Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

I affirm the Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran. Contention 1. North Korea is a more dangerous possessor of nuclear arms than Iran. According to The Christian Science Monitor, “North Korea has conducted two underground explosions of nuclear devices, in October 2006 and again in May of last year, and also has tested a long-range missile capable theoretically of carrying warheads as far as Alaska, Hawaii, or even the west coast of the US.” (Full citation: North Korea’s threats over US-South Korea war games: Another bluff? Donald Kirk, The Christian Science Monitor, 07/25/10). Long-range missiles are an even more direct security threat than North Korea’s ability to attack United States allies such as South Korea or Japan. Couple North Korea’s nuclear capabilities with economic desperationand the situation in Northeast Asia quickly becomes petrifying. The Daily Telegraph notes, “This unlikely marriage of convenience is fuelled by North Korea's dire need for Iranian oil and Iran's desperate search for sophisticated weapons technology. To date most of the co-operation between the two countries has concentrated on oil-for-arms deals, with the Iranians buying North Korea's advanced missile technology in return for subsidized oil shipments.” (Full citation: The ominous relationship between North Korea and Iran, Con Coughlin, The Daily Telegraph, 01/24/07). As North Korea’s nuclear capabilities develop, its willingness to trade arms for oil and potentially other goods becomes extremely dangerous. A nuclear North Korea is a threat, but a nuclear North Korea with no proliferation qualms is a threat that needs to be dealt with immediately. In fact, Robert Gates has warned that North Korean ICBM's could reach American shores in five years, whereas Iran still struggles to even properly run its nuclear centrifuges (see "Stuxnet Virus"). Contention 2. North Korea has extensive chemical warfare capabilities. According to North Korea chemical weapons threaten region: report, by Jon Herskovitz for Reuters on 06/18/09, “The report from the prestigious non-governmental organization said the consensus view is the North's army possess about 2,500-5,000 tons of chemical weapons that include mustard gas, sarin and other deadly nerve agents. ‘If there is an escalation of conflict and if military hostilities break out, there is a risk that they could be used. In conventional terms, North Korea is weak and they feel they might have to resort to using those,’ said Daniel Pinkston, the ICG's [International Crisis Group] representative on Seoul.” Because North Korea refuses to be party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, or CWC, its stockpiles and capabilities have never been officially assessed, but there is a consensus that North Korea possesses a large stockpile and would use them if deemed necessary. Chemical warfare is an exceptionally brutal form of attack, as an airborne assault could incapacitate or kill thousands of people with ease. The United States’ national security is threatened greatly by these weapons, as North Korea could certainly attack South Korea or even possibly U.S. mainland. Contention 3. The Iranian threat is less serious than that posed by North Korea. Although Iran and North Korea are similar in many ways, the ramifications of a nuclear Iran are less imminent. According to North Korea and Iran: How the two states test US diplomacy by Howard LaFranchi, Scott Peterson, and Donald Kirk for The Christian Science Monitor on 12/12/10 “Iran certainly has internal political challenges – its economy is flagging, in part under pressure of tightened international sanctions, and the Revolutionary Guard force is playing a growing role in both economic and political affairs. It is also making substantial progress on missile development, along with its nuclear program. But it doesn't represent the imminent security threat of North Korea, say many analysts.” The threat to United States national security that is more imminent should be taken more seriously, and that is the threat of North Korea. There are also serious doubts about the actual capabilities of Iran. BBC News reports, “Mark Fitzpatrick, a proliferation expert at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, described the proposal as a ‘farcical bluff’. ‘Iran presumably could start construction by pushing dirt around for 10 new facilities, but there is no way it could begin to construct and equip that many more plants,’ he told Reuters news agency. ‘It is hard-pressed today even to keep the centrifuges installed at Natanz running smoothly.’” (Full citation: Iran to enrich uranium to 20% as nuclear fears grow, BBC News, 02/08/10). Iran is exaggerating its nuclear capabilities, meaning that the North Korean threat is more imminent and serious.We urge a pro ballot today for the aforementioned three reasons: 1. North Korea is a more dangerous possessor of nuclear arms than Iran, 2. Iran has extensive chemical warfare capabilities, and 3. The Iranian threat is less serious than that posed by North Korea. A desperate nation with nuclear and chemical warfare capabilities is not a threat to be taken lightly, and the most serious national security threat facing the United States today. Thank you. Cross-Fire Q's: 1. Your C1 states Iran's sponsoring of terrorism. Yet, North Korea is reported by the UN to have been sponsoring anti-US America nations with supplied arms and banned nuclear secrets to dangerous, anti-US nations such as Iran, Syria, and Libya. Isn't N.K. therefore a bigger threat? 2. North Korea is right next to S.K., a close ally. Isn't this a more threatening "strategic location" (response to your C2)? 3. Does Iran have the INTENTION to hurt America, when it's primary buyers of oil are America and/or its close allies? Why would it cut off such a vital economic tie?