will lead to more instability in the region.)
As I said, I believe in "Peace through strength". Increasing our naval presence could help o deter Chinese ambitions for a territorial expansion and NK designs for a united Korean peninsula or just the senseless killing of South Korean citizens and soldiers.
Once again, thanks for accepting and I'm really excited for this debate.
For the sake of clarity, here is a map of the modern "Pacific Theatre":
I will keep this brief due to the character limit. My first round will consist of a part rebuttal/part argument.
Examples of how "Peace through strength" is an incorrect principle
The bombing of Pearl Harbor did not happen due to Japan's intention to draw the US into WWII. Japan bombed Hawaii due to the massive Pacific fleet that had been based there. The intention for moving the fleet was to deter the Japanese from further movement in the Pacific theatre following the attack on French Indochina . While the idea was to provide peace in the Pacific Theatre, in reality it resulted in the bombing of an American naval base and the USA's entrance into WWII.
Sinking of the RMS Lusitania
This situation is somewhat different from Pearl Harbor, yet still proves my point. As it looked more like US would eventually join WWI on the side of the Allies, the US began to send supplies over to Great Britain. Threatened by the increased amount of American vessels, Germany sunk the RMS Lusitania with submarines on the 7th of May in 1915 . Once again, the US was attempting to cause a more peaceful situation, this time by ending a war faster as opposed to preventing one. However, similar to Pearl Harbor, the US's efforts only caused them to enter a war.
The US grants Israel over $8.5 million every day towards their war effort . In the 40+ years that the US has been providing aid, they have spent over $100 billion . The US has also lended Israel almost 100 aircrafts, 7 ground units, and several missiles . Yet despite all of this military strength Israel has been in constant warfare and there are no signs that it will end anytime soon.
Conclusion: Given these multiple examples it can be concluded that military strength is ill prepared to enforce peace and generally provokes the other countries targeted.
Based on this conclusion, let us analyze the US's situation in the Pacific region today.
Regarding North Korea
North Korea is the definition of a country with a Napoleonic complex. While nobody is certain, all signs suggest that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. Also, given their tense relationships with the US and South Korea it is possible that they are willing to use them. Based on the examples shown, specifically Pearl Harbor, it would be unwise for the US to send a naval force to the Pacific theatre, given that it may provoke the North Koreans to strike. In this situation, diplomacy would be a far more appropriate approach as any military attempt is likely to result in disaster.
The issue regarding China is that they, in a sense, own the United States. This is because the US owes China over $10 trillion, and that number is ever increasing . If the US begins to make threatening military moves towards China, China will most likely not launch nukes at us, but rather cancel all aid to the United States. This could prove to be crippling economically to the US. While I understand the issue with Taiwan and various Pacific islands, in this situation it would be wise to avoid angering China and allow them to act as they please.
One issue that my opponent did not discuss in the first round was the issue with Russia. It is a common error to forget Russia when discussing the Pacific theatre, however they are a prominent nation on that border. Given the tense relations between the US and Russia (i.e. Ukraine) it would be certainly unwise to provoke the Russians by sending warships close to their borders. Even if the ships were not intended to sail to Russia, it may still be perceived as a threat and as a result possibly invoke a Cold War between the two superpowers.
Back over to you, Pro :)
I will post my sources in the comments section.
Israel is in a "constant state of war" because they are defending their people. Operation Protective Edge (launched earlier this year) was to stop Hamas firing rockets into Israel (which happens on a near daily basis).
But I digress (sorry).
But the intention of having a US naval presence in the region is not to incense any nation, but rather also to show nations, like Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan that the US is there for them and reassure them that China's designs for more territory will not be allowed.
The United States should be committed to her strategic allies in the Pacific-Asia region because Asia is a great place for potential economic and political cooperation & development for the US. I completely understand your arguments and you made very good points.
I have nothing further and with that I hand it over to Atheist Independent. It was great to be able to debate a very well learned person like you.
Sorry for the late response, I lost track of time.
Due to the fact that I rebutted my opponents arguments in my opening argument, I will rebut my opponents 3rd round rebuttals now.
I understand my opponents argument that Israel is attacking Hamas to defend their people, and that therefore their actions are justified. However, can it not be said the same thing for the Palestinians? They were forced out of their homes following the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, and ever since have been ruthlessly persecuted by the Israelis. However, this argument has completely strayed away from the original premise at hand, so I will not elaborate my rebuttal any further.
Onto the next argument, I see what my opponent is getting at about how the US naval presence would be more for the protection of their allies and not as a aggressive movement against China, North Korea, and Russia. However, the issue with this is that, in politics, intentions are not the deciding factor. What I mean by this is that a person or country may originally have positive intentions in the beginning, however the result will always be determined based on how the opposing group interprets the intentions. Looking at the situation from China and North Korea's point of view, they will not view the American naval presence as a positive force intending to protect innocent people. They will view it as a threat to their safety and therefore will react accordingly. This is similar to my examples of both Pearl Harbor and the Sinking of the RMS Lusitania because the US was not acting aggressively to Japan and Germany, respectively, however the Japanese and Germans interpreted it that way and therefore acted agressively against the US.
I would like to thank my opponent for this debate, as it has certainly been a highly informative debate about a relatively unknown issue.
On a side note, I would like to end this debate as I started it; with a meme.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
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.