Contention 1: Preventing a Pre-emptive strike

According to the Korea Times, right now, without the THAAD system operational, South Korea
will use a three-pillar system that includes the Kill Chain preemptive strike system, the Korean
Air and Missile Defense and the Korea Massive Punishment and Retaliation plan, when security
concerns from North Korea become imminent.

The probability of such a strike increases every day. Robert Kelly of The Diplomat in 2015
finds that as North Korea’s missile program continues, calls for a South Korean preemptive
strike will rise as the threat posed by North Korea draws closer to existential.

Compounding this problem is the possibility of miscalculation. Eric Gomez of The Cato
Institute in 2016 writes that uncertainty as to when North Korea will launch an attack opens the
door to an unprovoked preemptive strike at the hands of South Korea.

The repercussions of such a strike would be massive. Majumdar of The National Interest
explains that no matter how a preemptive strike was planned, there would be no way to stop
North Korea from unleashing its full arsenal of weapons on South Korea in retaliation. This lead
Powell of Newsweek to conclude that a war on the peninsula would likely result in 1 million
dead and $1 trillion in economic harms.

Luckily, THAAD will reduce the need for a preemptive strike. The Center for Strategic and
International Studies writes that in the most rigorous tests, THAAD has had an intercept rate
of 100 percent.

As a result, The Diplomat in 2015 writes that THAAD creates the perception of an increased
South Korean defense against nuclear weapons, which will significantly reduce the paranoia
that leads to a preemptive strike.

Contention 2: Stopping Chinese Dominance

The cancellation of THAAD deployment will cause China to pursue a more aggressive foreign
policy for two reasons
First, is Appeasement
Wha of the Japan Times in 2017 writes that China is currently using coercive measures, such
as economic sanctions and travel restrictions, to compel South Korea to cancel the deployment
of THAAD.

The intent is clear. Chellaney of The Washington Times explains that China’s strategy in the
region involves a steady progression of small actions, which over time accumulate to a strategic
transformation in China’s favor.

China is testing the waters to see how much it can get away with and resolve over the THAAD
issue will be critical to that perception. Indeed, Pinkston of NK News in 2017 writes that
anything less than full deployment of THAAD will send a signal of weakness to Beijing and set
the precedent for more Chinese coercion in South Korea’s affairs.

Thus, Snyder of Forbes writes that “[China] could see the halt in implementation of the THAAD
deployment as an acquiescence, and thereby invite even more pressure on Seoul on each
occasion that China is dissatisfied with new South Korean defense measures toward North
Korea.”
Second, Preventing Chinese Influence.
The Congressional Research Service explains that due to the highly-politicized nature of the
issue of missile defense in the region, THAAD has become a litmus test to determine where
South Korea’s loyalties lie.

Indeed, Snyder of Comparative Connections contends that South Korea’s decision to deploy
THAAD will “send a message from a “peripheral state” about the limits of China’s power, and
provide evidence of the utility and durability of the US-ROK alliance.”

That’s why Bulloch of Forbes finds that China sees THAAD deployment as key symbol of the
US military’s commitment to its allies in the region delaying their pursuit of regional hegemony.
However, a cancellation of THAAD deployment will catalyze China’s hegemonic ambitions once
again.

The impact is undermining South Korean interests

Kelly of Pusan University writes that China’s opposition to THAAD is a veiled effort to hide its
ultimate goal, to expand its sphere of influence in Northeast Asia and bring South Korea under
China’s control.

Pinkston furthers that cancelling THAAD is the focal point of China’s effort to undermine the
East Asian security architecture and sets the framework for further hegemonic expansion in the
region.

Unfortunately, further Chinese influence in the region will directly oppose South Korea’s
interests. Pinkston continues that once in the driver’s seat of power, China will use its influence
to dominate the negotiating table and take control of both regional organizations and security
policy, leaving South Korea on the back end of almost all issues of importance.

This is critical as the Council on Foreign Relations writes that South Korea’s foreign policy
goals and ultimate best interests are to become integrated on the global stage and to ameliorate
regional problems, which are reliant on it being the nexus of cooperation in the region.

Thus we affirm