Resolved: The United States should send military into N. Korea.

1. Morality-I didn't have any evidence except the thing that says China wouldn't risk war with the United States and the other argument that states China uses war threats as a tool rather than an actual threat. It also doesn't make logical sense. Even if Russia and China challenge US policies in every political step possible, it doesn't mean that they would go to war over a very tense little piece of land. Russia has no reason at all and China just doesn't want democratic nations on its border, but as I've proven with evidence and logic, China uses threats as a tool and would never actually go to war for North Korea. 2. Political-Giving North Korean to South Korea was just an example. There is plenty of possibilities on how to change it from a fascist state to a democratic one. Hell, we could give it to China. These are examples and not definite plans to be noted. 3.Existential-You admit that Russia and China would back North Korea "with equipment, supplies, and money." Not troops or soldiers or anything of that nature, but merely physical objects. This completely negates your "global war" argument leaving it invalid at this point. Even if it would be a hard fight, there would be no global by not only my words, but your own as well. 4. China-My previous evidence proved that they use threats as a bargaining chip. Also, you admitted they would only help through material objects and not actually troops. Also, your only proof that North Korea is gonna use the nukes defensively is their own quotes, but if we listen to North Korean quotes as evidence, then we have to believe their threats. You've failed to mention this argument when I made it in round two and three. I think you conveniently ignore it is because I'm correct on the point and you don't want to admit that we have to acknowledge that North Korea's threats are a true problem worth taking care of. 5. Human Rights-Even if the human rights are equal or worse in other countries, that's not the question here. The question is if we should go to war with North Korea. I might truly support going to war with half the world but that isn't relevant to this debate and needs to stop being brought up. There are human rights issues that are happening in North Korea and you want to ignore it just because it happens in other places. That's like saying "Let's ignore murder because it happens in more than one place." The argument is more than irrelevant because it's wrong. You admitted that there would be no global war so we don't need to worry about that hurting Americans. Status quo solves and relations are resilient " empirics prove Zhen 16 " (Liu Zhen, reporter for the South China Morning Post, 3/16/16, "China"s relations with US "moving forward", says premier, amid strains over territorial claims in South China Sea," South China Morning Post, http://www.scmp.com..., Accessed 7/8/16, HWilson) China"s relationship with the United States will only improve, whoever wins the US presidential election, as the two nations common interests expand, China"s Premier Li Keqiang said on Wednesday. Li said that as China had become the US"s top trading partner, with two-way trade reaching US$560 billion, differences between two countries have been outweighed. "I believe that in the end no matter who gets into the White House the underlying trend for US-China ties will not change." Li told a press conference at the end of the National People"s Congress in Beijing. His comments came as relations between the two countries have been strained over US naval patrols near Chinese controlled islands in disputed areas of the South China Sea. The US says the missions are to exercise freedom of navigation in international waters. Li said that as co-operation between China and the United States grows the number of differences may naturally rise, but the percentage of problems in their overall relationship will fall. He said there were over 100 mechanisms for dialogue to manage any differences between the two sides. "As long as the two sides act in good faith and properly manage their differences, I believe our common interests will further expand," he said. Li discussed the negotiations for an investment treaty between the two countries, promising to gradually give US investors wider access to China"s markets. He said Chinese investors should also enjoy similar openings in the US. The China-US relationship had gone through many ups and downs since diplomatic ties were established , he said. "It has always been moving forward, which I believe is the underlying trend," he added. This evidence proves there will be no war with China because our common interests outweigh the differences. No motive or capability Betts 13 (Richard is the Arnold A. Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies @ Columbia. "The Lost Logic of Deterrence," Foreign Affairs, March/April, Vol. 92, Issue 2, Online, CMR) These continuities with the Cold War would make sense only between intense adversaries. Washington and Moscow remain in an adversarial relationship, but not an intense one. If the Cold War is really over, and the West really won, then continuing implicit deterrence does less to protect against a negligible threat from Russia than to feed suspicions that aggravate political friction. In contrast to during the Cold War, it is now hard to make the case that Russia is more a threat to NATO than the reverse. First, the East-West balance of military capabilities, which at the height of the Cold War was favorable to the Warsaw Pact or at best even, has not only shifted to NATO's advantage; it has become utterly lopsided. Russia is now a lonely fraction of what the old Warsaw Pact was. It not only lost its old eastern European allies; those allies are now arrayed on the other side, as members of NATO. By every significant measure of power -- military spending, men under arms, population, economic strength, control of territory -- NATO enjoys massive advantages over Russia. The only capability that keeps Russia militarily potent is its nuclear arsenal. There is no plausible way, however, that Moscow's nuclear weapons could be used for aggression, except as a backstop for a conventional offensive -- for which NATO's capabilities are now far greater." Russia's intentions constitute no more of a threat than its capabilities. Although Moscow's ruling elites push distasteful policies, there is no plausible way they could think a military attack on the West would serve their interests. During the twentieth century, there were intense territorial conflicts between the two sides and a titanic struggle between them over whose ideology would dominate the world. Vladimir Putin's Russia is authoritarian, but unlike the Soviet Union, it is not the vanguard of a globe-spanning revolutionary ideal. This piece of evidence proves there will be no Russia war. There is too much to lose from a war and in no scenario will a war between superpowers pan out.