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

Answers to opponent's questions: 1. The Hezbollah wants to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. In other words, person a wants to kill person b. Because there is conflict, there is no peace. 2. If we weren't in Afghanistan, the Taliban would affect us both directly and indirectly. For example, we would begin to see the Taliban expand in the Middle East, new terrorist organizations form, disruption in the oil market, angry Middle East countries, war, protests and riots. If we lived in our own little world where we were completely isolated from all countries, maybe the expansion of the Taliban wouldn't affect us, however, we are interconnected with the Middle East. Furthermore, if the Taliban can get its hands on nuclear weapons, they can start a nuclear war in the Middle East and potentially bring it to the U.S 3. I can ask you the same question, North Korea targets South Korea, how is North Korea a threat to us? Israel is an ally just like South Korea. If you want us to go by your logic, all your contentions would have no impact. 4. I've already explained this in my second contention sub point A. Look again. Refutation to my opponent's case: 1. Starting off with his first contention, first of all, my opponent has still failed to show me a source for his BBC new quote. Secondly, my opponent even admitted in the first crossfire that although North Korea won't use its nuclear weapons, the threat still remains. He's basically conceding to the point that North Korea will actually never use their nuclear weapons because of mutually assured destruction. He brings up the fact that North Korea uses its weapons as leverage to milk the U.S for concessions. However this directly contradicts his own case because this gives North Korea another reason to not use its nukes. This is because North Korea is not self-sufficient and heavily relies on aid from countries like the U.S and South Korea. So why would North Korea want to attack the country that is essentially babysitting them? Let's also not forget the fact that according to the Cato Institute, "The North Korean regime, while bizarre and brutally repressive, has never shown signs of suicidal behavior." Attacking the U.S or South Korea would be suicidal and therefore there is no incentive for North Korea to ever launch one of its nuclear weapons. Also, my opponent said in the first crossfire that even if a country has the means and animosity to attack, they won't do it because it's not in their interest. This again clashes with my opponent's case because North Korea MIGHT have the capacity, and intent to attack South Korea, however, as I explained before, this would be suicide. Furthermore, remember North Korea doesn't have the technology to mobilize a nuclear warhead to fit on an ICBM missile, so even if North Korea had long ranged ballistic missiles, they still wouldn't have an operational nuke. But again, until my opponent can give me the link to his BBC quote, this contention instantly falls. 2. Look into his second contention where he talks about how North Korea is more aggressive than Iran. However, this point carries no impact because while North Korea may have more intent to attack, they don't have the capacity or an incentive. My opponent talks about how their army is just as big as Irans, however, I've shown you how North Korea's army is inferior and according to yonhap news, "North Korean soldiers are increasingly plagued by malnutrition." Furthermore, recognize that North Korea's weapons technology is primitive and date all the way back to the guns and tanks the soviet union used in the 50s. My opponent tried to undermine the credibility of globalfirepower.com, however, their numbers are estimated not ,"super accurate." Furthermore, in the first crossfire my opponent said that the old man with the carrot who REALLY wanted to kill you would be a bigger threat than the man with the gun who wanted to kill you. This makes no sense at all, obviously the man with the gun would be the bigger threat because he's the only one who can kill you. North Korea may really want to kill us, however, they just don't have the capacity like Iran, nor an incentive to do so. 3. This contention doesn't have an impact either because of mutually assured destruction. As I've explained before, North Korea attacking any U.S ally would be suicide. Questions to my opponents answers: 7. You say that military strength doesn't equate to military threat, please explain how this makes sense. 8. I said the man with the gun has less of and intent to kill, and could you explain to me how a man with a carrot is more of a threat than the man with the gun? 12. I asked you if Iran poses a larger economic threat, not the alternative route to the Strait of Hormuz. Can you answer the question again? http://www.cato.org... http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr...