Resolved: Failed Nations are more of a threat to the United States than successful ones.

Thanks to my opponent for this debate. CONTENTION 1: Stable nations threaten the US militarily. According to John Mearsheimer, professor of political science at the University of Chicago in 2006, "The basic structure of the international system forces states concerned about their security to compete with each other for power … In the … world of international politics, it is better to be Godzilla than Bambi."[1] Our most serious competition comes from rising powers such as Russia and China, which chafe under US hegemony. According to William Reed of Rice University, there is growing resentment towards the US as a hegemon, and this resentment is important because "Dissatisfaction with the status quo provides the incentive or willingness [for them] to wage war…"[2] Other nations have already begun to challenge US military hegemony. Reuters stated this month that, "Chinese vessels have confronted U.S. surveillance ships in Asian waters repeatedly this year and Beijing has called on the United States to reduce and eventually halt air and sea military surveillance close to its shores."[3] In 2008, Russia ignored the US' calls to end military action in Georgia[4], and Taiwan remains a center of extreme contention between the US and China.[5] Forbes Magazine reported in 2009 that Russia is greatly increasing the size of its military and is "commissioning the construction of 700 new strategic nuclear weapons.[6] According to Robert Art of Harvard University in 2006, China is building up militarily in order to fight the US.[7] These military threats are likely to become more frequent and direct in the future. Overall, stable nations are more of a threat to the US than failed nations because stable nations threaten military conflict with the US. - CONTENTION 2: Stable nations threaten the US economically. Stable nations are harming the US economically in two ways. First, stable nations are using unfair labor policies in order to drain away US markets. For example, laborers in stable nations such as China, Russia, India, and Mexico work for much less than the average worker in the United States. According to Business Week Magazine in 2008, this income inequality has depressed workers' wages. The income inequality between the US and its competitors is important because it creates job outsourcing in the United States. Kate Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University stated in 2004 that China, India, and Mexico are the largest recipients of the US's outsourced jobs. The Economic Policy Institute specified in 2007 that the US outsourced a net 1.8 million jobs were outsourced to China alone between 2001 and 2006.[8] According to the Wall Street Journal[9] and American University[10], outsourcing is substantial to India and Russia as well. This means that United States companies no longer can produce basic goods in the US. This is evidenced by the US's enormous trade deficit with other stable nations. According to the US Census Bureau in 2009, the US had a trade deficit of over 1.4 trillion dollars with China, Russia, India and Brazil in 2007[11], 39% of the total trade deficits for that year[12]. This means that other stable nations are producing goods that the US no longer can provide for itself, increasing dependency on other stable nations. Stable nations threaten the United States because they could continue to drain the US economy of the basic industries it needs, and now the US is captive to the industry decisions of other stable nations. The second way in which stable nations threaten the United States is because they could out-compete the US in future industries. As stable nations are able to advance intellectually, they become more and more sophisticated in science and technology, which leads to the growth of the economy. For example, many other countries are leading the way in the creation of green technology, and expanding in areas in which the US is deficient. Ben Furnas of the Center for American Progress estimated in 2009 that Japan leads the way in solar technology, and China invests 12.9 million dollars per hour in the advancement of green energies.[13] This is important because other stable nations will advance and accrue economic opportunities and investment that the US will not, and the US could get further and further behind once this precedent is set. As the Center for American Progress states, given the US's lag in developing green technology, millions of jobs are created in China and Japan instead of the US.[14] -REFUTATIONS- 1: Terrorism in failed states To support this point, my opponent offers the isolated example of Pakistani terrorist movements. What we should instead refer to, however, is the larger picture. Through careful examination of the facts, Gary Dempsey of the Cato Institute concluded in 2006 that, "Failed states are where the terrorist are most vulnerable to covert action, commando raids, surprise attacks, and local informants are willing to work for a few dollars. Failed states are not 'safe havens,' they are defenseless positions."[15] This means that counterterrorism efforts are actually aided rather than impeded by state failure. Moreover, terrorists prefer to operate in stable nations. The Economist pointed out in January that, "International terrorists need to be able to travel, communicate, and transfer funds; they need to be within reach of functioning population centers. [As such], they prefer [to operate in] functional states."[16] This is why Peter Borgen of Johns Hopkins University stated in 2006 that 41% of Muslim terrorists reside in Western nations, and that there are more Muslim terrorists residing in France than in Pakistan and Yemen combined.[17] Furthermore, terrorism is becoming less and less threatening. The National Intelligence Council reports that, "Support for terrorist networks in the Muslim world appear to be declining…Analysis of terrorists' communications among themselves indicates that they see themselves in a losing battle with Western materialistic values."[18] (The first and third contentions both center around terrorism, so refer to the above ideas for refutations to my opponent's third point). 2: Nuclear threat from failed states First, as this point too is about terrorism, see my above refutations. Second, Pakistan is stable: US envoy to Pakistan Richard Holbrooke states that Pakistan "is not a failed state."[19] His point works for me. -- CONCLUSION: Vote CON 1]http://kdb2.portal.aau.dk... 2]http://journals.cambridge.org... 3]http://in.reuters.com.... 4]http://www.nytimes.com.... 5]http://www.washingtonpost.com.... 6]http://www.forbes.com.... 7]http://www.mitpressjournals.org... 8]http://www.epi.org.... 9]http://online.wsj.com.... 10]http://www.american.edu.... 11]http://www.census.gov.... http://www.census.gov.... http://www.census.gov.... http://www.census.gov.... 12]http://www.census.gov.... 13]http://climateprogress.org.... 14]http://climateprogress.org.... 15]http://www.cato.org... 16]http://www.economist.com... 17]http://www.princeton.edu... 18]http://www.dni.gov... 19]ht