A Study in Cicero: Jen M creates a modern Ciceronian style speech

For all those students of Cicero out there, see if you can spot some of his stylistic features in our student’s creative piece on whether South Korea should attack the North.

Proposition for South Korean action to remove Kim Jong Un from power and attempt to restore personal freedoms in North Korea.

“Strong action” is the recommendation of the UN Security Council. Yet what has been done to achieve this? Nothing. If we value our livelihoods, the livelihoods of those stuck over the northern border, or the very concept of liberty itself, we, ladies and gentlemen, must act to stop the impending savagery of Kin Jong Un.

In 1994, a North Korean negotiator threatened to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire”, a clear, violent threat constantly reiterated – almost annually in fact. When Kim Jong Un came to power, he threw out the US – Jong Il peace talks, showing his glaring maleficent intentions towards the whole wide-reaching world. North Korea has claimed successful nuclear weapons tests in 2006, 2009, 2013 and now 2016. An empty threat? We must, legislators, avoid the tyranny of low expectations: that subtle but devastating form of personal sabotage. If North Korea attacked and we had done nothing, who could we blame for the death of our citizens? Who could we blame for the destruction of our land and industry? Who could we blame for the injustice and war and misery that such an event would certainly bring? The intention is there, at the very beating heart of North Korean government. Indeed, who could we blame but ourselves?

The capacity looms too, in addition to intention. North Korea’s ability to strike was proven when the government launched a long-range rocket in 2012 where it is presumed that a satellite was launched into orbit, following two failed attempts in 2011 and April 2012. Our own government said even then that the launch was “confrontational” and a “threat to the peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula and the world”. So, why has nothing more than imposing a few minor economic sanctions been done?

In fact, their fast technological advancements in shooting range along with the 2013 nuclear test being twice the size of that in 2009 are all indications that North Korea has the capacity to launch an attack a far as mainland USA. The country is also believed to have enough weapons-grade plutonium for at least 6 nuclear bombs. It is harrowing to think about how they got hold of such high amounts of plutonium, not to mention what they can, and intend to, do with it.

I can assume you want evidence of their maleficent intentions before any further action is taken. I’m sure that I do not need to remind you that in March 2010, our own warship the Cheonan was vaguely near the border with North Korea on a drill and was, within minutes of being fatally struck, split in half. 46 were left dead and North Korea was given as the only plausible explanation for this outrage. In November of the same year, North Korea launched a savage artillery attack on our own Yeonpyeong island. Two marines and two civilians were murdered due to the simple fact that military drills were being run in the vicinity of this island. And as if this was not enough, North Korea have been carrying out massive renovations at Yangbon, their main nuclear site, since 2013, the dire threat of which needs no explanation from me.

Lastly, North Korea has 1.1 million active soldiers for 25 million people. This seems excessive even before we put it into perspective. The USA is a country of 318.9 million people, to which there are only 540,000 active soldiers. Need I say more?

Let us move onto January of this year when on the 6th, North Korea launched a hydrogen bomb in a remote area in the north of their country. Shockwaves of this explosion were felt in Seoul, as many of you before me may have experienced. Un personally claimed that this bomb, generating a 5.1 scale earthquake, was only a miniaturised version of what they had in store. What effect do you think that such an abomination would have if it hit one of our supermarkets or one of our apartment buildings? What about one of our schools? Is that a risk everyone in this room is willing to take?

North Korea has claimed a number of times that they only have such drastic weapons as a protection from US aggression, which would be plausible if one might forget that the USA only ever reacts when North Korea itself becomes aggressive. Let me point out a fact which many seem to be missing: North Korea has chosen a hydrogen bomb for a reason. It is not that they do not have the resources to create a much stronger atomic bomb, it is that hydrogen bombs are light. Easy to strap to a missile. It is impossible to doubt the warmongering intentions of Kim Jong Un whilst bearing this undeniable fact in mind.

So, ladies and gentlemen, my final question to you is whether you think it is worth the risk. Do we gamble, in the hope that a country on our borders which has spent the last 25 years threatening to blow up the civilised world and now in all likelihood has a full nuclear capacity with which to do so is not belligerent? Do we gamble the lives of not only our own children, but children in every corner of the world?

Or should we step in to fight the oppression and aggression reigning the subdued of this country and remove from power the man who craves only omnipotence and despotism?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *