MGW LCP 2010 SK Proliferation DA
LF/TS
South Korea Proliferation DA
South Korea Proliferation DA 1
1NC (1/2) 2
1NC (2/2) 3
SK: UQ: Umbrella 4
SK: UQ: Exercises 5
SK: UQ: Has Nukes 6
Brink – NK-SK Tension 7
Link – General (1/2) 8
Link – General (2/2) 9
Link – NK Proliferates 10
Link – ^ Pressure on NK 11
Link- NK-> SK/Japan 12
Link – Japan Rearm 13
Link – NK Precedent 14
Link - Deterrence 15
Internal Link – US-SK Relations 16
Impact Comparison - Nuke trade > nuke war 17
Impact - Economy 18
SK: Impact - US Asian Heg 19
SK: Impact – Arms Race (1/2) 20
SK: Impact – Arms Race (2/2) 21
SK: Impact – Global Insecurity 22
AT: Link Turns - Japan 23
AT: MultiLat Solves 24
AT: SoPo Solves 25
AT: NK No Nuke 26
SK: Nuke Power 27
AFF: AT: SK Will Prolif 28
AFF: TURN – Nuclear SK Good 29
AFF: NK Not a Threat 30
1NC (1/2)
A) Uniqueness:
SK is under the US’s umbrella.
AFP, 2010
(AFP, The Gazette> S. Korea welcomes U.S. nuclear policy, April 7, 2010, http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/world/Korea+welcomes+nuclear+policy/2772505/story.html, accessed June 26, 2010, TS)
<SEOUL - South Korea Wednesday welcomed the United States' new nuclear policy, saying it warns North Korea of the dangers in pursuing atomic weapons while reaffirming a security commitment to Seoul.
The foreign ministry said it welcomes and supports the U.S. announcement "that it will maintain and strengthen its security commitment to its allies while seeking to realize a nuclear-free world".
The ministry said in a statement Washington had reaffirmed through its policy that it would continue to provide nuclear deterrence to South Korea.
The new policy also made clear that North Korea would continue to face isolation and greater pressure from the international community as long as it pursues its nuclear drive, the ministry said.
B) Link:
Perception of strong security assurances to SK are key to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Bakanic et al. Woodrow Wilson School of Public International Affairs, 08
(Elizabeth Bakanic, Mark Christopher, Sandya Das, Laurie Freeman, George Hodgson, Mike Hunzeker, R. Scott Kemp,Sung Hwan Lee, Florentina Mulaj, Ryan Phillips, January. “Preventing nuclear proliferation chain reactions: Japan, South Korea, Egypt . http://wws.princeton.edu/research/pwreports_f07/wws591f.pdf)
<Manage tensions with Japan and South Korea to ensure that U.S. alliances with and assurances to them
remain robust. Perceptions that U.S. alliances with Japan and South Korea are strong contribute to the credibility of U.S. security assurances, including extended deterrence. Conversely, a lack of confidence in these alliances raises the risk that Japan and South Korea might pursue nuclear weapons. To allay Japanese concerns about neglect, the United States should look for both substantive and symbolic opportunities to demonstrate that Japan remains a key U.S. partner. It should also commit to resolving the abductee issue in the context of the Six Party Talks. To allay South Korean fears of U.S. disengagement, the United States should be prepared to revisit discussion of the timetable for transferring wartime operational control of South Korean forces, should the new South Korean administration so request.>
1NC (2/2)
C) I/L:
Weapons build-up leads NK to react.
Lim, Bloomberg, 2010
(Bomi, Bloomberg, North Korea Says U.S. Building Up Arms, Threatens to Boost Nuclear Program, June 28, 2010, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-28/north-korea-says-u-s-building-up-arms-threatens-to-boost-nuclear-program.html, accessed June 28, 2010, TS)
North Korea accused the U.S. of introducing heavy weapons to an area close to the border in what it said was a “premeditated provocation” that would prompt countermeasures, the official Korean Central News Agency said.
The Korean People’s Army sent a message of protest about the arms build-up and demanded that they be removed, KCNA reported. “Various types” of heavy weapons were assembled near the Panmunjom Conference Hall at 7:25 a.m. on June 26, KCNA said.
North Korea threatened earlier today to bolster its nuclear program in a “newly developed way to cope with the U.S. persistent hostile policy.” A Foreign Ministry statement carried by KCNA didn’t elaborate on how the nuclear program will be strengthened.
The threats came as U.S. PresidentBarack Obamaurged that the world community must confront the communist country over its “belligerent behavior” in sinking a South Korean warship. The U.S. is backing South Korea’s push for United Nations Security Council condemnation of North Korea for the alleged attack
on March 26 on the 1,200-ton Cheonan that killed 46 sailors.
“The introduction of heavy weapons to the area around the conference hall where armed forces of both sides stand in acute confrontation is a premeditated provocation aimed to spark off a serious military conflict,” KCNA said today. If the U.S. doesn’t remove the weapons, North Korea will “take strong military countermeasures,” the report said, without elaborating
D) Impact:
Nuclear prolif and terrorism must be avoided – these threats rise above all others is urgency.
Allison and Dillon, Professor of Government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, 2010
(Graham and Douglas, Foreign Affairs: “Nuclear Disorder” January-February 2010 Vol 89 Issue 1, pg. 2, jb, sob)
Obama has put the danger of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism at the top of his national security agenda. He has called it "a threat that rises above all others in urgency" and warned that if the international community fails to act, "we will invite nuclear arms races in every region and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine." Consider the consequences, he continued, of an attack with even a single nuclear bomb: "Just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city--be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris--could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And it would badly destabilize our security, our economies, and our very way of life."
SK: UQ: Umbrella
The US will protect SK.
Roehrig, Associate Professor in the National Security Decision Making Department at the U.S. Naval War College, 2010
(Terence, Nuclear Weapons and Extended Deterrence: The U.S. Nuclear Umbrella over South Korea, pg 18-19, http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/4/1/6/5/7/pages416574/p416574-19.php, accessed June 26, 2010, TS)
The2009 SCMJointCommuniquébetweenSecretaryRobertGatesandMinsterofDefenseKimTae-young thatfollowedthesummitin October “reaffirmedtheU.S. commitmenttoprovideextendeddeterrencefor theROK, usingthefullrangeof militarycapabilities,toincludetheU.S. nuclearumbrella,conventionalstrike, andmissiledefensecapabilities.” 32 ThestatementrepeatedtheU.S. commitmentbutthelastclauseindicatedthatextendeddeterrence,whileincludingthenuclearumbrella,neednotrelysolelyon itso thatmissiledefenseand conventionalmilitarystrikescouldalso beused todeter North Korea.
SK: UQ: Exercises
The US and SK are conducting joint exercises to protect SK.
Powers, AP, 2010
(Ron, Politics News, US, South Korea to test military force as deterrence to North Korea ‘Future aggression’, May 24, 2010, http://blog.taragana.com/politics/2010/05/24/us-south-korea-to-test-military-force-as-deterrence-to-north-korea-future-aggression-38519/, accessed June 27, 2010, TS)
WASHINGTON— The U.S. andSouth Koreaare planning two major militaryexercises off the Korean Peninsula in a display of force intended to deter North Korean acts like the March torpedo attack on a South Korean warship.
PresidentBarack Obamaordered hismilitarycommanders to coordinate closely with theirSouth Koreacounterparts “to ensure readiness and to deter future aggression” byNorth Korea, the White House said.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told reporters on Monday the joint exercises will be conducted in the “near future.” He said the operations will test the nations’ ability to defeat submarines and to monitor and prevent illicit activities.
“We think that this is an area where, working with the Republic of Korea, we can hone some skills and increase capabilities,” said Whitman.
Themilitaryexercises would be a decisive display of force after last week’s finding by a team ofinternationalinvestigators thatNorth Koreatorpedoed a South Korean warship on March 26 that killed 46 South Korean sailors. It wasSouth Korea’s worstmilitarydisaster since the Korean War.
More than 28,000 U.S. troops are stationed inSouth Korea, an important regional ally. Previously, the Obama administration has been intentionally vague on how it might respond, reflecting U.S. reluctance to stoke tension unnecessarily.
SK: UQ: Has Nukes
South Korea began nuclear weapon technology 30 years ago.
Porter, investigative historian and journalist specializing in US nationalsecurity policy, 2009
(Gareth, Asia Times > Middle East > South Korea let off for nuclear deceptions, December 22, 2009, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KL22Ak02.html, accessed June 26, 2010, TS)
There was just one major difference betweenthe SouthKorean and Iranian cases: Iran never enricheduraniumat a level that could only represent an interest innuclear weapons- butSouth Koreadid.
Yet the IAEA treated Iran as a state to be investigated indefinitely, after failing to giveSouth Koreaeven a slap on the wrist.
Even more remarkable is the fact that the two cases were the subject of IAEA reports issued within the same week in November 2004.
Three months before the report on its nuclear activities was published,South Koreaadmitted to doing everything in violation of its Safeguards Agreement that Iran was found to have done up to 2003.
In the early 1980s,South Koreacarried outuraniumconversion in a facility that was kept secret from the IAEA. It also secretly extracted plutonium from a hot cell, and had carried out at least 10 coverturaniumenrichment experiments from 1993 through 2000 using undeclared naturaluraniummetal.
South Koreaused 3.5kg of naturaluraniummetal for its unreported enrichment experiments; Iran used 8.0kg of natural uraniumfor the same kind of experiments.
But by the far most important finding by the IAEA was that, during a series of covert experiments inuraniumenrichment using atomic vapor laser isolate separation (AVLIS) in 2000,Korean scientists enriched theuraniumto 77%.South Koreafinally admitted that experiment in its August 2004 declaration to the IAEA.
"Not only did they have an undeclareduranium-enrichment program, but they were actually making something close to bomb-grade, so you have to conclude someone wanted to develop a capability to makenuclear weapons," said David Albright of the Washington-based Institutefor ScienceandInternational Security after theKoreanviolations were revealed.
SK: UQ: Building Army
South Korea is building its army.
Kim and Herskovitz, Reuters, May 20
(Jack and Jon, Reuters: SCENARIOS: Dynamics Change As N. Korea Blamed for Ship, May 20, 2010, http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/SGE64J088.htm, accessed June 28, 2010, TS)
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has been critical of the way the navy ship was vulnerable to a torpedo attack and how the military's chain of command in the immediate aftermath of the ship's sinking nearly broke down.
Lee has repeatedly said the military must build on the findings of the probe and improve its readiness. There has also been a call to change the military's focus from passive defence to pro-active deterrence.
Some analysts say such a change would not be effective against the North's military that itself stresses deterrence, raising the possibility of a direct confrontation.
South Korea will likely upgrade its joint training with U.S. forces, especially on defence against North Korean submarines and torpedo attacks, a move which is certain to provoke the North, which has said such drills are preparations for war.>
Brink – NK-SK Tension
U.S. delays OpCon until 2015, reflecting ratcheted up tensions as a result of the ship sinking incident.
Chan and Calmes, NYT, June 27
(Sewell, economic writer, and Jackie, chief political reporter, New York Times: U.S. Keeps Command Of Military In Seoul, June 27, p. 8) ncp
President Obama said Saturday that he would delay transferring wartime authority for all military forces in South Korea for three years, in an apparent effort to signal to North Korea that the United States would remain firmly in control of military operations in the South in a conflict. The decision, which President Obama reached here with President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea, follows the sinking of a South Korean warship in March, an act for which North Korea has been widely blamed. This move is the strongest action taken by the administration since the attack and reflects nervousness about how the North might react to sanctions and other punishment.
NK threatens to strike.
AFP, 2010
(AFP, The Times of India, North Korea threatens military strike against South Korea, June 12, 2010, http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest-of-World/North-Korea-threatens-military-strike-against-South-Korea/articleshow/6040132.cms, accessed June 27, 2010, TS)
SEOUL: North Korea said on Saturday it would launch "an all-out military strike" on loudspeakers installed by Seoul to broadcast cross-border propaganda as tension mounted over the sinking of a South Korean warship.
"The revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK (North Korea) will launch an all-out military strike to blow up the group's means for the psychological warfare," the North's General Staff of the Korean People's Army said.
"It should bear in mind that the military retaliation of the DPRK is a merciless strike foreseeing even the turn of Seoul, the stronghold of the group of traitors, into a sea of flame," it said in a statement.
NK beefs its army upon SK action.
Chosun Ilbo, SK newspaper, 2010
(Chosun Ilbo: Why Did N. Korea Fire Artillery Shells Near the Sea Border?, January 28, 2010, http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/01/28/2010012800865.html, accessed June 27, 2010, TS)
When it was reported that the South is overhauling a contingency plan in case the North Korean regime collapses, the North on Jan. 15 threatened to wage "sacred war" and reported that Kim Jong-il observed a massive military exercise. Later it said it would regard South Korean Defense Minister Kim Tae-young's remarks about possible pre-emptive attack as "a declaration of war."The shelling "is a pressure tactic against the South's continued undermining of the Kim Jong-il regime," said a researcher at a state-run think tank.>
Link – General (1/2)
The US cannot close the nuclear umbrella.
Ruehle,Head of the Policy Planning and Speechwriting Section in NATO’s Political Affairs and Security Policy Division, 2010
(Michael, Research Fellow at the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Bonn, and a Visiting Fellow at the CSIS, World Security Network: Under the Umbrella, March 5, 2010, http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=18231&topicID=66, accessed June 27, 2010, TS)
Washington’s nuclear policy thus faces a dilemma. In order to pursue long-term nonproliferation goals, the US and the other nuclear weapons states need to make a credible commitment to nuclear disarmament; yet the current nuclear reality requires credible US extended deterrence.
If the US were to reduce or even end its role as a nuclear protector, this could result in the largest wave of proliferation since the dawn of the nuclear era. That is why the US needs to take great care in phasing prospective nuclear reductions in such as way as not to cast doubt about its willingness and ability to keep the nuclear umbrella open.