The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
BirdJesus
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

the US should preemptively attack n.. 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 1 vote the winner is...
BirdJesus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 463 times Debate No: 103493
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

the US should preemptively attack north korea

it's inevitable that they will eventually perfect their rocket technology and get more nukes. we should strike sooner than later because it's better than waiting till they have more power and leverage, as they are not fit to have hundreds of nukes and be able to take the world hostage. it would cause one of the worst humanitarian problems ever, but it's better than losing LA and NY to nukes.
BirdJesus

Con

North Korea has had been holding South Korea Hostage for 50 years with traditional ordnance and has had nuclear weapons for at least 5 years, consistently saying that they will destroy them "any day now" and still haven't done it. This leads me to believe that the Kim dynasty has absolutely no intention of actually using any of these weapons and is simply using them as leverage for trade negotiations. It would be a terrible idea to actually nuke North Korea for a multitude of reasons. Namely it would make us look terrible considering the fact that it would almost certainly cause the destruction of AT LEAST both Koreas and most likely Japan if not more. I believe the proper response is to simply capitulate the Kim dynasty until we develop better technology for counteracting/disabling North Korea's nuclear missiles and traditional bombardments.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

they have had nukes but they haven't had nukes with the potential to hit the USA. this is mostly about self interest. sacraficing a current population of people to prevent a likley harm to future population, us. or, we wait and sacrafice one of our populations when they are itching to fight to take him down.

so i take it you think kim is just bluffing, and that he will continue to do so even when he has hundreds of nukes? you're so confident in that assessment that you're willing to sacrifice millions of americans' lives?
BirdJesus

Con

" they have had nukes but they haven't had nukes with the potential to hit the USA. "

Yes, but they have had nukes capable of hitting all of South Korea, who they have been openly hostile to for more than half a century, I believe that if Kim Jong Un was suicidal he would have nuked South Korea by now. Given this evidence I don't believe Kim Jong Un is suicidal and trying to launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the U.S. would certainly be suicide.


" so i take it you think kim is just bluffing, and that he will continue to do so even when he has hundreds of nukes? you're so confident in that assessment that you're willing to sacrifice millions of americans' lives? "

I'm simply confident enough that I don't believe it is worth sacrificing millions of Japanese and South Korean lives and potentially starting a thermonuclear world war WHILE there is potential for a peaceful resolution. This isn't the first time the U.S. has dealt with a "crazy" communistic dictator with nuclear weapons and we managed to end it last time without millions dying. I believe cooler heads can prevail again.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so you're okay with him having hundreds of nukes, and if NY or LA gets nuked, such is life. you might not like him having nukes but unless you're willing to stop him, it's hard for you to say it's really not okay with you. you can't deny that you're placing your trust in an unstable, irrational madman.
BirdJesus

Con

"you can't deny that you're placing your trust in an unstable, irrational madman."

See, the problem with this logic is that a large portion of world leaders with nuclear weapons consider President Trump to be an unstable, irrational madman , does this justify them launching a preemptive nuclear strike on Washington D.C. just in case?

I believe that Kim Jung Un has no intention of launching a preemptive strike on the U.S. based on his past actions and the fact that he has no ideological reasons for doing an action that will certainly result in his own demise. He's a narcissist not a jihadist.

"so you're okay with him having hundreds of nukes, and if NY or LA gets nuked, such is life"

What makes NY or LA more inherently valuable than Tokyo or Seoul? I live close enough to NY to be killed by a thermonuclear bomb if NY was hit, but selfishness should not be the main motivation for this type of decision.


"you might not like him having nukes but unless you're willing to stop him, it's hard for you to say it's really not okay with you."

I never said I wasn't willing to stop him, I believe we should be funding research into technology that is better at disabling/shooting down nuclear weapons or even just better stealth bombing technology. I just don't believe that killing 10s of millions of innocents is required to stop him.

Finally, I believe launching a nuke at north Korea would set a terrible precedent and every other country would immediately be thinking "Am I next?" or "The USA did it and got away with it, I guess I can too." this type of widespread paranoia couldn't possibly be better than the status quo.




Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by dsjpk5 11 months ago
dsjpk5
You're back!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Defro 11 months ago
Defro
dairygirl4u2cBirdJesusTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con is the clear winner. Pro's only argument was that a preemptive attack was necessary because of the possibility that NK would attack US. Con addressed this by raising the question that NK would really attack US. Con then argued that a preemtive measure would make US look bad and also Japan and SK are would be in danger. Pro did not refute any of this, but rather continued to argue based on the "chance" that NK would attack US. Pro should have cited sources with proof that NK will be able to attack US in the future. Pro pushed the idea that people's lives in LA and NY are at risk, which was a good argument. But Con countered with the idea that SK and Japan are just as important. If there was one more round, Pro could have argued that for the US, LA and NY are more important than SK and Japan, and things could have gotten more interesting. No points for sources as none were used. No major grammar pr spelling werors on both sides. Conduct was fine.