Kelwen+and+Jon


 * South Korea Aff -**
 * Advantages: Korean Conflict, Regionalism, and ROK Modernization**
 * Plan: The United States federal government should implement a phased withdrawal of its ground troops in the Republic of Korea.**


 * Advantage 1 is Korean Conflict:**


 * U.S. presence makes North Korean provocations inevitable and guarantees our draw in**
 * Bandow, 10** – Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and former Special Assistant to Reagan (5/3/10, Doug, “Taming Pyongyang,” [])


 * Even if a conflict won’t start __intentionally__, current high tensions risk __accidents__ that __escalate__ to global nuclear war**
 * STRATFOR, 10** (5/26/10, “North Korea, South Korea: The Military Balance on the Peninsula,” [], JMP)


 * The status quo is fundamentally different – nuclear use is now likely and deterrence won’t solve**
 * Chung, 10** – Visiting Professor at the School of International Relations, Nanyang Technological University and former Professor of international relations at Seoul National University (6/1/10, Chung Chong Wook, “The Korean Crisis: Going Beyond the Cheonan Incident,” http://www.rsis.edu.sg/publications/Perspective/RSIS0352010.pdf)


 * Reinforcing deterrence just makes __miscalculation__ more likely**
 * Armstrong, 10 –** Professor of history and director of the Center for Korean Research at Columbia University (Charles, 5/26/10, CNN, “The Korean War never ended” [])


 * Deliberate, accidental or unauthorized CBW use is likely**
 * ICG, 09** (6/18/09, International Crisis Group, “North Korea’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs,” [])


 * Will __spread globally__ within __six weeks__ – greater risk than nuclear weapons**
 * Levy, 07** (6-8-07, Janet Ellen, The American Thinking, “The Threat of Bioweapons,” [], JMP)


 * Impact is extinction**
 * Ochs 02** – MA in Natural Resource Management from Rutgers University and Naturalist at Grand Teton National Park [Richard, “BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS MUST BE ABOLISHED IMMEDIATELY,” Jun 9, http://www.freefromterror.net/other_articles/abolish.html]


 * And, North Korean aggression and nuclearization will cause intentional, miscalculated, or accidental nuclear conflict – even a limited nuclear war causes rapid cooling and ozone disruption, collapses the economy, and spills over to other hot spots**
 * Hayes & Hamel-Green, 10** – *Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute for Security and Sustainable Development, AND **Executive Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Education and Human Development act Victoria University (1/5/10, Executive Dean at Victoria, “The Path Not Taken, the Way Still Open: Denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula and Northeast Asia,” [] )**

Stanton, 10** – U.S. Army Judge Advocate in Korea from 98-02 and practicing attorney in Washington, D.C. (4/12/10, Joshua, The New Ledger, “It's Time for the U.S. Army to Leave Korea,” []) **
 * Withdrawing troops is the best response to North Korea’s perception of U.S. weakness – stops it from drawing U.S. forces into a wider conflict**

Erickson, 10** – Executive Director of CenterMovement.org (5/6/10, Stephen, “End the Cold War in Korea: Bring American Troops Home Before it’s Too Late,” []) **
 * Independently, withdrawal will motivate South Korea and China to stabilize and de-nuclearize the peninsula**


 * Advantage 2 is Regionalism**

Francis, 06** – former Australian Ambassador to Croatia and fellow at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University from 05-06 (Fall 2006, Neil, Harvard International Review, “For an East Asian Union: Rethinking Asia's Cold War Alliances,” [] ) **
 * U.S. alliance relationships are unsustainable – Asian powers should develop a regional security strategy that __does not__ rely on the U.S. – solves WMD terrorism, tame China, prevents Sino-Japan conflict, Japan imperialism, solve resource conflicts and stop major power domination**

Regionalism is currently halfhearted – only a __clear sign__ of U.S. withdrawal can motivate __sustainable__ regional security cooperation Carpenter and Bandow 4 - * ** Vice President of Defense and Foreign Studies at the Cato Institute, AND ** Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute ** ( ** Ted Galen Carpenter, 12/2004, The Korean Conundrum: America’s Troubled Relations With North and South Korea, pg 160-161)


 * Specially, withdrawal will reduce Korea’s veto of multilateral security mechanisms – yielding a peace system on the peninsula that prevents great power war**
 * Lee, 09** – Seoul National University (December 2009, Geun, “The Nexus between Korea’s Regional Security Options and Domestic Politics,” [|www.cfr.org] )


 * Accelerating U.S. withdrawal is key to catalyze a multipolar balance of power in the region and pave the way for an off-shore balancing strategy.**
 * Espiritu, 06** – Commander, U.S. Navy (3/15/06, Commander Emilson M. Espiritu, “The Eagle Heads Home: Rethinking National Security Policy for The Asia-Pacific Region,” [] )


 * Independently, U.S. presence saps South Korea’s desire to develop its own independent defense and diplomatic strategy and boost morale to effectively deter North Korea**
 * Wook-Sik, 06** – representative of the Civil Network for a Peaceful Korea (Cheong, 4/4/06, “ROK-U.S. Alliance: More Harm Than Good” [])


 * Strengthening the East Asian regional security architecture key to solve terrorism, territorial disputes, disease, environmental degradation, and maritime security**
 * Nanto, 08** – Specialist in Industry and Trade Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division for Congressional Research Services (1/4, “East Asian Regional Architecture: New Economic and Security Arrangements and U.S. Policy,” www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33653.pdf)


 * Territorial disputes draw in great powers --- causes World War 3**
 * Waldron, 97** – professor of strategy and policy at the U.S. Naval War College and an associate of the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard (March 1997, Arthur, Commentary, “How Not to Deal with China,” EBSCO)


 * Advantage 3 is ROK Modernization**

**Bennett 10** - (Bruce, Senior Policy Analyst – RAND Corporation, “S. Korea’s Military Capability ‘Inadequate’”, Chosun Ilbo, 1-29, http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/01/29/2010012900705.html)
 * South Korea is free-riding – defense spending is tiny**


 * Plan prompts South Korean conventional force modernization which allows it to deter Chinese aggression**
 * Bandow, 09** – Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and former special assistant to Reagan (6/16/09, Doug, “A Tattered Umbrella,” http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21606, JMP)

**McDevitt 8** - (Michael, Rear Admiral – US Navy (Ret.), Center for Naval Analyses, “Asian Military Modernization: Key Areas of Concern”, 6-4, [])
 * Chinese rise makes multiple regional conflicts inevitable – only ROK conventional deterrence solves**


 * Chinese aggression against Taiwan will escalate and go nuclear**
 * Adams, 09** – reporter for global post and newsweek on China and Taiwan (3/31/09, Jonathon, Global Post, “The dragon sharpens its claws,” http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/china-and-its-neighbors/090331/the-dragon-sharpens-its-claws )


 * Escalation is likely – impact is full-scale US/China nuclear war**
 * Dodge 5 ** - (Paul, Department of Defense and Strategic Studies – Missouri State University, “China’s Naval Strategy and Nuclear Weapons: The Risks of Intentional and Inadvertent Nuclear Escalation”, Comparative Strategy, 24(5), December, p. 415-416)


 * THE IMPACT IS Extinction**
 * Cheong, 2000** – East Asia Correspondent (Ching Cheong, The Straits Times, “No one gains in war over Taiwan,” 6-25-2000, Lexis-Nexis Universe)