Even from an international standpoint, either decision of retreating our troops or allowing other countries, allies or not to become NWS is disadvantageous. To begin with, the US has Collective Defence Arrangements with countries all over the world. We have the NATO, the RIO Treaty, Southeast Asia Treaty and a number of Bilateral Treaties, specifically with ROK and Japan (14). With the countries concerned, our Mutual Defence Treaty with ROK was ratified on November 17, 1954, after the ramifications of the Korean War (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/kor001.asp). Meanwhile our Defence Treaty with Japan was in January 19, 1960 (). Both are mutually beneficial because while we support them with military force, our treaties legitimize US
…show more content…
While ROK and Japan clearly has the advanced technology to become a NWS especially the latter having nuclear reactors along its archipelago, their long-standing policies will make this difficult. For South Korea, the people are less inclined to anger its northern neighbours because they want to rebuild ties instead. In Japan’s case, its Pacifist Constitution which we imposed upon them would make it almost impossible to legally become a nuclear country. The Three Non-Nuclear Principle of not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons is something Japanese people are proud of and will remain to be, for the foreseeable future (17). There’s also the backlash from the populace who are normally apathetic towards politics but will not back down on issues that may change Japan’s pacifist stance since the Second World War. If we abandon ROK and Japan but they still chose to retain their stance on non-proliferation, they may end up seeking new, stronger ties, excluding us. This may also encourage ROK and Japan to look for other markets selling weapons that the US have been supplying. Australia, France, the UK or even Russia are probable sellers. Their governments may also subsidize to produce weapons within the country and even sell them abroad. Though these 2 countries rely on US’s presence for protection, doesn’t necessarily …show more content…
Changing our stance out of the blue would be counter-productive in East Asia, one of the most critical regions that the US should continue having a strong presence. The repercussions of removing US military in East Asia and encouraging allies to possess nuclear weapons would be detrimental in maintaining a sustainably amicable relations with our allies in the East because taking such bold actions of pulling US military troops would be contradictory to the Defence Treaties we’ve signed with both Japan and South Korea and may nullify our other alliances all over the world. The trust towards the US not only by our East-Asian allies but also by our European allies would be put in jeopardy in this critical moment. Instead of alienating our allies by leaving them, its more beneficial for us to strengthen our alliance and protect the current status quo while monitoring, deterring, and controlling China’s expansionist attitude. The act of encouraging our allies to carry nuclear weapons would also be contradictory to our foreign policy of denuclearization that we’ve actively advocated for the last 4 decades and supported by the American people. Our veterans may also end up being jobless in the midst of our decision which is contradictory to our goal of reducing the
While ROK and Japan clearly has the advanced technology to become a NWS especially the latter having nuclear reactors along its archipelago, their long-standing policies will make this difficult. For South Korea, the people are less inclined to anger its northern neighbours because they want to rebuild ties instead. In Japan’s case, its Pacifist Constitution which we imposed upon them would make it almost impossible to legally become a nuclear country. The Three Non-Nuclear Principle of not possessing, not producing, and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons is something Japanese people are proud of and will remain to be, for the foreseeable future (17). There’s also the backlash from the populace who are normally apathetic towards politics but will not back down on issues that may change Japan’s pacifist stance since the Second World War. If we abandon ROK and Japan but they still chose to retain their stance on non-proliferation, they may end up seeking new, stronger ties, excluding us. This may also encourage ROK and Japan to look for other markets selling weapons that the US have been supplying. Australia, France, the UK or even Russia are probable sellers. Their governments may also subsidize to produce weapons within the country and even sell them abroad. Though these 2 countries rely on US’s presence for protection, doesn’t necessarily …show more content…
Changing our stance out of the blue would be counter-productive in East Asia, one of the most critical regions that the US should continue having a strong presence. The repercussions of removing US military in East Asia and encouraging allies to possess nuclear weapons would be detrimental in maintaining a sustainably amicable relations with our allies in the East because taking such bold actions of pulling US military troops would be contradictory to the Defence Treaties we’ve signed with both Japan and South Korea and may nullify our other alliances all over the world. The trust towards the US not only by our East-Asian allies but also by our European allies would be put in jeopardy in this critical moment. Instead of alienating our allies by leaving them, its more beneficial for us to strengthen our alliance and protect the current status quo while monitoring, deterring, and controlling China’s expansionist attitude. The act of encouraging our allies to carry nuclear weapons would also be contradictory to our foreign policy of denuclearization that we’ve actively advocated for the last 4 decades and supported by the American people. Our veterans may also end up being jobless in the midst of our decision which is contradictory to our goal of reducing the