Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

I will first rebut my opponent's points, and then rebut his rebuttals to my points. Opponent's contention 1 (OC1) My opponent claims that North Korea is restrained from attacking South Korea by mutually assured destruction. However, mutually assured destruction is only in effect if both sides have nuclear weapons. South Korea is begging the US to ship some of its nuclear weapons to South Korea [1], which clearly indicates that South Korea does not have its own nuclear weapons to retaliate in case of an attack. This makes a North Korean attack on South Korea more likely, as the ultimate goals for both Koreas is reunification [2]. OC2 I concede that Iran does support terrorists. However, I argue the significance of Iran-supported terrorists in this debate. This debate is about threats to the US. Iran supports terrorists that target Israel (such as Hamas and Hezbollah). The "terrorists" in Iraq and Afghanistan that my opponent was talking about either target Israel and not the US, or are insurgent groups and not terrorist groups. Thus while Iran's economic support to our enemies is a thorn in our side, it isn't a threat to our national security. While the safety of our allies is a matter of US national security, Hamas and Hezbollah are far from capable of eradicating Israel. In the case of a nuclear war between Iran and Israel (which would happen if Iran gave WMD's to terrorists), Israel would win easily (globalfirepower.org). Thus Iran is restrained by mutually assured destruction, contrary to what my opponent claims. North Korea, on the other hand, has the means and the intent to deter the US from helping South Korea in its time of need. North Korea's nuclear bombs are more than capable of bringing South Korea to its knees, and the resulting loss of a US ally would clearly hurt US national security. My contention 1 (MC1) a) As stated in Round 2, North Korea possesses a long-ranged missile that can strike the US. The long-ranged missile is the ultimate transport vehicle of any warhead, and thus the ultimate threat to the US. My opponent claims that since North Korea has a history of failed launches, North Korea does not have the technology to launch a nuclear missile at the US. Unfortunately, this claim would be true only if North Korea had recently failed another launch. Launch tests are done to see what is wrong with the missile or launch system, and to see how to fix those problems. In 2-3 years, North Korea improved its missile system from one that lasts seconds to one that can attempt to launch a satellite into orbit. If the trend continues, North Korea should have nuclear capable long-ranged missiles within 5 years. In short, North Korea's lack of technology in 2006 doesn't mean that North Korea doesn't have the technology now, or that it won't have the technology in the near future. MC2 My opponent claims that the Yeonpyeong attack is a diplomatic maneuver. This claim is questionable, since both Koreas want reunification, and this attack may be the start of North Korea's campaign of conquest. Even if this claim was true, however, my second contention still holds because North Korea is willing to attack to get what it wants, while Iran plays nice at the negotiating table. MC3 R1: First, the Taepodong 2 is perfectly capable of transporting a vial of pathogens to the continental US. Second, North Korea doesn't need ICBM's to transport biochemical weapons. The 2001 Anthrax Attack proves the last statement is true. R2: I implied that biochemical weapons aren't unique in my 3rd contention. I said that, "Iran, on the other hand, has publicly denounced the use of biological and chemical weapons [4]". What makes North Korea more threatening is that it is willing to use its stock. Sources: [1] http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com... [2] http://www.nktoday.com...