Resolved: Failed Nations pose a greater threat to the US than stable nations

Firstly, I would like to state a contradicting definition of a "failed state" or nation than the CON's. Failed state (as defined by the Failed State Index on worldpeacefund.org): "A state that is failing has several attributes. One of the most common is the loss of physical control of its territory or a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Other attributes of state failure include the erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions, an inability to provide reasonable public services, and the inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community. ...extensive corruption and criminal behavior, inability to collect taxes or otherwise draw on citizen support, large-scale involuntary dislocation of the population, sharp economic decline, group-based inequality, institutionalized persecution or discrimination, severe demographic pressures, brain drain, and environmental decay." Examples of stable nations: Switzerland, Singapore, United States Examples of failed nations: Somalia, North Korea, various African countries Though the CON's definition may seem valid in a politically stable nation, the definition is somewhat illogical in stating that a failed nation is defined by inner social conflicts, meaning that though Israel has a stable government and economy, it is not a stable nation because of the century-long religious conflicts between Jews and Muslims. This is also stating that, since the United States does not have complete control over its citizens and there are still laws broken and rallies against certain set laws, it is not a stable nation. And while Israel and the U.S. are not stable nations, totalitarian, dictator-based countries such as North Korea are stable nations merely because of its tyrannical, oppressive government. I will now state my reasons as to why I affirm the resolution. 1. The unimportance of diplomatic relations to the leaders of failed nations makes the United States' attempts to change their aggression futile. While stable nations are not only dependent on other failed nations due to globalization, but also policed by the United Nations, therefore unable to attack other stable nations such as the United States due to tremendous, international repercussions, failed nations have absolutely nothing to lose when attacking the United States. Not only this, but certain failed nations' leaders have no concern about repercussions, neither economically nor politically. This is seem perfectly in the case of Kim Jong Il and North Korea. Though the United States gives millions of dollars to North Korea, the country is so apathetic about international relations as well as its own economic stability, that even with the United States threatening to remove all economic support to North Korea (which would result in massive social and economic failure in North Korea), the country continues to create and test nuclear warheads. No matter what we do, these countries have such little concern, they really just don't care. 2. The governmental instability of failed nations makes them susceptible to influence by extremist and terroristic groups and leaders. Due to the weakness of government and desperation of the citizens in failed nations, failed nations become the ideal breeding area of extremist and terroristic groups, such as al Queda terrorists. While stable nations have strong governments to refrain these groups from taking control over its people, as well as the citizens of stable nations being more-than-less content with their current governmental and economic situation, failed nations and its people are not only capable of being manipulated with false promises easily, but these groups are also able to overthrow the government of failed nations. Historically, this is what happened pre-WWII to Germany. Post-WWI, Germany was put into an enormous economic depression, causing the government to become weak and the citizens to go into immense poverty. Taking advantage of this weakness and desperation, Adolf Hitler was capable of manipulating the citizens into forming a hatred and thirst for revenge against the countries that had put Germany into this pathetic state and causing WWII to commence. This also happened with the al Queda and Bin Laden. Though Osama bin Laden had been living in Saudi Arabia, the people and government of Saudi Arabia were to strong to be manipulated, so bin Laden had went to Afghanistan in order to provoke the desperate citizens of Afghanistan into forming a hatred against the western world, thus causing the 9/11 attacks. I will not move on to attack my opponent's case. The CON had stated that, while failed nations do cause a terroristic and military threat, the major threat with stable nations is its capability of hacking into the U.S.'s electronic systems. However, this is not a situation only capable of being created by stable nations. In May 2009, North Korea, a failed nation, attempted to hack into United States and South Korean military networks. This shows that even failed nations have the ability to hack into military networks. Though this was not a successful attack, this also shows that there is real parallel between the Russia and Georgia situation and a stable nation or failed nation and United States situation, because the United States has much more advanced security than an unstable nation such as Georgia. The CON also stated that stable nations, such as China and India, have the ability to slowly buy out American corporations, such as the auto company. Firstly, China and India are ranked as "warning" in the Failed States Index of 2009, therefore making them more failed than stable. Secondly, while China's economy is strengthening because of its large export trade, the United States government realizes the weakness of American car companies and has been keeping the companies from getting to the point in which it can be bought out completely by China, as you can see with the Automotive Bail-Out plans from earlier in the year. Though this may be a small speculative threat by stable nations, the key word here is "speculative". While the CON argues that stable nations are a greater threat due to small speculative threats (one of the two which are threats capable of being given by failed nations as well), the PRO gives you current crises threatening the United States and the security of the American people that are presented solely by unstable nations.