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

US Government should issue more aid and assistance to South Korea

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,403 times Debate No: 31556
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




This debate is deals with the future relationship that the United States will have with South Korea. Should we send over more aid and help to ensure the SK military's safety or withdraw due to threats made from North Korea.


I accept this challenge, and hope that this will be a lively debate.

As Con, my resolution is as such: we should not give additional funding/military support to South Korea. I'll use round 1 as the introduction to my argument, so I will list my reasons and briefly describe them here, then go into more detail in later rounds.

A) The United States and South Korea have had a military alliance since 1953, so there is no reason to give additional military support.
B) South Korea has been slowly weaning off U.S. support since that alliance, so it's obvious that South Korea really doesn't need much support from them anymore.
C) North Korea has no real intention of invading South Korea.
D) Providing additional military/economic support to South Korea would increase hostilities between the U.S., China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Debate Round No. 1


I do agree with some of the points that you stated before me because logically they do make sense. We as country have been involved with South Korea for quite some time, but here is one point that I present to you. Ever since we involved ourselves in the Korean War we have sort of been tied to South Korea. This isn't necessary a bad thing though. We do not have that many allies in Asia as you know of because of the fact that the United States is a "westernized" country. Our only three strong allies that we have over there are Israel, Japan, and South Korea. When we keep strong relationships going on, we also remain in touch with the world around us.

As you also know North Korea is probably the most isolated and secretive country in the world. We don't have that much information about them but we do know that they have a nuclear bomb and could potentially use it to start a nuclear war. You say previously that North Korea isn't planning on attack, but I on the affirmation strongly disagree. It may seem like a comical threat now, but since we don't have any insight on their plans we never know. Since we never know we must always be prepare. So how can we prepare? We can try our best by sticking by South Korea. Plus even if we were to leave, they would still hate us because we are "imperialists" in their eyes.

As of right now we have about 28,000+ US troops are stationed in South Korea. This includes the DMZ and coastal linings. I believe though that if North Korea or even China attacked we wouldn't be prepared or able enough to fight. There are many different arguments that we both can make and I look forward to discuss this timely issue with you.


I thank Pro for her response.

Since you already have a good grasp on most of my points, I'm going to focus solely on the one that we seem to disagree on: North Korea has no real intention of invading South Korea.

First, I agree that North Korea is a very isolated nation, but isolation =/= danger necessarily. North Korea's nuclear program is a joke; they can barely get missiles in the air, let alone direct them to other countries, especially the U.S. This is why North Korea has only detonated missiles off their own coast or in the air, because they can not launch them in any direction but up yet. Even their most recent threat on March 7th can be laughed off due to its ridiculous nature. A professor of U.S. Foreign Policy at Wright State University says,"'It"s almost predictable, over-the-top and rash verbal behavior, which may very well be followed by a new overture to South Korea for peace talks. First, you show them what a tough guy you are and then you talk peace'" [1].

Next, you have already stated that Japan and South Korea are our only allies in the Pacific region, but I would argue that we have close bonds with China and Russia as well, due to our agreement to withhold all missile testing using ballistic technology (UNSC Resolution 1874). In response to their 2012 missile test, China responded by saying, "To maintain the peace and stability of the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia is not only in the common interests of all sides concerned, but also the shared aspiration of the international community" [2]. Russia agreed with China, saying, "We call on Pyongyang not to put itself in opposition to the international community, to refrain from actions that increase tension in the region and create additional complications for the relaunch of six-sided negotiations about the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula". They also said, "In case of rejection of North Korea's rocket off course and a threat of falling into Russian territory, Russian Aerospace Defence Forces are ready to shoot down the missile" [3]. You also have to remember that North Korea depends heavily economically on China, who is tied to the United States. Also, North Korea is within China's sphere of influence, which means that China has some clout in the country. There have been some occasions where the Chinese have told the North Koreans to cease and desist their harassment after the U.S. displayed their concerns [4].

I have some other points I can make, but I will save them for the next round. To conclude this argument though, North Korea does not have a serious nuclear program yet, and since North Korea is essentially under the thumbs of China, Russia and Japan, there really is no need for alarm as they will be able to end the conflict almost immediately and with diplomacy.

Debate Round No. 2


I thank my contender as well for his response to my stance.

Throughout your second contention you mentioned how we agreed on some aspects but one aspect that we disagreed on was the North Korea nuclear program. You make a point in how you say that it's not up to par with our own, but still they do a have a nuclear bomb and will stop at nothing to figure out how to use it. In the words of John Bolton, "When a country finally gets a weapon, their not afraid to use it." This issue is not one that will affect us this afternoon or this week, but still the North Korean government in my opinion will stop at absolutely nothing to keep their dictatorship in place. In fact last week according to BBC, "Last week the North vowed "merciless retaliatory strikes" if any shells landed in waters claimed by Pyongyang during a live-fire artillery exercise near the disputed Yellow Sea border." Threats like these occur all the time, but sooner or later something will happen. We must be prepared for that day.

You also go on to discuss our relationship with Russia and China who are both superpowers unlike the countries I stated before. Yes, right now we do have a good, well rounded relationship with these countries but we still feel much tension with them. We as a country can say that China and Russia are simply not our "best friends." China especially, because of the fact that they have bought 1/3 of US debt according to CNN, which gives them a sense of leverage over us.

China also is North Korea's only ally and if China had to go between us or the North Koreans, who would they help? I honestly can't say because I'm not China, but sometimes our defense policy here at home doesn't know where their true loyalty lies. Plus let's say China helped NK and ganged up on South Korea, they would need help that would come from us. This may never happen, but if it DID occur what would the effect be on our country. As I have stated before we are bonded to them right now in sense and who else is really going to help them?


I thank Pro for her rebuttal.

Although I agree with your quote by John Bolton, I must say that North Korea doesn't have a full grasp on nuclear warfare yet. They can't launch missiles anywhere but straight up in the air, which is essentially useless if they want to attack South Korea or the U.S. In addition, like I said in round 2, the North Koreans are currently being denounced by China, Russia, Japan, etc. for their actions due to their violations of UN resolutions. If North Korea was ever to instigate a nuclear attack, China and Russia, two of North Korea's and our allies, would most likely side with the U.S. due to our six-party talks which led to UN resolutions banning testing with ballistic technology. Although there is tension between these three superpowers, I highly doubt they would side with North Korea, seeing as the rest of the UN would not, especially since they feel threatened by North Korea themselves, as seen by their statements in regards to their 2012 testing.

However, in the case the China (or even Russia) sides with North Korea, there are more than enough allies of South Korea to defeat such an alliance, as seen by this map (Green represents allies) [1].


Here are the most prominent/powerful of their abundance of allies [2] and their military rankings [3]:

1) United States (Since 1953) - Rank 1
2) Great Britain (Since 1949) - Rank 5
3) Germany (Since 1955) - Rank 7
4) France (Since 1949) - Rank 6
5) India (Since 1963) - Rank 4
6) Israel (Since 1962) - Rank 13
7) Italy (Since 1956) - Rank 9
* South Korea - Rank 8

Now, let's compare North Korea's possible (but unlikely) allies in a nuclear war and their rankings [3]:

1) China - Rank 3
2) Russia - Rank 2
*North Korea - Rank 28

Mean ranking of South Korea's forces: 1+4+5+6+7+8+9+13/8 = 6.625
Mean ranking of North Korea's forces: 2+3+28/3 = 11

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
I will also add that increasing US troop count on the peninsula would lead to escalation. It would essentially bring about the worst possible outcome.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
This was not a satisfying debate. Both PRO and CON continually put off arguing their case until future rounds, all the way up to the closing.

Personally, I would have argued that we give plenty of help to South Korea already, as evidenced by PRO's own assertion that North Korea feels threatened by our joint exercises.

CON instead argued six-party talks, which is another extremely effective reason why we do not need to give more aid to South Korea - none of the other 4 parties want to see instability and belligerence in the peninsula. Furthermore (not in debate), South Korea is not only a developed country now, it is also already feeding North Korea through extensions of the Sunshine Policy.

In the end, regardless of my own commentary, I found CON to be more convincing. PRO's arguments were essentially that continued vigilance is required. I agree, and continued vigilance simply does not equate to additional aid to South Korea.
Posted by Gandhi 3 years ago
Found a typo in my Round 3 argument, it should be, " the case 'that' China..."
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: see comment.