Resolved: Failed Nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable Nations

Re: Failed nations prove to be the perfect environment for Anti-American terrorism. I'll begin by pointing out that terrorism itself is a hard term to define; in fact many acts committed by the U.S. can be considered to fall under the definition paradigms provided for terrorism. More importantly, however, is the fact that terrorism has been used throughout history and is NOT limited or even primarily destined to operate within failed nations. Here is a comprehensive list of famous terrorist organizations of the 20th century [1]: * the American Ku Klux Klan * the Irish Republican Army * the Pakistani Lashkar-e-Toiba and Jaish-e-Mohammad * two pre-state Zionist groups: Irgun and Lehi * the Spanish ETA * the Canadian Front de Libï¿½ration du Quï¿½bec * the Palestine Liberation Organization * the German Red Army Faction * the Italian Red Brigade * the American Weathermen * the Peruvian Shining Path * the Palestinian Black September * Puerto Rico's Los Macheteros As you can see, many of these organizations exist within stable nations. My point here is that terrorist organizations exist for a plethora of reasons and are by no means limited or even more prominent in failed nations than stable nations. The notion that this is the case is based on American ignorance of foreign politics, and the fact that al Qaeda - the terrorist organization that attacked the U.S. - happened to be based in an unstable nation (Afghanistan). Note that al Qaeda is a mobile organization; similar groups could have and can exist in many places. For instance, there are a lot of terrorist groups right here in the good ol' U.S. of A. To counter this point, I'd like to call several things into consideration. First, terrorist organizations typically operate on a small-scale. Yes, killing 3,000 people in a matter of minutes is indeed compelling; however, stable nations have the ability to wipe out an entire population in the same amount of time if they so choose. Unlike terrorist groups who max out at a few hundred members, stable nations have millions with perhaps thousands upon thousands of servicemen in the armed forces. I'll address the military prowess of stable nations when responding to Pro's 3rd point. For now, I'd like to clarify that countries such as Russia and China are to be considered stable nations (since the dictionary defines stable as not likely to fall or give way as a structure, support, or foundation; firm; steady). That said, we should keep in mind that economically speaking, China is a power house. A report for the U.S. Congress suspects that China will overtake the U.S. as the world's largest trade economy in a few years; China's rise in this respect means Americas decline. Additionally, another concern are the large and growing U.S. trade deficits with China. People feel that China uses unfair trade practices to flood U.S. markets with low-cost goods and to restrict U.S. exports, and that such practices threaten American jobs, wages, and living standards [2]. In that sense, China is a threat to the U.S. economy. Perhaps most frightening of all, China has the ability to literally crush the U.S. economy. Right now, we currently owe China 1 trillion dollars (though some suspect it's actually a lot more). If China were to stop investing Chinese assets in the U.S. by buying our treasury debt, then the U.S. might be unable or unwilling to pay it back without devaluing the currency. If that happens, hello inflation! The U.S. would take a toll much worse than what we endured during The Great Depression. No failing nation has the ability to send the U.S. economy into a tail spin. Also, it's worth noting that China currently has the most sway with the U.S. biggest foes, including North Korea and Iran. Re: Failed nations feed regional instability and complicate attempts to remedy it. Just because failed nations are more susceptible to mob rule doesn't mean that the nations themselves are to blame, but rather the bad organizations (terrorist groups) that infiltrate them or take over. In fact, one of the reasons terrorist groups have such a hold in the Middle East is specifically BECAUSE of stable nations like Russia. If Russia hadn't invaded Afghanistan, then the Taliban in Afghanistan would not exist. So, since the stable nations are to blame for a lot of the poverty and corruption in third world countries, then technically the stable nations are to blame. The United States is considered to have the best military in the world, at least in terms of superior intelligence, technology and ability to fight/win a war. So, a nation that isn't even stable enough to effectively protect its own country is not going to be able to harm a world super power like us militarily or economically. Moreover, Pro said, "Regional instability also facilitates widespread drug trade. Since the borders of failed states are either not guarded, or ineffectively guarded, this allows extremely large amounts of narcotics to escape these countries and head for [the United States]." Well, it would seem as though the U.S. would be considered a stable nation. Therefore, saying the drug trade is a problem in the U.S. isn't making much of an argument for drugs plaguing and being a problem for only unstable nations. It seems as if drugs and the groups associated with them (like the mafia and street gangs) exist everywhere, including in stable nations. Further, it is because of the supply and demand factor of stable nations that allow for the drug trade to boom in other places. Regarding our safety, China has the largest military in the world, meaning they could crush us in a land war. The world is trying to stifle China from ever developing a good navy; if they did, they would possibly pose the biggest military threat on the planet. On that note, their buddy Russia (who along with China has always been particularly hostile with the U.S.) has nuclear intelligence, bombs, missiles, etc. Lots of em. They easily have enough weaponry, technology and intelligence to take out the U.S., along with the incentive. In fact, that's the biggest reason why these stable nations and others pose the biggest threat to the U.S.; not only do they have anti-American sentiments, but actually the ability to severely hurt us in many ways. Re: Failed nations are prone to having anti-American parties in power. Going back to a previous point, the U.S. is considered to have the best military in the world, at least in terms of superior intelligence, technology and ability to fight/win a war. So, a nation that isn't even stable enough to effectively protect its own country is not going to be able to harm a world super power like us militarily or economically. For that reason, it really doesn't matter if some minuscule nation has beef with the U.S. We should be worrying about large and stable nations with militaries and/or economies that can cause real damage. [Conclusion] No failing nation has the ability to hurt the U.S. either in terms of our military (safety) or economy on a greater scale than stable nations. To reiterate, terrorists can and do exist anywhere (the ones that exist in Afghanistan do so thanks to stable nations), and unstable nations do not have the prowess or capability to inflict a lot of harm upon us that we couldn't counter or overcome quickly. On the other hand, stable nations have us by the balls (so to speak) at the very least in terms of our economy, but also with technology in the arms race, the space race, etc. As such, I have negated the resolution. Back to my opponent for now. [1] http://www.knowledgerush.com... ] [2] http://www.fas.org...