The Pros And Cons Of ROK And Japan

Improved Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    People have different thoughts on if the U.S should retain or dismantle their nuclear arsenal. People that think it should be kept make arguments like how nuclear weapons help keep the U.S safe and how they can be used if there were to be any sort of war. On the contrary People that feel our nuclear weapons should be dismantled say our nuclear weapons cost too much to be kept and they make us seem hostile to other nations. So should the U.S keep its nuclear arsenal? Well there are lots of pros and cons to both sides of this argument.…

    • 1149 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    For example with North Korea, they do not respond to talking and threaten the United States with nuclear threats, talking with them will not work and could just result to an attack on the U.S. War is oftentimes necessary because sometimes violence is necessary, there are positives to declaring war, and it can get things done faster. A reason that war is sometimes necessary is that sometimes violence is necessary. If terrorism threatens a country, military action will most likely need to be taken (“Violence Sometimes Necessary”). If terrorism or a terrorist threaten a country, like 9/11, war may have to be the only option, because otherwise whoever is attacking your country will not stop unless you put a stop to it. The U.S probably would not…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Sovereignty In North Korea

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages

    They have found this hatred mainly from the cold war. This started in the year of 1950 and it ended in 1953 this ended up splitting Korea into North and South Korea. King John Un has a fear that the United States are going to disrupt their sovereignty because they are a community that is run by Communism. However, this is not true the United States does not want to fight because they do not see the reason being fit. However, North Korea has recently been threating us with their nuclear capabilities that can supposedly reach the U.S. mainland’s.…

    • 1858 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Kenneth Waltz presents an interesting argument in his article titled, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability”. Waltz reexamines the prominent debate of either dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons or allowing it do so. He uses a neo-realist point of view to convince the audience that a nuclear Iran is essential in creating stability in the Middle East. Waltz firmly believes the danger of nuclear Iran to be “grossly exaggerated” and introduces the benefits of having another state in the Middle East with nuclear capabilities (p. 4). Through a variety of counterarguments, this critique will challenge aspects of Waltz’s claim of allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons.…

    • 1015 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    There are several arguments against the existence and proliferation of nuclear weapons. For instance, some argue that it is impossible to ever justify recurring to war, under any circumstances or provocations. Proponents of these arguments explain that the proliferation of nuclear weapons it is inevitable, hence, modern war will eventually escalate to nuclear war, and the consequences will be too catastrophic to be justifiable. Those who defend this point of view argue that the only way to avoid all these catastrophic consequences is the rejection of war altogether, in other words, taking a Pacifist position. The connection of the previous arguments against the use of nuclear weapons to the requirements of both jus ad bellum and jus in bello is that nuclear weapons do not accomplish with the main purpose of Just War Tradition, which is preventing and saving innocent lives.…

    • 1702 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    If one were to decide whether proliferation should occur simply from this information, the only rational choice would be to oppose the negative consequences. However, preventing proliferation undermines the powers of other nations. The prohibition of procurement or development of nuclear weapons for some countries, and the acceptance of stockpiling of nuclear arsenal for other countries cannot be justified. Furthermore, democratic nations such as the United States guarantee equality and liberty to their citizens, but hypocritically prevent other nations from developing nuclear arsenal that they themselves enjoy. In addition to reaping economic advantages and increased influence in international politics, these countries, through the development of nuclear weapons, will also gain a sense of security that they will be able to retaliate if attacked.…

    • 1380 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Roosevelt understood the danger exposed to the nation, therefore, security was one the factors that affect the development of a country. Previous war with Japan had shown that the President was aware that Japanese could evade his land at any time. Human rights organization disapproves the decision of retaliating by nuclear weapons while political leaders support his action. It was a great lesson but a dilemma situation. Therefore, the controversial has created a debate among the writers who vary in their opinion regarding the use of the atomic bomb in Japan.…

    • 1218 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    The wars in Vietnam and Korea, during the Cold War, were both attempts made by the United States to stop/slow the spread of communism in East Asia. During these two wars, the US was unwilling to partake in total warfare, yet was not prepared to lose in battle. Due to this, limited options were available for the US to remain in their position of dominant world power, achieved in their victory during the Second World War. How did the United States position as dominant power in the World coming out of World War Two modify their foreign policy, thus changing their tactics in the Korean and Vietnam wars? The United States achieved modified victory based off of foreign policy, through strategy change and ideological change to remain the dominant…

    • 1074 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While it seems logical to fight fire with fire and have the South develop nuclear weapons, this is not the best solution for the long-term stability of the peninsula. Therefore South Korea should develop nuclear weapons. The main reasons are South Korea can start the South and North in to a deadly war as well as U.S. should stay in charge of nuclear weapons. One factor why South Korea shouldn’t make nuclear weapon is that they can launch the South and North into a world war 3. The North is aggressive because they’re afraid of South Korea.…

    • 791 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    ISIS Case Study

    • 957 Words
    • 4 Pages

    However, they may bring a challenge for U.S. Firstly, Iran was backed by Russia and China, thus, it is not active in case of cooperating with U.S. Secondly, to gain the cooperation with Iran, U.S must loose economic sanctions and the nuclear program of Iran. Therefore, it is an opportunity for Iran to develop its nuclear weapons. Thirdly, Hezbollah is also another terrorist group and…

    • 957 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays