Should we send a task force int North Korea to neutralize the nukes and wmd"s

Thanks for the argument Pro. While I agree that this is a relatively risky situation, and some form of action (not necessarily militaristic) is necessary, I will base my rebuttal around the assertion that the type of mission proposed by my opponent is out of the question. I will not claim that it is impossible, but rather that it is foolish and we "should" not do it, in response to the resolution. Let's begin. Ave. Pro states: ""that endangers not only American citizens, but also endangers all of their enemies (which is about everyone.) True they don't have the proper technology to send a nuclear missile very far, but what happens when they do and we've all just sat around waiting for the inevitable?" LIKELIHOOD OF NORTH KOREA'S THREATS Pro operates under the assumption that a nuclear strike from North Korea is a very real, likely and even "inevitable" danger. Yes, the threat has been made, however, anyone following these hostilities should be aware of North Korea"s blustery nature. America and its allies have been receiving these very same threats for years. None have materialized so far. What evidence is there that the latest one warrants this "covert" mission you speak of? My opponent claims that their technology is advancing, which is probably true. What he fails to realize is that their missiles are fairly advanced as it is. It"s been theorized that North Korean weapons currently have the potential to reach a U.S. military base in Guam [1]. Even if this is false, they could obviously strike South Korea without much effort, an equally satisfying target in their eyes. So why haven"t they? I can say with the utmost confidence that North Korea will NOT nuke the United States, or even South Korea for that matter, for the same reason the USSR didn"t nuke us during all the years of the Cold War. Mutually assured destruction. There are many reasons why NK has not acted, and never will act on its threats, and this is a primary one. Our missile defense techology is so advanced that they could likely not even land one strike before retaliation from the US and all of its partners, and they know it. This has been a basic principle of nuclear warfare since it was conceived. As long as both sides are armed, neither will pull the trigger. Therefore, as there is no imminent threat, military action at this point is unnecessary. Not only that, it could even serve to cause or hasten a nuclear strike/war, as I will soon demonstrate. Pro"s first point is refuted. Pro states:"By sending in a covert ops group to defuse the weapons or disable them the world would be able to take a breath of fresh air knowing we've just stopped a huge practically terrorist act" VIABILITY AND POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF MILITARY ACTION The first and most demanding flaw in Pro"s plan is that a covert ops mission to defuse nuclear weapons is not nearly as simple as he makes it out to be. Understand, their warheads are likely at many different locations, with unpredictably high levels of protection. Introducing American operatives into such close quarters with each of their many bombs is borderline impossible. Furthermore, I don"t claim to know much about nuclear weapons, but I highly doubt they are designed in such a way that they can be rendered useless as if by the push of a button. It is a far more complicated system [1], and surely a time consuming process.. Each team (I"m assuming you need one team per bomb, if this is to be done simultaneously and "covertly") would require technological experts as well as military personnel, extremely thorough intelligence, and a plethora of cover stories convincing enough to allow them to infiltrate the most secure ranks of one of the most secure and repressed countries on earth. Need I say more? If this could be done, we likely would have done so already. Discovery of the covert team would be enormously likely, and would have SEVERE ramifications. While the prospect of success in a mission like this is bleak, a few may still want to give it a shot. However, an additional, and very compelling reason not to attempt it are the catastrophic results that come with failure. Implanting spies in a sovereign nation with the goal of assault on military equipment is an act of war by anyone"s standards, and NK"s standards for what constitutes an act of war are likely very loose, again, given their blustery nature. Formal war with NK is not in any way a desirable outcome at this point in time. If anything, being caught in an offensive maneuver like this would only encourage and provoke them to launch their missiles. Even if nuclear strikes were avoided due to M.A.D., the ensuing war would be bloody and extremely damaging to our country and the stability of the world. The Chinese (one of NK"s only remaining allies) would be particulary displeased and could very possibly side against us if war were to break out. All of this could easily transform into a "World War 3" type scenario in the blink of an eye. As you should now see, the action you suggest seems highly unwise when considering all factors, and compared with other approaches such as trade sanctions and international pressure to disarm. Pro"s second point is negated. Pro states: ""and you may be saying they'll only make more. we can close off their ports because according to abc news they stopped a Cuban trade ship on the way to north korea with nuclear warheads. it would be much harder for them to get their hands on these weapons. PRACTICABILITY OF INTERCEPTING NUCLEAR MATERIALS Suppose we go through with this task force mission. In the exceptionally unlikely event that it succeeds, you are very correct that they will "only make more". They will replenish their supply, probably full of rage at having them dismantled in the first place, and with far more intent to actually utilize them. You suggest a blockade of North Korean ports to prevent this, but you fail to understand how NK procures their nuclear weapons. Very few, if any of them come from imports. Even in the case of the Cuban trade ship you reference, there have not been any nuclear weapons found aboard as of July 17th [2]. All they have found is highly outdated Soviet-era weaponry (all non-nuclear). As for the nukes they do have, they were likely built domestically, with uranium from NK"s active mines [3]. The total yield of these mines is estimated at four million tons of uranium, more than enough to supply their nuclear program for many years to come. Hence, a naval blockade would serve no purpose but to provoke the situation further. This is a poor outcome, even assuming that your suicide mission is a success (again, tremendously unlikely). Pro"s third and final point is rebutted. I have dismantled all three components of my opponent"s argument, proving a covert mission to disable NK"s missiles would be a very poor decision indeed, putting Con in the lead of this debate. I eagerly await Pro"s next statement. Vale. Sources [1] http://mashable.com... [2] http://abcnews.go.com... [3] http://www.fas.org...