North Korea is a more serious threat to United States National Security than Iran

==AC== 1. Attack on Alliance --> He provides of definition of national security by the Department of Defense. First, I tried looking it up on google, and couldnt find it, but second, [turn] broad definitions of national security reduce efficacy and undermine civil liberties: American Conservative, States News Service, December 29, 2010 But in a truly free society, there's no such thing as being risk-free. Toward that end, our federal government has more often become the enemy, not the protector, of American freedom. Just as today, national security is more often an excuse, not a legitimate justification, for government intrusion and growth. --> Extend the Myer Evidence, he dropped it. North Korea wont escalate provocations. 2. Proliferation --> Having the ability to strike, and actually doing so are two different things. Extend my 1st and 3rd responses that: (1) no incentive to go to war or use aggressive action and need for ad supersedes desire to use nuclear weapons --> XA the Myer evidence --> Opponent gives no motive as to why North Korea would threaten their survival to attack the U.S. --> Taylor, Comparative Strategies write: "However, while the DPRK's military machine does not want for quantity, most of its capabilities are aging rapidly, and many are already obsolete. There are also numerous indications that the level of training of the North Korean armed forces is deteriorating. Moreover, morale amongst North Korea's personnel appears to be generally low." This evidence kicks the threat of the north korea's large infantry unit 3. Iran not dangerous --> His Cole evidence has no impact because the threat from Iran doesn't come from its conventional military as ive said before. It comes from terrorism --> His CoR evidence suggests that North Korea has sold materials to Iran and Syria. But what he doesn't tell you is (1) North Korea only has ties with the individual states and not the individual groups of terrorists and (2) at this point, it doesnt matter if they sold or not, Iran has many more ties and connections to jihadist groups ==NC== 1. Iran and Terrorism He says I dont provide that Iran sponsors terrorism and says not against the US --> He ignores the CoR evidence compleely. Also the evidence directly states Al Qaeda, which was the group responsibile for 9/11. But even this wasnt the case, terrorism isnt hindered by the constraints of conventional warfare. All that is needed is a suitcase and a dirty-bomb --> http://news.bbc.co.uk... BBC says Iran is the largest supporter of terrorism --> Iran outweighs North Korea because terrorism is the biggest threat to U.S. national security at this time, and Iran has closer links North Korea has ties with Russia --> No impact. Russia would never seek a Russo-U.S. war. Economic disaster for Russia --> Extend the CoR [2] evidence, North Korea lacks direct ties with terrorism. 3. Iran is proliferating Energy not weapons --> Its true that 90% is needed for weapons-grade uranium. But again, my opponent seems to misunderstand symmetric and asymmetric warfare. Terrorists cant attach a fully functioning nuke on an ICBM and launch it from the middle east. Low-grade uranium used for low-impact or in a dirty bomb would be used within the U.S. --> Extend the Allison evidence. Iran outweighs because successful and unhindered nuclear proliferation sparks a proliferation race within the middle east. This make nuclear terror much more likely.