CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:158
Arguments:151
Total Votes:191
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 How Should the US Respond to North Korea? (123)

Debate Creator

Thames(54) pic



How Should the US Respond to North Korea?

We're going to take some time to look at the NK issue by delving into the policy options on the table for the U.S.  These are described here: https://www.choices.edu/resources/documents/koreaoptions_000.pdf
Pick the one you most agree with after our discussion in class.

When you post, include your first name and option number.
Add New Argument
2 points

I believe that we need to withdraw our troops from the Korean Peninsula, because our troops gives our allies, South Korea and Japan, a warm blanket that they can just cuddle with at the end of the day. If we withdrew from the Korean peninsula then that would force Japan and South Korea to build a nuclear arsenal. Doing this would reduce the weapons NK has focused at us by the US having the upper hand. The North Koreans can not do anything at this point

BJordan19(3) Disputed
1 point

Hi ! I disagree, because we have promised all these other countries that we would be their support system if North Korea tried to bomb them . Therefore , if we remove our troops we would be falling through with our agreement . Not only could they make nukes that would help them fight against North Korea , but they would be upset with us , so they could possibly get angry enough to want to nuke us.

Nfrontz12345(4) Clarified
1 point

Well our presence in South Korea has just fueled an anti-American movement in the country so, the South Koreans already want us out of their country. Then, that's why we have Japan, in Japan we have bases and troops so if anything goes to crap then we will tap into our reinforcements there. But, yes we promised the South Koreans that we would help them out when they actually have a military of 600,000 troops, our contribution is only about 37,000 American soldiers. The time and money wasted getting slandered will not pay off staying in that region. They already hate us, why would they try to join the North Korean side (their enemy) to bomb the "World's Superpower"? Oh yeah, we wouldn't move out of Japan as I previously stated in my original argument because we would be withdrawing from the Korean peninsula my B.

KeanuC(8) Disputed
1 point

We built their economies from the ashes. They shouldn't get that upset as to nuke us.

Aaleeyah(2) Disputed
1 point

I think it would be unwise to remove our troops because we would be leaving Japan and South Korea vulnerable and an easy target when we made an agreement to protect them thus showing the US is unloyal to agreements which may make Kim jung un think we are untrustworthy and can never come to a consensus to anything.

2 points

Option (3) is the best in my opinion. It would be ideal for America, Japan, and South Korea to join and convince North Korea to contain its threats. It provides safety to the people of America, Japan, South Korea and North Korea. It would be the best option for peace with the small overlooming threat.

2 points

Savannah (3)

The most effective way to handle North Korea would be Option 3, improving relations with the country as well as ending the development of their nuclear program. Through bilateral negotiations, we can ensure that North Korea has our trust as long as they stop their programs. North Korea said they would launch their missles if we attacked, so that is the last thing we should do ( https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/8/16112046/north-korea-threat-nuke-us-attack )

2 points

Aaleeyah 3

option 3 seems like the best option because it possibly eliminate a world war due to unwillingness to communicate between the two countries. Putting a halt to the nuclear program in Korea by the US agreeing not to undermine the government would add trust between the countries.

2 points

The first option appears to be the best. Destroying North Korea's nuclear missiles is the only way to prevent the weapons from being sold to terrorists while we wait. The missiles being sold to terrorists is worse than North Korea having them

Katie326(3) Clarified
1 point

Option 2, Pressure North Korea to return to the six-party negotiations, is the most logical, safe option. This option ensures that North Korea's nuclear weapons are taken care of and helps to contain the spread of nuclear weapons, all while avoiding war.

2 points

The only way that this situation could be handled is for all parties concerned to be allowed a metaphorical "slice of the pie", this is due to the complex nature of the situation. Although most favorable to no party involved, compromise is essential in complex/confusing situations of this nature.

Thomas100(2) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, one must understand the major and minor parties involved. The major parties include North Korea (obviously), South Korea, Japan, China, Russia, and the United States. The Major parties are the countries which have the most invested in this conflict/have the most at stake and who can benefit from keeping the conflict alive.

A)Let Kim Jong Un know our nukes are pointed back at him.

B)Send in special forces and take the punk out.

C)Broker a deal with China in which China gets the land and resources in return for their help.

neowaltz(6) Disputed
0 points

A)Let Kim Jong Un know our nukes are pointed back at him.

The United States extended nuclear deterrence model already implies that American nuclear weapons are not only pointed at North Korea, but would be used to insure the destruction of his regime, without any chance of survival if the North Korean regime used Nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies.

B)Send in special forces and take the punk out.

This is exactly what the regime wants. The North Korean regime has no intention of winning an all out war, it has every intention of destroying itself, Seoul, Tokyo,Guam and anything else it can reach if this action were to take place Doing so allows for the regime to self destruct. Irrational behavior such as the destruction of the despot regime itself by Kim becomes rational because the regime will no longer exist if special forces entered the nation.

C)Broker a deal with China in which China gets the land and resources in return for their help.

The PRC does not believe in what in short is a suggestion of carving North Korea into a sphere of influence based on implied suggestion of C of imperialism. The PRC would rebuff and point out that its own history of being carved into spheres of influence by European powers resulted in a longstanding position of reunification of ONE china that is still in effect today

1 point

Just send in the Brontoraptors. No one can stop us. We'll make Lil Kim our slave.

2 points

Raven (1)

I would have to agree on option 1 we have to take down North Korea development sites. If we don't act quickly they can start to make more nuclear weapons to use on us or South Korea, Japan, etc. or they might bring to sell them. Giving them that kind of time does nothing but put North Korea neighbors and us in jeopardy. If we don't take down the development sites they can bring to convince Japan into making their own nuclear weapon program, exact opposite. The only way to settle this and stop it from going on is to act now and destroy their development sites.

CarsonM17(2) Disputed
1 point

A nuclear attack is not going to bring Kim Jung Un down. We need to destroy his dynasty by tearing it down economically. If his people turn on him, he is going to be in more danger. Cutting off aid and negotiation will ultimately put NK in an economic downfall and the people of NK will blame their leader. His own people against him is the strongest attack.

KeanuC(8) Disputed
1 point

Their economy is already in shambles. The people are starving and there's a huge black market within the country.

Source: Kang Chol-hwan, North Korean Refugee. He wrote about it in Aquariums of Pyongyang

Newbill(3) Disputed
1 point

We can not be certain all the nuclear technology is above ground. Also such an attack would upset both China and South Korea. Without both countries on our side, we cannot stop further nuclear proliferation.

2 points

I chose option 3 , because I think that Donald Trump and Kim Jong-in could possibly come to an agreement one day . Although they are both threatening to use nuclear war fare, Kim Jong-in understands that the Us could wipe out his entire country with one nuke. I think that we should host a supervised meeting between Donald Trump and King Jong-in , and they would have to come up with an agreement that would stop North Korea from using nuclear weapons and we would have to come up with a better deal on supplying them with food .

Nfrontz12345(4) Disputed
1 point

Has Kim Jong budged in the past eight years? Nope, and he won't budge just because the President sashas himself into an agreement with Kim Jong. North Korea is notorius for the deals it has broken and that is why we should withdraw from the peninsula and take them out with post strategic moves

BJordan19(3) Clarified
1 point

To clarify my argument , president , Donald Trump , could try to make a better version of the Clinton agreement . He could try to find something that the North Koreans need and see if Kim Jong-in would be able to negotiate a deal and give up the nuclear warfare. As I said in my following comment, Kim Jong-in isn't willing to sacrifice his country by fully attacking the United States . He understands that if he attacks the United States , he will start a war that his country might not win.

2 points

Yes, I agree that he is using this as publicity rather than an actual threat but, I do not think the trust between the US and the North Koreans is there. First of all, if we withdraw from the Korean peninsula then that would eliminate the need for negotiation with the country. Kim Jong has been using our presence in South Korea to manipulate the US in order to milk whatever they can out of us. Why subside to the enemy when we could save our troops,money,resources and dignity by withdrawing from the peninsula and end up happier. After what happened when Clinton was in office they wouldn't trust the US or would they? That is a risk (worth whatever the deal would be based on) I would not want to take.

2 points

Devyn (3)

Option 3 would be the most effective way to handle the North Korea crisis. While Option 2 seems like the option to best destabalize the North Korean Regime, China is unwilling to completely destabilize because it fears of instability on the Korean peninsula. Therefore Option 3 would be the most effective out of all of the options because it addresses North Korea's fear that the U.S is a threat to its national security. Despite compromises, negotiations and diplomatic relations will save lives and resources compared to war. On top of that, the view of the United States would improve for handling the crisis without aggression.

Supporting Evidence: China's North Korea problem is worse than ours (www.google.com)
abbym1011(4) Disputed
1 point

Yes, in the past China was unwilling to destabilize the North Korean Regime, but there is a way we could get China to cooperate. China is afraid of the North Korean Regime collapsing. They are scared that massive refugees would flow into their country, and that the South would take over the North and become one big powerful American ally. This is enough to make China take the risk for peace, I believe. According to the article, There is a peaceful way out of the North Korean Crisis- The Atlantic, "Agreement to withdraw THAAD and American troops following Korean reunification would be huge elements of strategic reassurance for China." By forcing China to step up, and stop hiding in the shadows, we could have peace. Option 2 is possible, and I think it could work.

2 points

Aaleeyah 3

option 3 seems like the best option because it possibly eliminate a world war due to unwillingness to communicate between the two countries. Putting a halt to the nuclear program in Korea by the US agreeing not to undermine the government would add trust between the countries. Also take into consideration that just because Kim Jong Un makes a lot of threats doesn't necessarily mean he's crazy, so some communication could lead to a good ending.

https://www.vox.com/world/2017/5/9/15516278/north-korea-more-rational-than-you-think

2 points

Option (1)

Hey personally I would go with option 1 but many people would disagree but just hear me out. Don't you find it weird ever since Russia stopped backing North Korea up they still hate us still today? I mean they really have no reason to and only been threatening us mostly. In my opinion North Korea is kind of like a child with a hand grenade so lets take it now before that grenade goes off. I mean some countries might look at us in shame maybe like since they trade with North Korea but South Korea and Japan would be thankful I image (if they don't get nuked in the process).

jaredbrock(2) Disputed
3 points

South Korea would not be happy because Article II in the Mutual Defense Treaty Between the United States and the Republic of Korea (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp) states that the U.S must consult with South Korea before making any attack on North Korea. Yes, with option 1 we could take out North Korea's nuclear weapons, but it does not make it safe for either the U.S. or South Korea. The U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis stated that any strike or attack could easily turn to war. We need as many countries on our side before making any attack other wise we could lose allies or worse have other countries turn on us.

2 points

Noah (1)

I personally believe that we should at we should attack North Korea before they attack us. North Korea has the capability to attack us, and they have threatened the United States. Because of this, it can be assumed that an attack is planned on their part, and we should strike first in self-defense.

Supporting Evidence: If U.S. Attacks North Korea First, Is That Self-Defense? (www.nytimes.com)
JacobOWO(2) Disputed
1 point

North Korea isnt a bully its a country. They want us to attack them whether its self defense or not.

1 point

Lawson Holden (1)

I think the first option is the best one. The longer we leave North Korea alone, the more time we give them to build up the nuclear weaponry. I think it would be best to destroy their most dangerous weapons. At any moment, I believe that North Korea can strike and we need to beat them to it.

1 point

I chose option 1. I think we should launch a preemptive military strike. I chose this because North Korea is too powerful and must be put down before they put us down. In the article "The last resort: How a US strike on North Korea could play out", Joe Cirincione told CNN, "You strike North Korea, they are going to strike back and they have a devastating conventional arsenal built upon the border that could lay waste to Seoul." They are very dangerous and we must keep an eye out for North Korea.

1 point

Bricen Rivers (1)

I think we should do a preemptive attack because if you blow up their main resources and plants that make the nuclear weapons, with that being uranium and plutonium, we disable their ability to even consider a nuclear attack on anyone an option because we have destroid their source of even making the weapons.

savannahwaug(2) Disputed
1 point

If your goal is to protect the American people, attacking North Korea would do the exact opposite. North Korea said they would attack us only attacked them, so why would you provoke them by going in on North Korea? We also did not defeat them during the Korean war, so we could defeat them now, especially with their new nuclear weapons.

1 point

I chose Option 1. My reasoning for choosing this option is because if we give North Korea more time while we decide what route we are going to take, it gives them more time to create better Nuclear Weapons that can destroy the countries around them, and now the U.S. With the creation of the ICBM missile by North Korea, Korea now has an equal playing ground with the U.S. North Korea has threatened the U.S. with shooting nuclear weapons on Guam, the U.S. President has stated, "the rouge state would face 'fire and fury' if it continued to threaten the United States." Even our U.S. President has already presented the idea of using a preemptive military strike against North Korea. We need to destroy North Korea's ability to make nuclear bombs, initiate the downfall of Kim-Jong-II, and send a clear message the U.S. will not accept nuclear proliferation.

Supporting Evidence: Source: (www.cnbc.com)
1 point

Dystaney- Option 3

I chose option 3 because I feel that it would be the best option, and also that if we talked to North Korea one on one, we could probably make a deal instead of waiting or doing something that would make the U.S. go to war with North Korea (also with their allies). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/doug-bandow/us-should-talk-to-north-korea-whoever-is-in-charge b6240502.html This article also supports my side.

Dyst_22(2) Clarified
1 point

It has been reported that Kim is backing away from firing the missiles at Guam. But even though pulled away from his decision , he could always have something up his sleeve. During this time, I feel as though it would be the perfect time to talk to him one on one without a lot of tension. Because in 1994, North Korea and the US sign an Agreed Framework under which Pyongyang commits to freezing its nuclear program in return for heavy fuel oil and two light-water nuclear reactors. So I feel as though they can make another agreement like this.

1 point

I think we should withdraw from the Korea peninsula. At first I was all about the us launching a preemptive strike. There are too many dangers that come with launching a preemptive strike. For example, a preemptive strike would put our allies south korea and japan at a high risk. Also the radiation that the bombs and weapons leave behind could be dangerous and kill thousands of people. This could risk the US getting struck by Nk also. I think a preemptive strike would create a big mess that can much very be avoided by the right kind of negotiations and reasoning with north korea.

lhop21(3) Disputed
1 point

Negotiating in the past has not proven to help in these types of situations. We cannot wait and try to negotiate with someone who does not want to be negotiated with. If we were to get rid of their nuclear weapons all together then it would solve the problem of them attacking their neighbors and our allies. Although, they wouldn't be in much danger because the US has troops stationed nearby in case of an attack.

1 point

Jared Brock (1)

I think that we should try to avoid starting war with North Korea at all costs but because of Kim Jong-un's little known reputation I don't think it is possible to avoid war. The weapons Kim has now cannot reach the U.S., but it can reach the allies. Therefore, I think that if we were to go with option 1 we would have an advantage.

Analeise1(1) Disputed
1 point

I think that we can avoid war for at least a little longer. We should avoid making them even angrier with us. Your plan will severely damage our relationship with South Korea and Japan if we attack North Korea and leave them defenseless. Abandoning our allies by launching a preemptive strike may sound like a good idea now but we might need their help later.

1 point

luther #3 or 1

We have two options when dealing with North Korea. We should choose either option 3 or option 1. We can discuss boundaries that should undertaken by two sides equally. It would bind both countries to the terms presented in the meeting. If North Korea would not agree upon the terms provide within the meeting the the the president should take action with North Korea.

Bridgeahoy(2) Clarified
1 point

North Korea is a delicate situation that we need to handle with care. The best option would be number 3. The United States are willing to just sit down and talk about the where we stand with North Korea on their nuclear weaponry. We need to set boundaries on what is okay for North. A meeting would do well for both countries.

1 point

We don't need to go to war with North Korea because of the allies we have close to them. We will risk California being bombed. Trumps options are military, diplomacy, or economic sanctions so there is a big possibility that we are going to war with them. Soon we will have a dangerous choice of what we should do. We should prepare for the worst even if nothing happens. What could this mean to our allies that we promised we have their backs this is a big event.

1 point

I agree with most of your argument, but i don't think that war is as close as you think. As insane as Kim is i think he likes being in power and he knows military action will result in a lose for him.

1 point

I think that option two is the best solution to the problem. The phrase don't poke the bear is very relevant here. We want to proceed with caution and try to solve the problem without making North Korea any angrier. According Vox news and Cnn news North Korea has threatened to return any attacks with a nuclear weapon. Because of this, if we were unable to wipe out all of the weapons we would leave our selves open to attack. Option number two is better because there are more people present to assist in delegations between the US and North Korea. China might also be able to threaten economic assistance and get North Korea to stand down. Analeise option two

Devdev0801(1) Disputed
1 point

When you say that China may be able to threaten economic assistance and get North Korea to stand down, do you realize that option two entirely relies on China pulling its economic assistance to North Korea and China is unwilling to completely destabilize

North Korea because it fears of instability on the Korean peninsula.

1 point

I chose option 1. I believe the united states of America should strike North Korea and lay waste to a rouge nation. No other options would work if the united states decided to withdraw its troops and no longer have a presence in the south china sea and south Korea region the North Koreans no longer have nothing to fear. The best solution would to strike North Korea cripple them before they have time to properly fight back. They do not have enough resources to keep a prolonged war against the United States and its allies.

lawsonholden(2) Disputed
2 points

I think that rather than launching a preemptive strike we should try to take a more subtle approach. If we were to launch a strike, we would be putting millions of lives at stake and be putting our allies in a bad position to get attacked. I think that we should use the bilateral negotiation tactic to try and ease some of the tension with North Korea.

1 point

Ma'Lia (1)

I would have to agree with option 1. We should show Noth Korea what we're about. We

bknow for a fact that the only have one mistle that will threaten Alaska if they wanted to. But if we show them our nuclear boms they will be afraid ofn us and not want to go against us anymore. We need China to helps us both cutting of all interactins with them then we will have numerous nuclear bombs that will easily destroy them.

Spartacus(18) Disputed
1 point

We should show Noth Korea what we're about.

The complete destruction of reason?

1 point

Meredith(1)

Learning from history is crucial in this instance. Appeasement did not work for England when negotiating with Nazi Germany; it only furthered the advancement of Hitler's regime. Americans have a duty to stand for democracy and liberal ideals, and we cannot stand on our toes waiting for North Korea to attack us first. We have to hit them and hit them hard, so that they receive the message we will not stand idly by.

lhop21(3) Clarified
1 point

I agree with you. Negotiating in the past did not solve many problems. Taking action now could stop them from furthering their nuclear weapons and increasing the threat to the US and allies.

KeanuC(8) Clarified
0 points

So are standing for democracy and liberal ideas here because they are a threat, or do you think we should be doing this in every corner of the globe?

mgbmere(4) Clarified
1 point

Yes, I think as Americans we should speak out against any leader who doesn't stand for democracy or finds it just to violate the natural laws of the universe. However, when words stop working, action must take its place. North Korea has made it clear they have no intent of working through things with America,and so as a nation, we have to chose to fight for life and liberty instead of giving into North Korea's tyranny.

1 point

(2) Tanner W

I think having the six party negotiations would be very helpful to the surrounding the countries. Any other option would affect the other countries. without their knowledge.

1 point

I believe that option 1 is the best option. We cannot try a policy of appeasement once again because we do not want history to repeat itself. We cannot sit around and allow them to become more dangerous. They have proven weapons that can reach US cities, so now we must go in and take their weapons. We can not afford to have an attack on our home land. It is imperative that we eliminate North Korea's nuclear capability, and as long as they have nuclear capability and are a threat, the world will not be in complete peace. Going to war and coming out victors would send out a message to the rest of the world that nuclear proliferation will not be tolerated at all. We've tried negotiations several times; however, they have not been dependable on holding their ends of the deals. Instead of pleading and trying to negotiate, I think is time to take action.

1 point

I'm gonna side with option 1. North Korea has flexed on the US for 15 years, but lately, what they are saying could have enormous implications. I think the best idea would be full out invade without infringing on sovereignty; I know that rarely ever to never works, but this issue is large enough for us promise it and actually follow through. Hit what we think are there nuclear bomb development sites and send in recon teams to find out where the rest of the development is being done. Missiles alone won't be sufficient to handle this issue. Trump is willing to rain down fire on North Korea, so why wouldn't he be willing to do a small scale invasion.

Supporting Evidence: News Article (www.theguardian.com)
1 point

Makenzie (3)

I agree with option 3. This is because option 3 is the option with the least bloodshed and doesn't involve waiting them out. If we try to compromise with North Korea instead of threatening them, it could prevent a messy war in the future.

1 point

I choose the first option, because if we try to negotiate with North Korea we'll only look weaker. They aren't the people to talk with. They continuously threaten the US & now they are developing ICBM which makes them a serious threat to homeland security especially if China stop trading with them. North Korea's back is against the ropes and fighting against the world's superpowers is the only legitimate chose for a small, isolated country like North Korea, because they will not trust us enough to disband their nuclear program and we don't trust them enough to allow them to make Hundreds of ICBMs and potentially wipe out the world. Therefore, option 1 allows us to use our power against them while we still have the upper-hand.

1 point

Option 4 is the best approach to dealing with North Korea. While some might say as the world's lone superpower the United States is obligated to protect smaller countries like South Korea, the United States' first responsibility is to it's people's safety and not other countries. Pulling all the troops stationed around North Korea, publicly announcing we won't mess them, and removing all sanctions on North Korea, we will send a message that we are not a threat to North Korea. In history, the United States has tried to take down communist regimes. Whether it be through infiltration (For example, the Bay of Pigs, which was obviously a miserable failure) or brute force, the United States has done anything in its power to stop communism from spreading. Historically, the only way these countries have been able to stop U.S. intervention has been through threat of nuclear war. North Korean leaders aren't stupid, they know their only way of stopping us is through the same threat. That's why they have nuclear weaponry in the first place, and they won't use it if we completely pull out of North Korea. Every single troop should

be sent back home, no more flybys, and no more threats. Some may say North Korea will then just wage war against South Korea, but they're not suicidal, they know they can't win. If the United States is ever forced to intervene, they have bases in Japan, Guam, and Hawaii to deal with it. Option 4 keeps the United States' best interests at heart, which should truly be prioritized over everything else.

Supporting Evidence: Just Come Home and Leave North Korea Alone (www.fff.org)
KeanuC(8) Disputed
2 points

You say innocent lives, but if we allow the regime to continue, the massive political prosecution and imprisonment of the innocent will not cease. In North Korea, the entire families of "enemies of the state" go to hard labor Camps like Yoduk. There they are starved, beaten, raped, and made to sleep in dirt Hovels for possibly a few hours before going back to 12 hour work days of hard labor(typically). I completely agree with Option 4 being the best option, but innocent lives are lost no matter the decision. I feel it is intellectually dishonest to note no loss of innocent lives. Those people did nothing except share blood with those deemed "traitors." Countless people will die one way or another. Every action has complex reactions and, truthfully, none of them are purely good. They're all either detrimental to swathes of people in some way or ineffective and therefore destructive to human life in the perpetuation of the status quo.

1 point

The United States should engage North Korea in bilateral negotiations. Although six-party negotiations sound like a good idea, they are impractical, time consuming, and not safe for those leaders involved depending on locations. Also to include China, Russia, South Korea and Japan in negotiation would be futile because the original problem is between North Korea and the US. Also if "China hasn't agreed to cooperate in the past, why would be cooperate now? This option will save money and American lives that would be taken by attacking directly. Also, this is a way to avoid severing alliances with South Korea and Japan by breaking their trust and leaving them vulnerable.

1 point

Makenzie (3)

I agree with option 3. This is because option 3 is the option with the least bloodshed and doesn't involve waiting them out. If we try to compromise with North Korea instead of threatening them, it could prevent a messy war in the future.

1 point

2 phases of ingagement. Tactical nuclear weapons button present. Push tactical nuclear weapons button.

Atrag(4943) Clarified
1 point

A question: you use this account to upvote the Brontoraptor account.. why dont you do it the other way round? Poor rat face alt.

Thomas100(2) Disputed
1 point

Which insures mutual destruction IF North Korea isn't bluffing about possessing Nuclear Warheads, therefore would not likely work unless you like the world of Fallout

1 point

Jarriet White (Option 2)

In my opinion I believe option two is the best option. North Korea is our enemy. They have threatened us and as we know they are involved in a nuclear missile program. I believe the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong Un, is not an insane person. We should try to contain the weapons of North Korea and from there try to negotiate with them.

jarrietwhite(2) Clarified
1 point

Also Option two is basically trying to negotiate with North Korea. I feel as if we should negotiate with them because the worse option would be to go to war with them. North Korea is allies with Russia so if we go to war with North Korea most likely we will be going to war with its allies as well; and I believe we shouldn't cross that line.

1 point

Keanu C(4)

North Korea doesn't want to go to war; North Korea wants to maintain power over their regime. Zeshaan Aleem's article "North Korea is more Rational than you think" on Vox.com explains the North's method for keeping power by, first, threatening its hostile - or US backed - neighbors and, secondly, building up a nuclear arsenal for show. It serves as a warning so that they may remain sovereign. Otherwise they may be invaded easily. We shouldn't try attacking because that will risk our troops lives and, more importantly, our interests in Asia. We don't lose these from withdrawing our troops, but we certainly may if we invoke war with North Korea. Even if we were successful in destroying the North, China wouldn't enjoy a US presence on its border. It was, after all, the Chinese who launched a counter offensive and pushed US backed forces back to the 38th parallel. Is it such a good idea to repeat History and lose bases along the way while creating hostilities with China? Negotiations won't work. They haven't and shall continue to fail from either the others not putting in enough effort or simply not having the power to. And why should we try to have talks of compromise if we already know their request will be exactly this? As a measure of Good faith, we should just pull out of Asia and let them deal with North Korea. They can't blame us for all their problems if we just decide to quit listening to their whining and pleas for attention like a troubled child. Communism will fail on its own; we don't have to face it anymore. The USSR is gone. The Regimes only true financial support is China. Even if they were to continue their little communist experiment for the next few hundred years, it is better they do so as part of the Global community instead of after demolishing our bases and creating tension in the area. Communism isn't at risk of spreading everywhere anymore. We can tolerate the suffering of their people, the gulags, the mass purges, and lack of Freedom. Who knows, if we allow them to join the interational Community, maybe they'll eventually be able to support a healthy populous. It isn't our duty to spread democracy everywhere. Those people have been indoctrinated beyond repair. The author of Aquariums of Pyongyang, a North Korean who spent 10 years in a Gulag with his family from age 8 to 18, didn't even consider moving to the US because he still had uneasy feelings about that country despite his open criticism of the regime and their apparent issues. Those people are in a terrible situation no matter how it goes. Communism isn't a plague anymore, and at this point, China doesn't want a destabilized neighbor. North Korea just wants to do their own thing. South Korea and Japan are safe even if we pull out because all threats are simply bluffs - they'd only attack if we attack first. Negotiations haven't worked, and if we try to concede, they'll ask us to let them alone, so doing just that without the "negotiation" is about as good a peace treaty as possible and ensures the highest possible caliber of peace and security in Asia.

Supporting Evidence: North Korea is more Rational than you Think (www.vox.com)
youngjefe(1) Disputed
1 point

North Korea does want war! They just aren't powerful enough yet to launch full scale attacks on the places they really want to. If we let North Korea build 100s of High-Powered ICBMs then we're only risking a full scale on ourselves that could wipe out our entire nation once Kim Jong Un feels he has lived long enough and wants to go out in a blaze of glory.

KeanuC(8) Disputed
1 point

What is their goal in war? If we stop being perceived as a threat, maybe they could spend some of that missile money on agricultural technology and actually feed their populous as an independent, collectivized communist regime as opposed to trying to secure sovereignty by way of ascending to the rank of nuclear threat. They shouldn't need those nukes to be sovereign at this point. There's the risk that they will sell off their nuclear secrets, yes, but as a country, they're just trying to survive. If that money is allocated somewhere more adjacent to self sufficiency, they would not need to give away their nuclear technology. There is a method to their madness. They aren't an empire, just a country that wants to be left alone. We should do that. What do the North Koreans gain from war that leaving them won't already give them? If you can answer that well enough, you may just convince me that war is the answer, youngjefe.

croissant(4) Disputed
1 point

If North Korea really does want to go to war, why pull back their threat of attacking Guam with missiles? If they did want war, I'm pretty sure they would've attacked a long time ago or about now.

1 point

This rogue state, led by the gangster dictator Kim Jong-un needs to go back into it's box or be forcibly inserted.

The North Korean regime has simply walked through trade sanctions and brushed aside all attempts at negotiating a diplomatic reconciliation.

The ever smiling tub of lard has been put on notice that there will be consequences if he fulfills his threats of a nuclear attacks on the U.S.A, or it's allies.

It is he, and not America who must decide which road to take.

The road to hell has been well sign posted for him by President Trump, but if he wishes to jump on his trusty steed and go like blue blazes down that route then he has signed his own death warrant and that of his 'lecky' regime.

VIVA President Trump.

1 point

My name is Mary Elizabeth, and I think that option 2 is the best way to handle North Korea. We must try and talk to them before we take war-like action because they now have IBCMs that can hit some of the places that belong to us. Additionally, it would not be good for the US to sit down with them one-on-one because there are chances for bribery and blackmail. Also, if the US were to negotiate with North Korea and give them what they want, there is a good chance that they would come back asking for more. Another reason that option 2 is the best is that there are more than two negotiating parties. the larger number would allow Americans to feel safer than if it was just North Korea and the USA negotiating.

1 point

Respond to what exactly? Have they attacked someone? Americans don't really understand this whole attack and defence business very well.

1 point

I chose option 2. It may seem very risky to do but it is one of the most reasonable options. North Korea has been in the dark for years. But according to http://www.basicint.org/blogs/2014/05/going-back-six-party-talks-there-any-hope , it states that opening the six party back up will have communication, which will/can lead to helping rebuilding their economy and their relationship with the US and other countries. I believe that this may be also a good way to reason with North Korea.

1 point

To add on, this option is good, because North Korea have or might have ICBMs. Having the US try to negotiate with North Korea, could avoid the chances of going to war with North Korea, which might put South Korea and Japan at stake, and maybe China as well.

1 point

Karen (3)

Option 3 is the best option because it will result in peace for both countries. Kim Jong Un and Donald Trump should form a peace agreement. This option will benefit both countries because we won't have to worry about being attacked, and North Korea can receive some aid from us. According to the article linked below, the author claims "the US military isn’t anywhere close to being ready for war," meaning we can't just attack North Korea. Attacking them would just lead to destruction of the country and possibly our own; therefore, making negotiations with them is the safer way to go. The article also mentions how North Korea has developed and tested multiple nuclear weapons; however, to this very day, they never actually used it to attack another country, so they might not ever attack unless a country is clearly going to harm them. This is why making an agreement with them will be the best way to benefit everyone.

Karen1018w(3) Clarified
2 points

To clarify,

We should negotiate with North Korea one on one. In today's world, we should try our very best to avoid war. War is very costly in terms of money and lives. All North Korea wants is attention from the world. They do not wish to be looked poorly upon, so as long as if we give them what they want, we can all live in peace. Also, they have developed working nuclear weapons for a certain amount of time; however, they have not used them on another territory, so they clearly do not want to actually harm others.

KeanuC(8) Disputed
1 point

"so they clearly do not want to actually harm others" --- inaction doesn't negate intention, Ms.Karen.

NeshaaP(2) Clarified
1 point

North Korea will use us to their advantage. They will hold us back and manipulate us.The Chinese must be apart of the discussion. China will be offended if they are not.

1 point

Carson- Option 2 is the best option for the United States' interest. Ultimately, this option would contain North Korea's threat by eliminating its weapons and the spread of their weapons. Direct negotiation and aid makes us succumb and basically reward their threatening behavior. Using economic pressure, rather than fighting power, will be more of a threat. Kim Jung Un wants to stay in power and have control over his brain-washed people. If his fortress falls, his people will turn against him. This is his worst nightmare. The US threatening a nuclear attack on his people he doesn't truly care about is not his worry.

1 point

I am John Michael, and I support argument 2. While North Korea does not yet have an ICBM that can reach the mainland of the United States, the ICBM can reach U.S. allies along with the U.S. territory Guam. With that being said, I think we should avoid war as much as possible in order to not put our allies/territory in danger. Also, MSN reported that China would side with North Korea if the U.S. decides to strike first, which is my main concern with option 1 (Preemptive Military Strike). With that said, I think the best choice for the U.S. at this point would be to pressure North Korea to return to the six-party negotiations.

Quantumhead(561) Disputed
1 point

I am John Michael, and I support argument 2. While North Korea does not yet have an ICBM that can reach the mainland of the United States, the ICBM can reach U.S. allies along with the U.S. territory Guam.

With that said, I think the best choice for the U.S. at this point would be to pressure North Korea

And the US has missiles which will reach and wipe out most of Asia. Does this mean you support pressuring the United States? Or do you believe the United States is the only country in the world which should be permitted the means to defend itself from foreign aggressors?

KeanuC(8) Disputed
3 points

That argument is too polar. What middle ground could be found between the rightful quest of national sovereignty the North Koreans lead and a repressive global empire you make the US out to be? Mr.John Micheal says nothing of other countries - just North Korea. This is a more isolated case and I, believe, sir, that you are overgeneralizing. Mr.John Micheal makes no indications that would should be pressuring, say, Britain because that country has the ability to "defend itself from foreign aggressors." When a country proves a threat to its sovereignty, it has the duty to stand up to this threat. The Koreans see us a threat, so they obtain ICBMs to secure their sovereignty, but in doing so - when contextualized with the last 75 years of smack-talk and painting the United States as some terrible villain to their populous - they have provoked the US. When a child with a dart gun threatens you, its easy to shrug off, but when he has a loaded 44 magnum, there are some problems that have to be addressed. Just because one immature country shouldn't have ICBMs for its own safety and everyone else's doesn't mean an mature country shouldn't...

1 point

Prioritizing stability over denuclearization seems like the best option to me. I personally don't want to advocate starting a war, but I definitely agree that having defenses set up in case they attempt to attack is important. The blame game can sway opinions and would likely damage our reputation if it all ends badly.

Supporting Evidence: China's North Korea problem is worse than ours (www.vox.com)
nicolebri(3) Clarified
1 point

I'm not sure if the capability of North Korea to hit the United States makes a preemptive strike okay, but should we wait for them to possibly use it for us begin taking action? They have been working at this for years, officially withdrawing from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003, whether to prove their strength and capability as a strong and armed nation not to be messed with or to attack a country and start a world war.

Just recently, they did declare to pull back from their intentions to attack Guam. Sources state that "The statement sure looks like a [North Korean] attempt at deescalation," (https://www.vox.com/world/2017/8/15/16150238/north-korea-guam-attack-kcna-statement) and that even though this is just a minor step back from North Korea, they could still return to threats. It's all unsure as of yet.

A preemptive attack should be used as a last resort. Not being able to predict Kim's true intentions makes it more difficult to make the right decision to move forward. He's been a cruel man with ego issues and hardly enough sense of right and wrong. Ever since his public declaration of lost intentions to attack Guam, it's possible that he will be open to negotiations. Maybe not too much too fast; we still have a long way to go. But bilateral negotiations seem like the best option to me due to the drawbacks of a preemptive attack on North Korea.

1 point

I think option 3 is the better choice , even if it means affecting people's view of the US, because ultimately the option that can save lives peacefully will ease tensions and possibly provide a halt to North Korea's nuclear development.

Supporting Evidence: article (www.vox.com)
JenniferSnow(2) Clarified
1 point

If we can negotiate, we may have to deal in association with other countries, but the end-goal is to have a nonviolent solution to the problem, with as little expenses as possible. The most import thing part, however, is making sure that North Korea doesn't fell that they need nuclear weapons as leverage.

1 point

Mckinnley-(3)"Engage North Korea in Bilateral Negotiations that Involve Concessions on Both Sides"

I think by having this one on one negotiations

it won't be like we're cornering North Korea into giving up any nuclear program

same applies with a pre-emptive military strike, where we are actually cornering them

and just waging any type of conflict against North Korea will bring China into the altercation

just removing American presence from the Korean peninsula could get negotiated in bilateral negotiations

in return of north korea abandoning nuclear programs and weapons

BricenRivers(3) Disputed
2 points

North Korea is run by a leader who is power obsessed and all about his ego. He will eventually bomb someone to prove a point and basically show the world "Hey North Korea is here and we can bomb people too". Why not go ahead and bomb their sources of the bomb and the country to go ahead and stop a problem before it starts. Kim Jong Un may not be all talk and we shouldn't wait until it's too late.

yelnnikcm Clarified
1 point

North Korea is just waving a new gun they got around thats all.

And as logical people you dont want people who we believe to be a little "on edge" with a weapon like that.

And if we attack or provoke them in anyway it doesnt matter who they shoot at. People will die and I'm not supporting any argument that involves the possibility of a bomb going off

So discuss what to do to get rid of the weapons and the nuclear program

yelnnikcm Clarified
1 point

Through bilateral negotiations that will provide the safest option because North Korea could still be a loose cannon

so just leaving the korean pennisula could mean nothing to them

1 point

With the situation going on in North Korea we should at least consider withdrawing from the Korean peninsula. We cannot really predict the outcome of interacting with North Korea, but we could influence it. The only problem is China, Japan, and Russia may not be willing to participate in Asian security.

khopkins(2) Disputed
1 point

I am not necessarily disputing, but do you think our allies would turn on us for not helping them anymore since we are a huge part of the protection for them?

1 point

I agree with Option 4 to withdraw for the Korean Peninsula would be the best option for American troops. There has been a growing pattern of manipulation and threat by the North Korean government and the United States feels that our government should remove our soldiers from the Korean Peninsula. With North Korea wanting American troops to get away from the Korean Peninsula and them staying, the desire of building nuclear weapons and hurting American troops is only increasing for North Korea. American troops are clearly not welcomed and it is not necessary for them to stay on the Korean Peninsula. The government should withdraw all American troops from the Korean Peninsula and use them somewhere else where they are actually needed.

Supporting Evidence: Washington Post (www.washingtonpost.com)
Ayden724(2) Disputed
1 point

They can hate the US all they but if they strike the US will strike back. Plus moving out of South Korea and Japan will lose the US two allies with a possible threat looming around the corner isn't a good idea. And who doesn't say they possible take South Korea and Japan at force because they cant threaten them with nuclear weapons? Then the US will have more on their plate of people that hate them and another problem to deal with. Also if the US moved out what would other countries think about it? Possibly weak and could take advantage of that idea and pin it on the US.

1 point

North Korea is having issues with the United States. They have been building nuclear weapons, and they have threatened to use them against us.There been many ways to try and stop North Korea in previous years, but those actions have continuously failed. Option 4 is the best option because it will let us stop wasting time and money when they obviously don't care. We should bring our troops away from the Korean Peninsula because we are wasting time and money, and North Korea is continuing to build more nuclear weapons. It is not necessary to keep our troops at the peninsula because they are just gaining more force to take us down.

Karen1018w(3) Disputed
1 point

Skylar12,

I understand that North Korea has threatened the United States with the multiple nuclear weapons they have developed. However, pulling troops out of the Korean Peninsula will leave South Korea and Japan in great danger. Kim Jong Un would take the chance to completely destroy or take over those two territories, and that would make him more powerful and scare the rest of the nations around the world. He would also create a larger nuclear weapon program resulting in those weapons falling into terrorist hands, and then the whole world would be in danger. Since we've been providing aid for so long, and nothing has really gotten hurt, maybe negotiating peace terms will resolve the problem.

1 point

OPTION 1

I believe we should strike North Korea first because we are a target, strong and we are a strong country, so we can bounce back. I think we should send them a message to show them we mean business as well.

1 point

(4) The United States has long had tension with North Korea that has recently come to a peak. North Korea has progressed its nuclear program very quickly, and they now have an ICBM that could reach the United States. After recent threats from the North Korean government, people have been pushing Trump to do some thing about the threats. I think the best way to handle this tricky situation is to pull out of the Korean peninsula completely. North Korea has told the U.S. "if YOU attack the US, we will attack you", so the last thing we should do is go after them. Many people have suggested that we try negotiating with North Korea, however, history shows that appeasement and waiting never go well. The most logical option is to pull out of the Korean peninsula completely, showing North Korea that we are not there to harm them and end our deal with South Korea and Japan. Pulling our troops out of the peninsula would save us, the American people, money and show the North Korean government that we have no means of war.

Supporting Evidence: just come home (www.fff.org)
1 point

Option 1 is the best way to deal with pesky North Korea. Option 1 allows the US to use our brute military forces instead of debating with an incompetent leader like Kim Jong Un. Kim's demands will be too great and it will only make our government look weak trying to cooperate with a guy who starves his own people to build rockets. If we completely leave the Korean Peninsula there will be nothing to stop him from expanding his Missile Systems and then attacking the rest of the Peninsula. If we leave the Korean Peninsula, then we leave Japan and South Korea at risk & they don't have any nuclear weapons to defend themselves from a full scale attack. We are the police of the world to ensure our own safety from people like Kim Jong Un and taking him out maybe seems bad at first, but it's for the greater good of the world.

lucas12345(2) Disputed
1 point

While I agree negotiations isn't the best way to approach North Korea as it has historically failed, a preemptive strike would be much worse. A preemptive strike prompt North Korea to send a nuclear missile to South Korea, Japan, or even Alaska. You say that we would be leaving Japan and South Korea vulnerable, but North Korea has absolutely no reason to attack them, they also know they would lose. North Korea isn't suicidal, and the leaders want to stay in power. Further, if the United States is ever truly forced into defending another country from North Korea, we have bases in Guam and Hawaii to deal with it. North Korea built nuclear weaponry to prevent the U.S. from trying to topple their regime, and have succeeded. They know firing a nuke will eventually get them destroyed, and I guarantee you they want to stay in power. If we leave them alone, they will leave everyone else alone.

1 point

The nuke is just for show. They would never attack first. It's just a condition - that being leave us alone and this collects dust. What does either side gain from going to war? Pulling troops out of an area is foolish once the regime or government has been dissolved. A dictatorship is leagues better than a power vacuum that creates further violence. And if they dissolve by way of nature, China can just take over the area. It'll be their problem. Why are we doing the work for them? They share a border and they have the resources to support them. China wouldn't allow an Iraq situation unfold on their border. Lets take the target off of our country.

1 point

Nathan Blakeney (1)

In my opinion, I feel that the best option to handle North Korea is to simply pull the first punch on them, rather than us being on the receiving end of the first hit. Kim Jong-Un likely won't abide by any agreement made between him and the president, and it would just be wasting time to even try to make peace with them. North Korea has become a major a hazard to their neighboring countries, and I feel that by simply snuffing them out and keeping close watch on what's left, those problems would be taken care of.

Katie326(3) Disputed
1 point

In order to even launch a preemptive military strike against North Korea, we would have to have South Korea's permission because of the current Mutual Defense Treaty between the US and the Republic of Korea. The first problem with this is that South Korea does not want the US to use military action against North Korea. But if South Korea does allow the US to strike South Korea, not only would this trigger war between the US and North Korea, but China would then defend North Korea because the US struck first, according to FOX News. War is not worth taking out some of North Korea's nuclear weapons, there is no definitive way to know if all of North Korea's weapons were destroyed in an attack.

Quantumhead(561) Disputed
1 point

In order to even launch a preemptive military strike against North Korea

Why are you even talking about this? In the past 16 years you've invaded Afghanistan, invaded Iraq, forced regime change in Libya and completely fucked Syria. If you are going to invade every country you see as a threat then America is no better than Nazi Germany.

1 point

The Us should take caution in responding to and approaching North Korea because they have created multiple nuclear weapons. The president and Kim Jung Un should have a meeting about North Korea having nuclear weapons and creating more of them just to clarify that North Korea won't use them to harm the people of the United States. I think that if we work out our issues with North Korea there wouldn't be any problems although problems with the US seems to be inevitable. There have been many attempts at stopping North Korea from creating nuclear weapons and testing them, but much and many of those attempts have led to wars and fights breaking out among the United States and North Korea. However with Kim Jong threatening us, we would have to pull our troops out of the Korean Peninsula, Japan and South Korea would be put in jeopardy of being invaded and taken over.Also, if we fought North Korea, it would destroy the fragile relationship between us and South Korea. Not to mention the thousands of lives that would be killed and destroyed. Korea hae also been creating and trying to experiment with these weapons since 2004. Today, North Korea says that they have been drawing up plans to launch ballistic missiles near US and Germany territory so the United States should take heed to their words and watch out.

AshleiD(2) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, I think we would avoid wars that we aren't involved in because it is costlyin money and lives. I also think that North Korea just wants some attention so that they can get what they need. North Korea probably doesn't want to be looked down upon. I think we should just talk to them so that we can have peace upon all countries and states.

1 point

The u.s should launch a military strike to get rid of the reactors and processors that are being used to produce plutonium and uranium. The other options result in us still being targeted with missiles or showing that we are weak. Withdrawing doesn't make sense because North Korea will just try attack us once their weapons are produced. Negotiating will not work because the Koreans never go along with their treaties, so they wont be well at coming to an agreement.

monica_hart1(3) Clarified
1 point

The point of the strike isn't to get rid of the military or kill anyone its just to break the toys that Kim-Jong Un created.

1 point

Lyrick

Option 1

I think Option 1 would be the best because it will eliminate the problem of them having nuclear bombs all together. If they have no bombs, they have no leverage and won't put them in the position to threaten us. They have already warned that they would bomb South Korea and US troops stationed in Guam. Negotiating with them after they have threatened us is not the best idea and gives other countries the view that they can do it as well and get away with it. Patience is also not a good strategy because while we are waiting and trying to negotiate, they could be making more and selling them to terrorists. North Korea does not want a war. The US does not want a war. Simply negotiating could work, if they would agree to negotiate. Seeing as they are not we must act now or they will act on their threats. This is the best option.

nicolebri(3) Disputed
1 point

In 2006, North Korea's first underground nuclear test was carried out. We could miss some of their missiles and they would likely target the nearby countries that contain our troops, plus we would risk making the land radioactive and unfit for humans to safely set foot upon.

1 point

I chose option 4. America and North Korea have gone back and forth for years. Compromises only lead to on of us failing in the others eyes creating a bigger issue. Withdrawling our troops would solve that issue while also not messing with China's allied relationship with North Korea.

1 point

Option two is the way to go with the recent news about Kim Jong-un willing to negotiate. Recently, Kim stated that he will hold off on the attack for a little bit unless the U.S. did something irrational and "stupid."

Another reason option two is the best option right now is because the U.S. has agreed to a mutual defense treaty with South Korea that states the U.S. is to not take action without the consent and agreement of South Korea. If the U.S. were to break this treaty we could lose South Korea and many other countries could turn on the U.S. or not help in the crisis. U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis stated that any attack on North Korea could easily turn into war.

With option two we can turn to option one if things do not work out, whereas with option one, there is no turning back and like Mattis states it can turn into war. With option two we have a chance with reasoning with Kim and if he releases the missile without warning we have THAAD, an anti-missile defense system, located in South Korea.

1 point

Option (3)

I believe option 3 is the best approach in initially dealing with North Korea. We should establish trust between our two nations in order to impede the progression of nuclear weapons. Since North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to initiate power over other countries, we should remove any imposing threats. If they persist to act irrational, then we can reference militaristic tactics.

logan145(3) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, we must handle North Korea in stages. By beginning with a peaceful approach, we can evaluate North Korea's response. If they fail to cooperate, then we can begin to take it a step further. We should not preemptively jump to military attacks.

logan145(3) Disputed
1 point

Option 4 seems like the easy way out. If we pull out of the peninsula, we allow North Korea to build its nuclear program unsupervised. This would greatly damage the reputation of the United States as the "world police".

bobbywhite(2) Disputed
1 point

We've already been trying negotiations with North Korea since the 80's, they've continued to break treaties and continue their nuclear program. They will continue to manipulate us to get resources and if they have weapons that can threat U.S. soil and they verbally make those threats, those weapons need to be dealt with and if that means a mass military strike in North Korea? Then that's what we need to do.

1 point

All of your opinions are great. Although there are pros and cons for every option (I am even debating with myself on which one to choose), I think that option 3 is the best solution. Not to sound too confident since anything could happen, but the United States is a strong country has a very powerful military, and the thought that North Korea is even "considering" to mess with us is very brave. North Korea has always been afraid of America due to our history, and I am thinking that maybe Kim is trying to fake intimidation and toughness in order to make North Korea seem more powerful than it really is. The country supposedly has one of the worst economies in the world. North Korea has ICBMs, but citizens literally have to turn the power off at night because they can't afford to run power and they don't have anything to eat. If they can't afford any of this, how can they afford nuclear weapons? I doubt that they have the material to enrich uranium to 97% for nuclear bombs and the ability to fit it in a nuclear war head. I feel like they say and act like they have these things. Even if their economy was based on trying to fund the nuclear system for their country, they can't just do that forever; their people will die off... In my opinion, I just don't think they are a nuclear threat. Maybe they want help with their economy and they WANT us to try to negotiate so they can get help??? There are so many possiblities which makes this so complicated. They could be a threat with missiles, but I just don't think they will go through with it. Anyway, if we make negotiations, we can have more peace and less unneccessary tension/fighting. Again, you never know what could happen, so I do still think we need to be prepared just in case of blackmail or other situations that cause NK to, for some reason, nuke us.

1 point

(Option 3) I think that bilateral negotiations could potentially work in dealing with North Korea. The reason the six party talks failed in the past is because North Korea's biggest problem is with the U.S. alone. Having to negotiate with the other countries also clearly seemed unnecessary to them. Agreeing to a bilateral talk at least shows North Korea that we are willing to meet them half way, potentially improving our strained relationship. However, agreeing to this would make it seem as if the U.S. is giving in to the black mail from North Korea, but is giving in really worse the risking thousands of innocent lives? I personally think not. And who's to say that every other country is going to think the U.S. is weak for agreeing to negotiate with North Korea? If anything it would show that we are a country that doesn't immediately talk war any moment we have a disagreement with another country and that we resort to violence only when we have no other choice. That is another advantage to this option. If North Korea refuses to negotiate and we are forced to attack, then it is now their leaders fault in the destruction of their country. This was my biggest issue with the first option. Let's say we attack North Korea, destroying their weapon factories. Most likely we would have also killed thousands of their people in the attack. This would, first, destroy any potential relationship with North Korea and if their walls were to one day come down do we really expect the North Korean people to just become buddy-buddy with the countries that once destroyed their home? If it comes to attacking through option 3 however the North Korean people will know that we wanted to negotiate with them, but it was their leader that forced our hand to attack. From here the North Korean's hopefully won't have a grudge against the rest of the world and see the U.S. as their ally.

1 point

I agree more along the lines of option 1. It isn't very likely that a preemptive military strike will go as smoothly as planned and there is a good chance a lot of lives could be lost but it is the only option that provides a positive outcome for the future. We can't simply ignore them otherwise we will find ourselves in a world where not only do all the stable super powers have nukes but the smaller more rogue nations of the world. On the other hand if we were to go in and simply nuke North Korea we would end countless civilians lives and also risk nuclear war.

croissant(4) Disputed
1 point

I do agree that it is a plan that might actually work, but what if after such attack to NK will cause the rise of another dictator such as the regime they have now? What will happen then?

1 point

Leslie (3)

May not be best way to handle with North Korea, but it may be the safest since all North Korea has really done is just talk and gain the attention of the entire globe.

Even though negotiating with NK sounds like pure nonsense and a waste of time, it may be the safest way to deal with them than going into bloody war, and losing the lives of millions of people.

In the article attached, it can be inferred or proven, that North Korea is just wanting to gain the attention of the world, to show everyone that they have weapons. NK has pulled back their threat and decided to just, "'...watch a little more the foolish and stupid conduct' of the United States before he decides to launch any missiles toward Guam,...." North Korea, here, is too afraid of attacking, since they know that there are nations surrounding them that are U.S allies. But to talk about their showcase of weapons and missiles, in my opinion, are just to cover up the nation's fear of being attacked and taken over by surrounding countries. The threats made by them are a way of doing so. The country's people are going through tough economical issues, as well as starvation. If we decide to just stay back and don't do anything, people in NK will die, and/or NK may possibly be plotting occasionally. Negotiation is the safest way to go.

Supporting Evidence: North Korea just pulled back from a Guam attack (www.vox.com)
1 point

Honestly, I believe that the U.S should stand its ground and not let such eminent threats of North Korea, that basically have no meaning, since they pulled back their threat of attacking Guam with missiles, get to them. Negotiations may be safe in this case, but not everyone may be pleased with there are some things that others won't agree on. NK, especially, will be hard to please, since they are stubborn as a child. They just want to gain the world's attention. If it comes to the point where NK won't cooperate with the negotiations presented and still continues with it's threats, the U.S shall put the matters into its own hands, along with Japan, South Korea, Russia, and China.

Now, it wouldn't be the greatest idea or so, if the U.S were to remove its stationed troops it has in South Korean and Japan. This will create less tension, but at the same time, will leave these allies vulnerable in case if an attack were make to these countries.

1 point

Alyssa (2)

I believe that pressuring North Korea to returning to the Six Party negotiations is the best way to go. North Korea is in a tough position where they have no money and they are slowly going to run out of food. In a country that is already starving -- more people are going to die. Once food runs out and not even Kim Jong Un will be able to eat he might want to return to the table. The main problem of this is that North Korea will only talk to the US directly.

1 point

I believe bilateral negotiations with North Korea is the best solution out of our options. A preemptive strike would start a war. Doing so in that matter would potentially put the blame for any damage to our allies ,South Korea and Japan, on the US, damaging relations. On the other hand, withdrawing from the Korean peninsula entirely would damage relations because the US has a mutual defense treaty with South Korea.

1 point

I believe that the United States should engage in six-party negotiation with North Korea. The involved parties would include North Korea, South Korea, Japan, China, and the U.S. North Korea is not suicidal. They know that it would be unwise for them to attack a nuclear superpower. That is why they only provoke us. Provoking America allows them to gain the attention needed to inject themselves into the world stage. This means that the issue is best resolved through negotiation.

Some will argue that it is simply easier to nuke North Korea and be done with it. This , however, would strain our relationships with China and South Korea. Both countries prefer avoiding nuclear war at all costs. Attacking North Korea in this manner would leave a failed state susceptible to a power vacuum. This option may in fact make things worse.

Others may argue that Bilateral negotiation is best. I would ask those people to consider the present state of our nation's legislative branch. Even if the president could manage to strike a deal with Kim Jong Un, Congress would prevent him from making the necessary concessions.

Newbill(3) Clarified
1 point

China has recently implemented heavy sanctions on North Korea. They have also said they will not will not aid us if we strike first. This is further proof that China will be more willing to negotiate, than anything else. Also pulling out our troops will not do anything. That is a too little too late option. We are way past pulling out and laying low.

-power vacuum threat

-congress makes bilateral negotiations impossible

-growing desire to avoid nuclear war

KeanuC(8) Clarified
1 point

[I made this comment unaware that I was referring to a clarification, not a stand-alone aurgument. There seems not to be a delete button so this must suffice.]

1 point

I agree with option 3 in that we should attempt to negotiate with North Korea. I believe that at all costs we should avoid attacking them in fear of the most likely reaction of them eventually attacking back. It would be the best option to convince North Korea to stop their use of nuclear weapons in an agreement.

1 point

I like option four because I agree that we should pull our troops out of Korea. It will ease the tension between us and North Korea. We have tried everything and it is a waste of money to keep troops there. We need to wield some of our money towards other meaningful, productive things such as: welfare and education.

0 points

The carrot and stick strategy is working fine.

Jong-un is playing a dangerous game of poking a tiger, even one which is slow to anger and reluctant to react to unbearable provocation .

If the manic Jong-un did hit the U.S, mainland or overseas territories with nuclear armed missiles the liberal shitheads would be bellowing;- If Trump had listened to all the warnings and acted decisively and effectively this catastrophe would have been avoided.

If President Trump decides to go for the Jong-un's jugular it won't be a warning shot over the bow, It will be a warning shot to the back of the head.

If push comes to shove the North Korean nuclear arsenal will have to be totally destroyed, it's conventional forces neutralized and the country occupied by either U.N. forces or America and it's staunch ally, Britain.

0 points

Kim jong un is playing a game with trump. Trump shouldn't listen. We can annihilate them at ANY time, but it would be better not to.

0 points

I think option 1 is the best. Negotiating with them has not worked, as we saw with Clinton. Also, an expert on US-China relations and East Asia policy at the Council on Foreign Relations even said that North Korea will not stop their threats and settle for peace anytime soon. Another thing, I do not believe that starving out the country would be a good idea, either. If we eliminate their nuclear capability, then we would show other countries nuclear proliferation is unacceptable, stop weapons from being sold to terrorists, and also kick start the downfall of the Kim Jong-II regime.

Supporting Evidence: "China's North Korea problem is worse than ours" (www.vox.com)
1 point

i agree with you. The only reasonable argument or option is to launch a strike.

abbym1011(4) Disputed
1 point

After more research, I am changing my option. Would delete it, but I don't know how.. Anyways, I think option 2 would be the best. A military strike would cause too many problems, and it is also too violent. Not only that, but we would not even be able to destroy all the bombs and things they have hidden. A military strike would, as stated in The Atlantic, "And so it could bring on the worst of all scenarios, a furious military response from North Korea with its nuclear arsenal still intact, putting millions of lives in South Korea and potentially Japan as well at imminent risk." If we instead pressure North Korea to return to the six-party negotiations, we could get rid of their weapons, contain the spread of their weapons, and protect the US Citizens. Also, China could threaten North Korea with their economic assistance. There are more people to help assist in the delegations between the US and North Korea with option two. This would be a peaceful way out.

Supporting Evidence: There Is a Peaceful Way Out of the North Korea Crisis (www.theatlantic.com)
abbym1011(4) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, option 2 has the potential to be America's peaceful way out. We would not give North Korea anything they need until they abide by our negotiation in the company of Russia, South Korea, China, and Japan. If we pressure North Korea to return to the six-party negotiations, we would eliminate the threat of all their weapons, the selling their weapons to third party groups like terrorists, and we would protect American interests. Former US defense secretary said he found the North Koreans to be 'seriously interested in the prospect of normalizing relations with the U.S.'. If we put this problem onto China as well, North Korea would probably accept our deal under Chinese pressure and American inducements combined. Yes, there are some risks, but far less than if we were to start a war with them.