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

“indirect threats are significantly more potent”Definition of POTENT (Merriam-Webster)1: having or wielding force, authority, or influence : powerfulSo, what my opponent is saying is that the loss of thousands of civilian lives by a nuclear bomb is LESS forceful than “increased shipping costs, etc.”I’d have him substantiate that. There can be no threat more severe than an attack at home, on unsuspecting civilians.“and realistic”In the light of the loss of civilian lives by the thousands it would be very cynical to weigh in probability comparisons. All other threats must pale before the threat of a nuclear attack in the US. The US government seems to believe enough in that to “spend $1 billion to deploy additional ballistic missile interceptors along the Pacific Coast to counter the growing reach of North Korea’s weapons” [24]. Then we must consider the threat REAL - if ever so small. “Real” beats “realistic” by a long shot.As for Iran: all my opponent’s sources date back BEFORE the election of moderate president Rouhani. There may have been a threat under Ahminejad, which is why his own people chose Rouhani. My source says the US are considering to deter Iran [24], but the fact that they haven’t decided yet shows they see a lesser threat. “the following departments, which I will affirm within this debate”I’ll be sure to address them when/if they are affirmed. “installed systems stationed in South Korea”My opponent’s source is - again - outdated, delivering data until the early 2000s. It only shows the Korean peninsula has been de-nuclearized. North Korea is covered by the US nuclear umbrella, but only North Korea has nuclear weapons there. The most recent military power report states that North Korea needs “a credible deterrence capability essential to its goals ... and supportive of its coercive military threats and actions” [25] while at the same time “believing it can control escalation.” Factor in that Seoul in South Korea is only 40 miles away from the border to North Korea and would feel the effects of a nuclear strike, and we arrive at the easy conclusion that North Korea - that has so far got away with every threat and military provocation - does not fear a nuclear counterstrike. So we cannot be sure they will actually not use those weapons. “economical suicide by going against China”“China's bottom line is that it will not cut off its relations with the DPRK and will not turn the DPRK into its enemy" [28], experts suggest. But even if this is wrong, China’s involvement will not deter Kim, either.It's likely that we'll see a shift towards a willingness for violence. With China backing away, North Korea sees itself as the last bastion against the US, while all others are “pushovers” [24, page 2]. So far, all of Kim's threats have turned out to be hollow, which results in worldwide ridicule, like with the film "The Interview" [15]. And Kim Jong-un is struggling even at home. Experts estimate that only 20-50% of the public still believe the pompous propaganda. [26] With his trust dwindling, Kim will need to show results fairly soon, to keep his people loyal. He is known “to justify sacrifices demanded of the populace” [25]. Having “imperialist” America strike at North Korean civilian targets - like they did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki [27] - would be the ultimate proof that Kim was right, and might drive a wedge between South Korea and the US, aiding his cause of uniting the Korean people.So far, Kim hasn’t been deterred from breaking the armistice with South Korea, despite the US being allied with the South, to everyone’s surprise. [28]As established before, he’s unpredictable, irrational even, and is now cornered.Iran, on the other hand has - as shown in the previous round - everything to lose. With a combination of ongoing fighting against ISIS and the continued pressure of possible nuclear attacks from Israel [32], not to mention their dismissal from current peace talks, Iran does tremendous harm to themselves by attacking the U.S.“A compact enough nuclear device”There’s a report saying “North Korea probably has the knowhow to arm a missile with a nuclear warhead" but doubts its reliability "but fears remain over the risk of miscalculation”. [29] What we do know is that North Korea is ahead of Iran in developing such weapons. Even my opponent admits that Iran is only “half way” there. But we’ve seen the North Korean test of 2013. And they have “developed enough fissile material for six to eight plutonium-based nuclear weapons”. [2]Iran reportedly didn’t have a nuclear weapon in 2012. [30] My opponent already conceded that it hasn’t until today.I remind my opponent that we’re debating who IS the more severe threat, not who has been or will be at some point. And right now, North Korea is leading in nuclear warfare, the ultimate threat.“Strait of Hormuz”In 1988, a single US chopper almost sank the ship that Iran is using as a kind of flagship to this day, as seen on the previous round. Their tech is hopelessly outdated, they would never be able to hold the Strait. Moreover, they have no motive (see above), and blocking oil traffic would also severely harm the other OPEC nations. So far, Iran are themselves one of the largest oil and gas providers on the global market. [33] Blocking their own major source of revenue - now THAT would be "economical suicide". Iran would turn every last country in the region against them. For what? For the US to dominate the world market in the meantime with the oil and gas they gather through fracking? This would not harm national security, it would boost US economy!“Terrorist groups” There are no reports of Hamas or Hezbollah having any current agenda concerning the US. All three are fighting Al Qaeda and ISIS. As for accountability: Hezbollah is a political party in Lebanon, a “state within the state” there [34], and fully targetable. And Iran is known to finance them with 200 million $ a year, so it would be held fully accountable. The situation for Hamas is similar. “This is severe when coupled with a nuclear threat” It’s lucky then that my opponent conceded this doesn’t exist. But even if it were real, all above points still apply.North Korea is part of the same terror network as Iran [31]! And they may HAVE nuclear arms to distribute! They have fission material to spare, whereas Iran would basically have to hand over their precious bit of nuclear warfare to terrorists. The goal is for Iran to become a nuclear state. If they HAD a nuclear weapon, why give it away?“the moral, and stability of these groups are dubious at best, and hence the efficacy of MAD is questionable”Interesting. So MAD won’t work on immoral and unstable people? Like - the "dangerous, unpredictable, prone to violence” dictator of North Korea? [14] The man who lets his people suffer for political goals? There’s talks of concentration camps and starvation in North Korea. [35] “Nuclear testing”The nuclear testing in North Korea serves as PROOF they have nuclear weapons. Iran claims not to have any, and there’s no proof to indicate otherwise. North Korea clearly poses the more serious threat: they can carry out those strikes.As for an attack on US bases: North Korea would easily attack US bases in the South, while Iran has no reason at all to attack US forces. Still, indirect attacks are less serious than direct ones: the military bases are well prepared and could intercept attacks, or retreat. Striking unsuspecting civilians must be considered worse.[24] http://tinyurl.com...[25] http://tinyurl.com...[26] http://tinyurl.com...[27] http://tinyurl.com...[28] http://tinyurl.com...[29] http://tinyurl.com...[30] http://tinyurl.com...[31] http://tinyurl.com...[32] http://tinyurl.com...[33] http://tinyurl.com...[34] http://tinyurl.com...[35] http://tinyurl.com...Personal note: I need to be away for a few days and would appreciate my opponent delaying his answer as long as possible.