• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US backs South Korea in punishing North Korea

As long as China supports NK, there is nothing that can be done.
 
Why would we have to support them?

South Korea is a major trading partner (almost $68 billion in trade last year and on a pace for more than $75 billion this year). The U.S. maintains a mutual defense agreement with South Korea. The U.S. has an enormous stake in stability in Asia.

Were the U.S. to simply abandon South Korea, its other security commitments would properly be viewed as hollow. In addition, the U.S. would suffer greater economic damage than might otherwise have occurred, as markets price a greater degree of risk into economic transactions. U.S. abdication would also have the potential to spark a nuclear arms race in Asia given the power vacuum the U.S. would create in its retreat from its commitments and interests. Would-be aggressors, including states such as Iran, would calculate that there is little risk in taking military measures that undermine U.S. interests.
 
I should have been clearer because I don't disagree, I was just trying to point out how ridiculous Crunch in being so comfortable with calling for a 2nd Korean War.

And I think we should consult with the South Koreas so they know the exact meaning of our backing so they can make a better decision, but we shouldnt try to define their response or their foreign policy.

Please try to read what people write and are responding to without putting your own spin on it. I was not calling for war against the North, I was speculating on what would happen if "Seoul gets hit by a few thousand artillery shells."

Originally Posted by Lord Tammerlain
Naval blockade would work fine untill the first interception

When fighting would break out, and then Seoul gets hit by a few thousand artillery shells.

So? Then North Korea would be hit with a few thousand cruse missile and smart bombs. Is the Missouri still in active service?

Thanx.
 
Perhaps you can turn a blind eye to potentially thousands of dead American serviceman, but I cannot.


No need to be an angry douchebag.
 
No need to be an angry douchebag.

Well in essence.. that is your argument... let South Korea fend for itself, and ignore the problem of close to 30,000 American military personal that would be directly effected by any such action.
 
It depends on what comes up before the council, but China probably wouldn't veto it. They've been noticably quiet (tehy barely issued a statement on the matter). They are North Korea's biggest trade partner, but the Western World is a far larger partner. When it comes down to it, they aren't going to want to side with a blatant militarily aggressive state.

Hell, China is more likely to take military action against North Korea than South Korea is. The last thing they want is a US military presence pushed up against their border like that.
 
Hell, China is more likely to take military action against North Korea than South Korea is.

I don't agree.

NK has represented as a huge scapegoat for China, and to the pseudo-communists propaganda is everything. As long as the world is focused on NK no one is talking about China.
 
I don't agree.

NK has represented as a huge scapegoat for China, and to the pseudo-communists propaganda is everything. As long as the world is focused on NK no one is talking about China.

I agree with you on this point. Not only that, China's rhetoric of "internal matter" will likely be heard at some point (I know, it isn't, but tell that to the thugs in Beiping).

The PRC has the DPRK's back. Policymakers realize that. A military option, sadly, is completely out of the question.
 
Well in essence.. that is your argument... let South Korea fend for itself, and ignore the problem of close to 30,000 American military personal that would be directly effected by any such action.

No. Its not.

Its my position we shouldn't have had those troops over there for the last several decades anyways.
 
No. Its not.

Its my position we shouldn't have had those troops over there for the last several decades anyways.

Having those troops there honors the treaty commitment between the U.S. and SK, and it also serves as a diplomatic deterrent against NK and China. Yeah, 30,000 troops would probably lose in an all out attack right now, but such collateral damage (for lack of a better term) would jeopardize China's trade relationship with the U.S., and it greatly increases the stake should NK decide to strike.

The troops are a good deterrent, basically.
 
No. Its not.

Its my position we shouldn't have had those troops over there for the last several decades anyways.

Well they are there, and we cannot just ignore their presence when trying to envision a strategy to follow.
 
Having those troops there honors the treaty commitment between the U.S. and SK, and it also serves as a diplomatic deterrent against NK and China. Yeah, 30,000 troops would probably lose in an all out attack right now, but such collateral damage (for lack of a better term) would jeopardize China's trade relationship with the U.S., and it greatly increases the stake should NK decide to strike.

The troops are a good deterrent, basically.

I disagree that we should be entering into Treaties which devote our troops to serve on foreign soil to serve the interests of foreign governments.

Im a bit of an Isolationist.
 
I disagree that we should be entering into Treaties which devote our troops to serve on foreign soil to serve the interests of foreign governments.

Im a bit of an Isolationist.

SK is part of the long term U.S. strategy in Asia.

And the fact is, the treaty was signed. The U.S. can't go back on its word now.
 
SK is part of the long term U.S. strategy in Asia.

And the fact is, the treaty was signed. The U.S. can't go back on its word now.

im not saying it should.
 
im not saying it should.

Call me a pragmatist, but you were dwelling on the past a lot before I posted. I just don't see it as productive. The commitment is there, the troops are deployed, there is no going back. Foreign policy has to operate on a go-forward basis when it comes to situations like what's brewing on the Korean peninsula.
 
Call me a pragmatist, but you were dwelling on the past a lot before I posted. I just don't see it as productive. The commitment is there, the troops are deployed, there is no going back. Foreign policy has to operate on a go-forward basis when it comes to situations like what's brewing on the Korean peninsula.

If you have been reading, you would understand that there is a distinct difference between "going back on your word" and "never having done something the first time".

I don't believe we should have entered into agreements with foreign nations with THEIR security in mind using OUR resources.
 
I disagree that we should be entering into Treaties which devote our troops to serve on foreign soil to serve the interests of foreign governments.

Im a bit of an Isolationist.

You would rather have let the Soviet-Chinese bloc take over Europe and East Asia in the 1950s, then?
 
Back
Top Bottom