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

the US should preemptively attack 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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Anon1984 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/9/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 555 times Debate No: 103492
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




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.


First of all, is it not a slippery slope fallacy to say that NK will perfect their rocket technology and get more nukes? Just because they want that and may be working towards that, does not make it inevitable for those goals to come to fruition. You have provided no warrant to support that claim.

Second, you say they aren't fit to have nukes. What's your criteria for which nations are fit to have nukes and which are not? You make the claim NK is not fit but you have provided no evidence for that claim. Also you say, if obtained, they will use the weapons to hold the world hostage. Again, another slippery slope, it's entirely possible, albeit unlikely, that NK may want to obtain nuclear capabilities for power generation or to have in order to be treated equally on the international stage. As we all know, any country with nuclear weapons, has a significantly larger capacity for influence on the international stage. Country A may dislike country B, country A is significantly less likely to resort to militaristic means against country B if they have nuclear capabilities. The point is, you provided no warrant for he claim that NK will inevitably use nuclear technology to "hold the world hostage", whatever that means.

Lastly, you say it would cause the worst humanitarian disaster ever, but the worst humanitarian disaster ever is better than losing two cities of your own nation. To make a statement such as this, it seems to me that you value the lives of people that are closer in geographical terms to you than others who are farther away. That makes no sense. An attack on NK would inevitably result in the loss of innocent/non combatant lives, as is evidenced by the fact that virtually ever military action in modern times, has resulted in the loss of some number of innocent lives, the propagandist will call it "collateral damage". So it seems to me that you are essentially arguing that people living in NY or LA have more of a right to continue to exist, than does someone in Pyongyang or Kaesong? So we should absolutely positively kill innocent people on one area of the globe because it might, maybe, possibly, prevent the loss of lives of others on a different spot on the globe?

This all begs the question, what do you mean by preemptive strike? Military targets only? Drone strikes? Boots on the ground? It's impossible to argue against a position if you don't define what you mean when you use a phrase. Preemptive strikes run a gambit of various actions, I would appreciate some clarification as to what you mean when you say preemptive strike.

War is hell. Killing masses of people should not be undertaken lightly. The only time it is justifiable is in the face of an immediate and inevitable threat. NK could potentially pose a threat, however no more than dozens of other countries in the world that have generations of animosity built up towards the western powers, specifically the US, for decades of foreign policy interventions into the affairs of the NKs and many other countries as well. So should we just preemptively strike anyone and everyone that could possibly, maybe, potentially be a threat in the future? Perhaps that kind of mentality and action is what has led to foreign countries having a deep disdain for the US government.

NK has allies, a preemptive strike is just another word for war. A preemptive strike is an aggressive act of war. The initiation of force is never justified, the only truly just war is a war of pure defense. Just because the agency is called the Department of Defense, does not mean it only engages in defensive measures.

I'll leave it at that for know, I eagerly await your response.
Debate Round No. 1


well i should have said we will probably have to attack them preemptively. note i didn't say when but i concede it sounded like i meant now. we have to see how far they are progressing. but you seem intent that no matter how far, if they dont attack us we shouldn't attack them.

i think it's fair to value your own countries lives more and anyone who says otherwise is grandstanding. we don't provide a social safety net to the world and we dont try to solve the world's problems. we do that for us alone, which means this is an example of why shouldn't we just extend that logic to casualties of war. youd have a point that there's a limit to how much we can value US lives more, but i see no reason to get into how far exactly it needs to go, because the danger is close enough that millions of Us lives are at risk.

so i take it you think kim is just bluffing when he says to do what he says or else? 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 if you're wrong? to place your trust in an unstable madman is nothing short of crazy.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Anon1984 2 years ago
Not sure what happened? Wouldn't lemme post a response and now says I've forfeited? After accepting the debate and after my first round it kept giving me some server maintenance error, it says the server has not updated the debate yet and to check back later, hopefully whatever the issue is will be resolved so we can continue. If not I'm up for this debate if you wanna repost it or send me a challenge. Thanks
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.