Resolved: Failed Nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable Nations

I'm going to break up each argument and rebuttal into numerical points in order to ensure not leaving out any contentions brought up by either party. Good luck, Pro! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1. Pro begins by clarifying: It is easy for terrorist groups to prosper in failed nations because the government is essentially powerless to stop them. I understand this point; however, you'll note that I've already refuted this argument in the previous round. What I said was that this was essentially an irrelevant contention, because (a) terrorism is not limited to failed nations -- I even posted a list of the most famous terrorist organizations in the 20th century, many of which operated in stable nations (b) we only operate under the assumption that terrorist groups are limited to failed nations because al Qaeda, the group that attacked the U. S. , is run primarily in the failed nation of Afghanistan. .. but this group and others are mobile and migrate from one location to another. 2. Next Pro asserts that while stable nations have the ability to wipe out the U. S. with nuclear weapons, this is not likely because her stable nations would not want to engage the world in a nuclear global war. You'll note that MAD essentially states whoever shoots first dies second; in other words, we're engaged in a sort of nuclear arms race with countries like Russia and China to maintain an equal if not better supply of WMDs. In fact, my opponent's very own source notes former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara having said, "If we could create an umbrella we would need it, no matter what it costs" [1]. This brings me to my next point - economics. 3. Pro mistakenly writes that while China is indeed becoming more economically powerful by the day, that in and of itself is "not indicative of a threat" which I completely disagree with. Pro asserts that China has no incentive to stop buying U. S. debt. However, a simple lesson in economics would tell you otherwise. Why should they keep investing in our country at massive rates if we can't seem to turn our economy around enough to pay them back accordingly? In addition, China's Premier Wen Jiabao has said that he was worried about the U. S. becoming something of a deadbeat. "We have made a huge amount of loans to the U. S. Of course we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried," Wen said. What China's premier may be worried about is the possibility of the U. S. running up so much debt -- the projected 2009 deficit is $1.75 trillion -- that it may not be able or willing to pay it back without devaluing the currency which would lead to massive inflation. Furthermore, even if China didn't dump their treasury assets (which Pro is correct in stating that they probably wouldn't abandon us completely), they could always reduce or halt future purchases for diversification purposes, or to divert money toward its own 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) stimulus package. This would have a detrimental impact on the economy alone. Reduced demand for Treasurys would drive up U. S. interest rates, pushing down home prices even more than they've already fallen, and also could start a run on the dollar. This is why both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama have pleaded with the Chinese government to keep the loans flowing to Washington, D. C. Additionally, a part of the reason the federal bailout was approved was because foreign bankers were worried after the banking collapse - especially China - which owned around $376 billion of Fannie and Freddie debt [2]. 4. Next Pro combats the idea of countries like China hurting us economically by bringing up Somali pirates. First of all, pirates earning 150 million dollars is peanuts compared to the damage that China could inflict on our economy, thereby making this a pretty moot point. However, I'd like to point out that Somalian pirates should not be directly linked with Somalia in this instance. The resolution is about failed nations vs. stable nations and their impact on the U. S; not the impact that PIRATES have on the U. S. Pirates or other criminals would cause the same amount of harm regardless of their nationality. While it's true that this kind of blatant theft can exist in nations with unstable governments, the reality is that stable nations steal just as much via "white collar crime" or through other corrupt policies. Yes, the UN has tried to help Somalia in the past and failed, but that was a loss that the U. S. and others accepted on their own terms; they weren't forced to help Somalia but rather made a decision and unfortunately incurred a loss. Additionally, the U. S. has helped contribute just as much if not more money to other nations, such as helping Europe during and after WWII. We also help Israel left and right in the same regard. 5. Now, in trying to sever the connection between stable nations and failed nations, Pro points out that the majority of failed nations reside in Africa. However, since he said that failed nations were a threat because most terrorist groups reside in failed nations, he forgot to point out that the location of most terrorist groups are NOT in Africa, but are indeed in places like the Middle East where stable nations are in fact responsible for the instability in those regions. We don't hear about people in Ethiopia attacking the U. S. but rather enemies in countries like Afghanistan; a nation that has a Taliban and corrupt government officials in power thanks to Russia's invasion nearly three decades ago. 6. Regarding the drug trade, Pro clarifies that failed nations pose a threat to the U. S. because their unsecured borders make it easy for people to smuggle drugs into the U. S. I am pro drug legalization, so I really fail to see a problem with this to begin with. That said, I hold individuals to be responsible for their own choices; if they want to experiment with Afghan opium, than that is there right and subsequently their responsibility. Moreover, we have intense border patrol on the American border, and yet we smuggle drugs in via American citizens all the time [3]. 7. I've discussed incentives for a lack of Chinese investment in the U. S. already, as well as the problems of our military opposition. I'm out of characters, so that's it for now! [ Conclusion ] Yes, failed nations in some cases have higher terrorist threats than stable nations; however, as I've already said, those threats are small-scale in comparison to what an actual government can do. Moreover, the U. S. has the resources to combat that terrorism and ensure that it doesn't spread significantly; no post 9/11 attacks prove this. People should be responsible for their own livelihood regarding drugs, and as far as the economy goes, failed nations have little to no impact in terms of deciding our future. On the other hand, our debt to countries like China and Japan have made us DEPENDENT on them in term of being trading partners, allies and basically being at their mercy as they hold the fate of our country in their pocketbooks. Stable nations are more organized and have greater capacity to produce resources which could pose a threat to the U. S. Also, anti-American sentiments from stable nations are more likely to attract support from other nations around the world, thus turning more of the world against the US (such as we saw after engaging in the war with Iraq). [1] . http://www.nuclearfiles.org... [2] . http://www.cbsnews.com... [3] . http://www.cnn.com...