The United States should increase its military presence in the Pacific-Asia region

For the sake of clarity, here is a map of the modern "Pacific Theatre": I will keep this brief due to the character limit. My first round will consist of a part rebuttal/part argument. Examples of how "Peace through strength" is an incorrect principlePearl HarborThe bombing of Pearl Harbor did not happen due to Japan's intention to draw the US into WWII. Japan bombed Hawaii due to the massive Pacific fleet that had been based there. The intention for moving the fleet was to deter the Japanese from further movement in the Pacific theatre following the attack on French Indochina [1]. While the idea was to provide peace in the Pacific Theatre, in reality it resulted in the bombing of an American naval base and the USA's entrance into WWII. Sinking of the RMS LusitaniaThis situation is somewhat different from Pearl Harbor, yet still proves my point. As it looked more like US would eventually join WWI on the side of the Allies, the US began to send supplies over to Great Britain. Threatened by the increased amount of American vessels, Germany sunk the RMS Lusitania with submarines on the 7th of May in 1915 [2]. Once again, the US was attempting to cause a more peaceful situation, this time by ending a war faster as opposed to preventing one. However, similar to Pearl Harbor, the US's efforts only caused them to enter a war. IsraelThe US grants Israel over $8.5 million every day towards their war effort [3]. In the 40+ years that the US has been providing aid, they have spent over $100 billion [4]. The US has also lended Israel almost 100 aircrafts, 7 ground units, and several missiles [5]. Yet despite all of this military strength Israel has been in constant warfare and there are no signs that it will end anytime soon. Conclusion: Given these multiple examples it can be concluded that military strength is ill prepared to enforce peace and generally provokes the other countries targeted. Further ArgumentsBased on this conclusion, let us analyze the US's situation in the Pacific region today. Regarding North KoreaNorth Korea is the definition of a country with a Napoleonic complex. While nobody is certain, all signs suggest that North Korea has weapons of mass destruction. Also, given their tense relationships with the US and South Korea it is possible that they are willing to use them. Based on the examples shown, specifically Pearl Harbor, it would be unwise for the US to send a naval force to the Pacific theatre, given that it may provoke the North Koreans to strike. In this situation, diplomacy would be a far more appropriate approach as any military attempt is likely to result in disaster. Regarding ChinaThe issue regarding China is that they, in a sense, own the United States. This is because the US owes China over $10 trillion, and that number is ever increasing [6]. If the US begins to make threatening military moves towards China, China will most likely not launch nukes at us, but rather cancel all aid to the United States. This could prove to be crippling economically to the US. While I understand the issue with Taiwan and various Pacific islands, in this situation it would be wise to avoid angering China and allow them to act as they please. Regarding Russia One issue that my opponent did not discuss in the first round was the issue with Russia. It is a common error to forget Russia when discussing the Pacific theatre, however they are a prominent nation on that border. Given the tense relations between the US and Russia (i.e. Ukraine) it would be certainly unwise to provoke the Russians by sending warships close to their borders. Even if the ships were not intended to sail to Russia, it may still be perceived as a threat and as a result possibly invoke a Cold War between the two superpowers. Back over to you, Pro :)I will post my sources in the comments section.