Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to U.S national security than Iran

Answers to my opponent's questions: 2. North Korea will attack other countries, especially South Korea, if that will help them reunite the Korean peninsula under Communism. 3. The Soviet Union never used its nuclear weapons on the US because of mutually assured destruction, yet the Soviet Union was the greatest threat to the US in history. Even if North Korea doesn't use its nuclear weapons, the threat remains that it will use its nuclear weapons. These nuclear weapons give North Korea leverage when negotiating with South Korea or even the US. 4. Just because a nation has the means and the animosity to attack another nation doesn't mean that it's in that nation's interest to attack. I'll give you this example: presently the US has the means and the animosity to attack Iran, but we haven't yet because if we do we would be seen as an aggressive country, which would undermine our leadership. 5. OK, so Iranian proliferation would spur other nations in the Middle East to develop nuclear weapons. Based on your argument from question 3, wouldn't that bring peace to the region because any war between nations in the Middle East would bring mutually assured destruction. 6. North Korea would get the entire Korean peninsula under Communism (what the North Koreans have been fighting for since the Cold War). 7. First of all, on the home page of globalfirepower.com, it says "It is hardly a super-accurate scientific measurement of military strength", which makes globalfirepower.com an unreliable source. Second, military strength doesn't equal military threat, otherwise we would be obsessing on attacks from Israel, so your military threat point is false. Third, although Iran is 2 places higher on the list, North Korea and Iran are still about equal. 8. Your analogy has two people of the same amount of aggression. If we changed the aggression levels so that the guy with the gun is less aggressive, the person with the carrot would be more of a threat. Everyone would agree that a person intent on killing (the more aggressive person) would be more of a threat than an armed robber, whether the murderer's weapon was a gun, a stick, or a carrot. Likewise, the more aggressive nation is a greater threat. 9. Maybe (there are allegations), but Iran has publicly denounced the use of such weapons and therefore are less likely to use them. 10. I've already told you in my first speech. 11. Yes 12. No, we can just go on the United Arab Emirates side of the strait. Also, please number your questions to make it easier for me and the voters to read. Questions for my opponent: 1. How is driving back the Israeli army equivalent to preventing peace in the Middle East? 2. If we weren't in Afghanistan, would Iran's funding of the Taliban affect us at all? Why should we be in Afghanistan? 3. Most terrorist groups target Israel. How are they a threat to our national security? 4. Did the protests happen because Iran promoted them, or because there was already unrest about people in power in the Middle East? It sounds to me like the Iranian people protested against the Iranian president, and the people of other nations did the same thing. Unused Sources: http://www.globalsecurity.org...