Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to U.S national security than Iran

Planet debate won't allow me to access the link for BBC news, but here's an alternative source: http://news.bbc.co.uk... North Korea has already developed a long-ranged missile system that have "Alaska or Hawaii within its reach and even the continental US if a lighter warhead were used." Under PF format, you were supposed to save your questions for crossfire. I'll therefore leave them unanswered until Round 4. ---------------- I will first further my own case, and then refute my opponent's case. 1. In the past, the Soviet Union was considered the greatest threat to the US in history. They had ICBM's and nuclear capabilities just like we did. Out of mutually assured destruction, neither side would directly attack the other. However, there remained the threat that the nukes would be used in retaliation. For example, Truman denied Macarthur the right to use atomic weapons on China during the Korean War because Truman knew that the Soviet Union would retaliate and would probably attack Western Europe with nuclear weapons, causing a vicious cycle that would lead to nuclear war between the US and the USSR. Likewise, if North Korea develops nuclear weapons, there will be a threat of mutually assured destruction. The US and North Korea would not attack each other, but both sides could use nuclear weapons as retaliation. This would make US intervention in a North-South Korean war suicidal, and North Korea would easily take over the non-nuclear South. My opponent argues that North Korea would not attack countries that are "babysitting" it. The Yeonpeong attack I mentioned in my first speech disproves this statement. 2. The Yeonpeong attack also proves that North Korea is more aggressive, and aggression is the foundation of threat. Without aggression, one is harmless, no matter what weapon one is carrying. That is why we don't run away from the policeman, but we run away from the maniac with a stick. My opponent argues that "the old man with the carrot who REALLY wanted to kill you" would be less of a threat than "the man with the gun who wanted to kill you". This analogy does not even apply to North Korea and Iran. They both want to eliminate a US ally. They don't want to eliminate the US, but North Korea will attack the US in retaliation if we militarily intervene in favor of South Korea. 3. More types of WMD's means that North Korea can do more damage in retaliation for US support to South Korea. Biological weapons allow them to kill more people while nuclear and chemical weapons cause more property and environmental damage. These WMD's can also be used on South Korea in order to take it over quicker. O1. The terrorist groups that Iran supports target Israel, not the US. Iran thus is a threat to Israel, but not to the US. Presently, Iran and Israel are in the middle of peace talks, so the terrorist issue will be resolved eventually. On the other hand, North and South Korea have stopped talks and are preparing for war. This war will include not only North and South Korea but also possibly China and Russia. It's obvious that the US cannot fight this war and maintain its interests in the other wars as well. My opponent argues that Hezbollah prevents peace in the Middle East, but the only evidence that he gives for this is that Hezbollah wants to kill Israel. A lot of nations want to kill each other. India wants to take the Kashmir mountains from Pakistan. North Korea wants to take over South Korea, and vice versa. According to my opponent, there is never peace in the world, since people want to kill each other all the time. O2. The only way that protest movements in Iran can spread to other nations is if there was already political unrest in those nations. When one nation's people speak out against tyranny, the people of other nations naturally will too. If we should view Iran's Green Movement as a threat, then we should also view the revolutions in Libya and Egypt as threats, since they may inspire the people of Bahrain to revolt. In conclusion, my opponent is basing his case on threats to US allies that are on their way to being dealt with, while I base my case on future threats on the US and US allies that could compound and cripple the US. Which case is more credible I will leave for the voters to decide.