" That Russia has become a threat to U.S. Interests"

Are you a policy debater? PF maybe? I was one in high school and it still burns me today that policy debaters never bother to actually provide warrants for arguments, they just make grandiose claims. "The US must value National security for the protection of its people and the nation. If there was no national security, then anyone could take over the United States and they could be a superpower." You don't define national security, nor do you provide a brightline as to what length we should go to achieve it. I'll skip over this though as its irrelevant to the actual debate. What do you mean by 'anyone could take over the United States'? The United States has large advantages over most of the world in technological superiority, a nuclear stockpile, and a large standing army. You don't provide any scenario under which a country would invade the mainland US, and I would contend that it is impossible. The sheer size of the United States makes it a strategically difficult country to conquer. Look at the historic examples of Napoleon and then Hitler's invasion of Russia. To gain true control, i.e. 'take over' a country, you must be able to apply force to every area of the land which you are trying to control. You must be able to keep the populace sedate and content, i.e. keep things the way they were before the invasion, or you must be able to suppress the populace and crush any chance of resistance. No country in the world has the ability to launch an attack against the United States and then succeed in controlling the mainland US. Look at the difficulties the United States is having in Iraq, a country of around 25 million people (I think?). Imagine trying to suppress a populace of 300 million, even assuming the United States military is somehow taken out of the equation. So if your implication is that Russia is going to 'take over' the United States, you don't show how this is possible. "The Federation of Russia has a stock of approximately 8,400 nuclear weapons. This is the largest in the world. The world can be destroyed if only 15 nuclear bombs detonate." Where do you ever establish that Russia will utilize nuclear weapons against the United States? Where do you provide evidence that the world will be destroyed from 15 nuclear weapons? If you're going to make ridiculous claims like this, provide the logic to back them up. During the Cold War the chance of a nuclear engagement was exponentially higher than it is today, and yet no nuclear exchange happened. Why is the situation so dire today that we have to fear Russia using nuclear weapons on us? Iran "If and when they develop this technology, then they can destroy the East Coast of the US or the United States Embassies all across the Middle East, Africa, Europe, and Asia." I will grant that Iran is working towards peaceful nuclear development. The faults in your argument: You don't establish that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons. "Iran insists the International Atomic Energy Agency, whose board of governors meets in March, will confirm that its nuclear activities have not deviated toward weapons development. But on January 13, the IAEA announced that Iran had agreed to clear up remaining questions on its nuclear programme -- including any military activity -- by mid-February." You don't consider the fact that the majority of the world is against Iran gaining nuclear weapons, and will stop them if proof is found that they are working towards them. "Iran has been slapped with two sets of UN sanctions for its refusal to halt uranium enrichment and a third package is currently being considered by the Security Council. Israel has called for tougher sanctions on Tehran and its Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has said all options are on the table to prevent 'an Iranian bomb'." The fuel that Russia has sent to Iran is being used for its nuclear power plant in Bushehr. "Russia completed fuel deliveries for the plant on Monday and said it would "ideally" go online this year." http://afp.google.com... Even presuming all of my arguments here are wrong, you still don't show that Russia is a threat. You concede that Russia is providing nuclear fuel, not weapons technology, and if anything, Iran is the threat to national security. To say that Russia is the threat only diverts attention from the true problem at hand. Even if Russia stopped giving them nuclear fuel for their power plant (assuming that they are using it for weapons development), they will find another way to get fuel, or they will continue working on uranium enrichment themselves. Blaming Russia only diverts energy and attention from where it needs to be focused, on Iran. Economics. While the United States faces a recession, depression, and total economic collapse What? Where do you draw this from? We face a slowing economy, not unexpected after almost 6 years of uninterrupted growth. The economy is cyclic in nature, just because it is slowing down doesn't mean that we face 'total economic collapse'. You also fail to relate what a strong Russian economy has to do with a weak US economy. Why would Russia be a threat to US national security because they have a strong economy? We had a recession less than 10 years ago and the economy didn't collapse, and Russia didn't attack us, why would they do so now? To sum it up, you draw no logical conclusions from any of your claims. You provide no reasoning as to why Russia would attack us, which is critical to assuming that they 'have become a danger to the US'. Unless you can establish that A. Russia has the means to attack us and B. Russia has the desire to attack us or harm us, then you can't establish that they are a threat to the United States, and therefore fail to win this debate.