Failed nations are a greater threat to the us than stable nations

For those of you reviewing this debate… ***PLEASE NOTE*** This debate is set in the following way. Round 1: arguments presented.(contention form) Round 2: cross x Round 3: summary of arguments Round 4: cross x Round 5: Final focus (New arguments are not allowed) ---------------------------------------------------------------- The characteristics that make a nation ‘'failed' are… •loss of physical control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein, •erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, •an inability to provide reasonable public services, and •an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. The characteristics that make a nation, "stable".... A) Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation; B) Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring; C) Enduring or permanent. With that in mind, because stable nations pose a greater economic threat, stable nations are the reason any failed nation is at any level of threat, and stable nations are organized, I stand con. Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the US than stable nations. Contention 1: Stable nations often pose a greater economic treat to the United States. By Ben Franklin and George Margolin ‘'In the past, Japan has taken our technology for the transistor radio, TV, steel, VCR, automobiles and many other products and has eliminated or severely damaged these industries in the U.S.' Failed nations are failed because they either have little or no economy. Stable nations like Japan have quickly become world super-powers because of their secure and stable economies. These economies allow these nations to fund large armies and other potential threats against the US. Failed nations lack the resources, economies, and unity needed to be a threat. This leads me to my second contention. Contention 2: Stable nations are the reason any failed nation is at any level of threat. From an Afghan war vet… ‘' When the Soviets finally ended operations in Afghanistan, they left behind a lot of their own equipment to make for a quick pull out which added to the overwhelmingly large amount of weapons already residing in that country. The Soviets also left behind millions of anti-personnel landmines during the pullout because they were ***** off that their operation was unsuccessful.' The Taliban are a threat (ill give pro that) they did a great job in making America a fairly unorganized nation after the 9/11 terrorists bombings. But without stable nations the Taliban would be a fraction of their current self. Iraq and Afghanistan are exceptions, but even in the exceptions my points still rain true. Contention 3: stable nations are organized. From Wikipedia… ‘'The attack on Pearl Harbor was a surprise Military strike conducted by the Imperial Japanese navy against the United States naval base at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii on the morning of December 7, 1941.' Organization allows nations to attack with swiftness and vigor. This example proves the position CON firmly. The attack on Pearl Harbor (as most should know) was a surprise attack that left Pearl Harbor in ruins. Japan was and is a very Stable nation that proved to be a greater threat than any failed nation at the time. In conclusion, failed nations over all lack the stable governments needed to govern all of the ingredients to become a threat to us. In the past stable nations have proved to be a much greater threat to the United States. Because stable nations pose a greater economic threat to the United States, stable nations are the reason that failed nations are at any level o threat, and stable nations are organized, I urge a Con vote.