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

I would like to start by reiterating my first contention and the meaning behind it. My opponent appears to have somewhat misunderstood the point that I was trying to convey in that argument. As I stated, failed nations have been shown to be good environments for anti-American terrorist groups to prosper. This means that, due to the qualifications for a failed nation to be considered as such [1], they must possess "Criminalization or Delegitimization of the state [government]", and thusly, it is simple for terrorist groups to prosper since the government is either powerless to, or too corrupt to attempt to, remove said groups. My opponent also argues that stable nations have the ability to wipe out an entire population if they so choose. I'll go ahead and assume that the implied means with which they would accomplish this end is nuclear weapons. However, due to the concept of M. A. D (Mutual Assured Destruction) [2], this is a practical impossibility, since the stable, well-controlled governments of nations such as China and Russia know good and well that launching nuclear weapons at the United States would simply lead to the death of their nations as well. However, at least a few failed nations also possess nuclear weapons, (i. e. Pakistan) and with the governmental instability stated above, the chances are a lot higher that such nuclear weapons could get into the hands of some independent organization that would simply not be susceptible to M. A. D, since they would not be operating as a nation. Subsequently, in terms of PRACTICAL military threat, failed nations are much more of a threat. And indeed, stable nations (China, at least) do pose a great economic threat to the United States. China is becoming much more powerful by the day economically, but that in and of itself is not indicative of a threat, unless one considers it a threat to the hegemony of the U. S. . To reinforce that point, my opponent points to the fact that China owns the vast majority of the United State's national debt(whatever that number may really be), and the potential damage caused if China were to stop investing in buying our treasury debt. However, this once again comes down to practicality and realism. You must ask yourself, why on earth would China give up an entirely beneficial prospect to spite the United States? Chances are, they wouldn't. This, again, stems from their stability as a nation. With a process of decision-making that would be required to withdraw their investments, as well as the fact that this trade is beneficial to the Chinese nation, there is very little chance that China would in actuality stop accruing more currency from the United States. To counter the point about economic harm, I'd like to point to Somalia, which is currently perched atop the Failed States Index, which provides a good example in more than one instance. As you can probably remember, in 2008, pirates in Somalia began boarding ships passing through waterways near the country. What is little known is that through both lost resources and ransom paid, the Somali pirates recieved roughly $150 Million USD. While this is a small sum, it must be recognized that, as my opponent stated, terrorist cells usually function in small groups. This is also true in this instance. A few thousand men (maybe even less) received this much money from the United States. This clearly would not happen in a stable nation, because of the fact that these people were acting independent of any nation (let alone the shambles that remain of Somalia), and, unlike any force acting with a nation, especially a stable one, had nearly nothing to lose. Also, in 1995, shortly after the brutal Somali civil war, the United Nations sent aid to the nation, attempting to alleviate the famine that had set in. Due to the distinct lack of order or government control, Mohamed Farrah Aidid and his militia simply took all of the aid for themselves, to continue to hold on to their power. As a result of this, the large amounts of money put into this operation were completely wasted, since the Somali government was practically nonexistent, thus making it a failed nation, and proving (twice) that it was a sufficient threat to the United State's economic interests. In regards to my contention on regional instability, my opponent points out that failed nations are not to blame for the groups that reside within them and operate out of them. I must disagree with this statement. Failed nations, being what they are, as I stated in my first contention, are perfect environments for anti-american terrorist groups, seeing as they either support, or cannot deter said groups. Ironically enough, my opponent points out that stable nations are, at least in part, to blame for the rise of poverty and corruption in 3rd world countries. This is proven to be untrue in pretty much any circumstances in which the British or French occupied a nation as a colony recently. If one notes the geographic locations of the top. .. say. .. twenty failed states, as categorized by the FSI, it's nearly impossible not to notice that the majority are in Africa. Only since the British rule was overthrown (or French, in some cases), have conditions been indicative of failed nations in African countries. When discussing my mentioning of regional instability leading to world drug trade, my opponent seems to misinterpret my point. Con says that, "saying the drug trade is a problem in the U. S. isn't making much of an argument for drugs plaguing and being a problem for only unstable nations. " this is a completely irrelevant argument, seeing as the resolution refers to which [failed nations or stable nations] is more of a threat to the UNITED STATES, not themselves. The intended point of that argument was, since it is easy to get out of a failed nation, because its borders are likely so poorly guarded, it is subsequently easy to get out of that nation with drugs. Said drugs then lead to numbers like roughly 100,000 deaths per year(from Afghan Opium exports alone), many of which find themselves in the United States, and also fund terrorist organizations, which further harm the United States, direct deaths from drugs aside. Finally, my opponent states that Russia and China have anti-american sentiments, as well as the tools to effectively "crush [the United States] in a land war". This is indeed intimidating, however, contrary to what Con has stated, Russia and China have no feasible incentive to obliterate the United States, since we function as both trading partners, as well as allies, nowadays at least. Con goes on to state that the United States possesses the most powerful military in the world. This applies well for battling stable nations, but failed nations and their inherent militias and insurgencies are nigh unto impossible for the United States to defeat in any form of conventional battle, as shown nicely by the situation in Afghanistan and Iraq currently. [Conclusion] Failed nations prove to be much greater threats to the United States, because, while they are less well-equipped to harm the U. S. militarily, they are much better armed in radical-idealism, as well as determination. It becomes an issue of realism; is China likely to launch nukes at the U. S. ? No. Is it likely to stop investing in our national debt? No. This completely discounts any military risk on China's part, as well as a significant part of the economic threat posed. However, failed nations being so difficult to restore to stable nations, means that odds are much higher that failed nation-based terrorist groups will continue to attack the United States, and many drugs will continue to find their way into the country. As such, I continue to affirm the resolution. [1] . http://www.fundforpeace.org...