Resolved: Failed Nations pose a greater threat to the US than stable nations

First off I would like to thank you for responding so qiuckley neurologie I will begin by changing my definition of failed state in order to simplify and better express it a failed state is one that is in a state of anarchy or near anarchy or must receive massive foreign intervention to prevent a fall into anarchy this meets the definition of failed even if a nation has no regard to human rights even if there people are starving in the streets if the government doesn't care in the least about it's people the nation still exists and continues to administer its duties Now North Korea and Iran would better fall under the category of rouge nations defined as rogue state: a state that does not respect other states in its international actions however these countries still exist and their governments prevent a collapse of the legal system of the country although Iran may have been able to have been defined as an almost failed nation during the massive election riots Now I will begin by refuting the arguments of my opposition, then proceed to expound and strengthen my position more Refute 1) In believe under my revised defention of failed states that we can see that North Korea is in fact a rouge nation and not a failed nation Refute 2) First I would like to point out the fact that the Pro mentioned post WW1 Germany as an example of the dangers of failed nations, but there was little or no threat to the United States until Germany became a stable nation under Adolf Hitler. Although the message she is trying to get across seems to be that failed nations can be more easily manipulated into a threat against the United Sates however the nation itself is no threat until it is stable the threat posed there is from terrorist cells and guerrilla warriors this however brings me to a point of fact in my opponnets argument None of the 9/11 hijackers were from Afghanistan there were 19 of them 15 were from Saudi Arabia 2 from the UAE one from Lebanon and one from Egypt only one of those nations is even partially failed although the then STABLE government of Afghanistan did aid Osama Bin Ladan there were no actual Afghan citizens that participated in the 9/11 hijackings In defense of the attack on my argument of cyber warfare I say Yes North Korea was unsuccessful in crippling American systems it is not considered a very advanced nation however a little while ago when the Air Force went through a regular cleansing of their systems they found hundreds or Chinese and Russian bots inside the system which proves that this is no idle threat and is a clear and present danger to America because in the event of a military struggle China or Russia would be able to completely cripple American infrastructure also the Georgia cyber attacks by Russia now suggests they have technology beyond what we had originally thought also in order to exemplify how how serious this is I will tell some of the results of a successful complete infiltration of American systems would be like the entire USAF would be crippled because these planes are heavily reliant on networks and technology the Army would be reduced to a technological capability similar to that of the soldiers of WW1 since many tanks and other armored carriers would be unable to move the entire US nuclear arsenal would be at the complete mercy of the attacking party and our defense to such a threat would be crippled In defense of the economic threat which the opposition seems to be trying to minimalize the risk or impact of such an event I respond that this is not a speculative threat this has been proven in fact back in April I believe it was the United States China and Russia engaged in a purely economic war game in which China did emerge victorious and the US was at the mercy of China this is not speculation this is real also I would question my opponets statement of "the United States government realizes the weakness of American car companies and has been keeping the companies from getting to the point in which it can be bought out completely by China, as you can see with the Automotive Bail-Out plans from earlier in the year" I think what she is proposing is that the automotive bailouts were done to keep the American companies from being bought out this is untrue the bailouts were made to keep them from going to go completely belly up they could still be bought out and the even greater danger is that if China cut down their prices to the point where the American car companies could not compete which would force them out of business thereby establishing Chinese hegemony of the American automotive markets that is an example just of how they could take the Automotive industry they could do the same to most other industries Finally the Chinese government owns 1/3 of the US foreign National debt they could easily call that in at whatever time they want which because we cannot pay it back would cause the collapse of the dollar and force the United States into a permanent depression greater than that of the Great and the 2008 combined So in summary the Affirmation side has argued pseudo-facts under highly controversial definitions, with flawed examples and seems to be saying that the main threat from failed nations is their aiding of terrorist cells and extremist groups I contend again that the problem is the victories of these groups cannot be solidified and made permanent (more on that in the final round) I present the serious and permanent threats facing the United States that could easily happen if America makes to many ripples in the pond of international relations P.S. I will be including a bibliography in the final round also the CON does have a name