The U.S. military should preemptively strike North Korea. - The Best Online Debate Website | - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website |

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons! is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.

In this Debate

The U.S. military should preemptively strike North Korea.

Debate Information

Position: For March 2018 Tournament | Round 1 - Debate 3

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win

Details +

Debate Type: Traditional Debate

Voting Format: Casual Voting

Opponent: shadowCorbin

Rounds: 3

Time Per Round: 24 Hours Per Round

Voting Period: 24 Hours


Post Argument Now Debate Details +


  • Round 1 | Position: Against
    shadowCorbinshadowCorbin 17 Pts   -   edited March 2018
         The U.S. has many reasons to not preemptively strike North Korea. First, any major confrontation with the DPRK will likely start a peninsula wide wide war, and likely start a wider military confrontation with China. The Global Times, a Chinese newspaper run by the communist government, reported, “If the U.S. and South Korea carry out strikes and try to overthrow the North Korean regime, and change the political pattern of the Korean Peninsula, China will prevent them from doing so,” so if America strikes first, instead of having one war, we will have two. Most likely we could easily handle war with one isolated country with the alliance of South Korea, but if China joins the war against the United States, we will have a war with two countries. You also need to assume, if America strikes first we are likely to have more countries normally allies to both America and China move to aid China in the war effort. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, and Japan are ready to provide aid to the U.S. in the event of war, and it is best if we assume, if we will receive support, China will too. 
         Second, the war serves no one's interests, and there is very little reason to strike first. First, even if we manage to disable North Korea's defensive capabilities, there is the China problem, and we would have to fight a separate war. Millions would die, and many Americans are part of that number, and why should we lose thousands, or millions of lives, for the sake of democracy? Choe Kang-il, Deputy Director General for North American affairs at North Korea's foreign ministry recently told the New York Times, "If the United States even hints at a strike on North Korea, we will proceed with a preemptive attack on the U.S." They didn't mean if we speak about it per se, but if we share legitimate plans of striking, and if we plan to carry these plans out, China plans to strike first. take the four most poulice cities in California, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Jose, and San Francisco which have a combined population of about seven and a quarter million people. Now, a lot of those people wouldn't die from a Chinese nuclear strike, but even a quarter of those people is almost two million people. Even the Hiroshima atomic bombing in the second world war only killed 90,000–146,000 people (about half from radiation effects) and take the fallout spreading over much of California, countless people would be lost. Now remember, this all before the U.S. could strike, and imagine a long drawn out war, how many more lives would be lost, and for what, preserving democracy or destroying a mad dictator? The deaths themselves would be more acceptable if these people were soldiers, but most people lost in this conflict would be civilians. The "beef" is between our countries leaders, not the people, why should the people have to die.
         Third and finally, would the war achieve anything? The answer is more complicated just than yes or no. Yes, we would overthrow the communist regime, helping to preserve democracy, and we would make the world a little safer. Would that be worth millions of lives though, and that is assuming the U.S. won, countless more lives would be lost if we were to lose in conflict. The no answer though still stands, the war wouldn't achieve lasting peace, nor would it save the country. Both world wars have just led to more conflict, like the Red Scare and Cold War. If we do happen to destroy, or at least disarm, North Korea and China, we would have countries scared of us, and that fear would lead to conflict. If a country is scared of another, like we fear a North Korean war even if we would probably win, we threaten them, or put embargoes on trade. 
         To sum up a preemptive strike on North Korea would only lead to a wider conflict with China, millions of lives lost, and ultimately a war would lead to more conflict even if it prevents war for a time. I ask, would the preemptive strike still be worth it, or should we wait? Why should we start a war, if we can have peace, especially when North Korea is planning to discuss peace talks about denuclearization with South Korea and the U.S., and if we can avoid a war, shouldn't we? Why waste millions of civilian lives when a conflict can be resolved, or avoided altogether?
    I apologize I forgot the citations first time round. Thanks Fascism, goodluck!!! 

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2021, all rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Terms of Service

Get In Touch