Topic Analysis - PF Anti-Missile Systems
By: Krithika Shamanna and Pia Dovichi
Introduction:
The public forum resolution is… Resolved: Deployment of anti-missile systems is in South Korea’s best interest.
There are two areas of interest with regard to the definitions. First is the word “deployment.” Most teams will use either of these definitions:
Movement of troops or equipment to place or position for military action
The action of bringing resources into effective action
The aff technically has access to all anti-missile system, but teams should be careful because “deployment” could also refer to future technology that hasn’t been brought into effective action yet.
The second word of interest is “best interest.” Teams can define “best interest” to help clarify the debate. For example, teams could define South Korea’s best interest as having the most amount of political autonomy. Teams should warrant their definition of “best interest” if it’s a value that isn’t generic, like safety or lives.
The resolution is not worded as a policy action. Therefore, for example, negating wouldn’t entail ending THAAD. It’s just a normative statement on what would be in South Korea’s best interest.
The main actors of the resolution include: South Korea (SoKo), North Korea (NoKo), China, Japan, Russia, and the United States (US). Debaters should read the news and foreign policy papers to understand the geopolitical dynamic between these nations.
Pro:
The crux of pro arguments is about North Korean instability and THAAD as necessary protection for South Korea. South Korean security is the general narrative for most arguments.
An interesting angle is the effect of AMDs on South Korean nuclearization. Some literature argues the AMDs create stability by reaffirming US commitment and preventing SoKo from investing in their own nuclear force. The impact usually has to do with the effects of SoKo leaving the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Another interesting angle is the argument that THAAD sets an important precedent against Chinese coercion or political bullying. This is strategic because it pre-empts common negative arguments about Chinese aggression. Debaters should take into consideration recent UN sanctions on NoKo that were approved by China as this changes the regional dynamic.
Other advantage areas include: AMDs allowing for more diplomacy by creating regional stability, the benefits of a pre-emptive strike, and PGS.
Con:
The crux of con arguments is about angering China, preventing Chinese diplomacy and/or causing sanctions against SoKo. These arguments are strategic because Chinese diplomacy addresses the root of the problem, which is NoKo nuclearization. Once again, it’s important that debaters stay updated on China’s involvement in recent sanctions against NoKo.
A large part of the con strategy should be both defense against AMDs and impact turning the effectiveness of AMDs. Recent Trump rhetoric has made spending disads less persuasive as he insists that SoKo should pay for deployment, but tradeoff disads about citizen unrest and or loss of political legitimacy are good ground.
A few interesting angles to consider may be: impacts on SoKo middle power diplomacy, loss of SoKo political autonomy, and the harms of a pre-emptive strike. By arguing a loss of middle power or autonomy, you introduce impact stories about SoKo’s political weight.
Special thanks to Krithika Shamanna from Westwood School in TX and Pia Dovichi from College Prep in CA for their expertise!