Resolved: Failed Nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable Nations

I will be arguing the pro side of this debate, that is, affirming the resolution, resolved: Failed Nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable Nations. Seeing as I am relatively new to this site and its conventions, I apologize in advance for any potential mistakes I have made. Many things threaten the United States and its people today. These threats stem from many places, including both failed and stable nations. However, when presented with the resolution: Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations, my partner and I must affirm the resolution for three main reasons. Contention 1: Failed nations prove to be the perfect environment for Anti-American terrorism. Contention 2: Failed nations feed regional instability and complicate attempts to remedy it. Contention 3: Failed nations are prone to having anti-American parties in power. The threat of terror to the United States is an undeniable one. Nobody can forget that fateful day in 2001, when 2, 995 lives were lost as a result of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This proves to be an example of a direct threat to the United States by the Taliban. The Taliban is a terrorist group that originated and continue to thrive in Afghanistan, which is classified one of the highest on the Failed States Index. In Zimbabwe, in 1999, a bombing took place at an American embassy. This killed 456 people, roughly 300 of whom were American citizens. Failed nations like Afghanistan and Zimbabwe prove to be breeding grounds for many terrorist organizations, because, by definition as failed states, they have little control over their countries and what occurs in them. Oftentimes, the governments in failed nations are also corrupt. This means that even if the government of said nations was not corrupt, and made an effort to rid of, or control, the terrorist cell within their borders, chances are they would not be able to. In the end, it's difficult to argue with almost 3,000 deaths in a few hours in terms of a threat. Failed states can cause conflict in large regions, containing both failed and even stable nations. Once again, consider the failed nation that is Afghanistan. Due in large part to strained Pakistan-Afghanistan relations (Pakistan being another failed nation), the stability of the region as a whole is challenged. This presents a problem, in that the United States is currently making an effort to reform and stabilize Afghanistan, and if those efforts are stymied by relations with neighboring failed nations, then the U.S. will be forced to use more resources, such as men and time, that we really do not have. Also, dropping United States soldiers into a boiling conflict between Pakistan and Afghanistan would be dangerous and unwise. Regional instability also facilitates widespread drug trade. Since the borders of failed states are either not guarded, or ineffectively guarded, this allows extremely large amounts of narcotics to escape these countries and head for, often, the United States. According to The Independent, Afghanistan and Myanmar make up seven eighths of the world's entire opium trade. CNN says that Afghan heroin alone kills 100,000 people annually, many of which are in NATO countries, such as the United States. The drug trade also helps fund the terrorist organizations mentioned earlier. The Taliban raised around $450 million in the past 4 years by "taxing" opium farmers and traffickers. Once again, 100,000 deaths a year, coupled with additional funding for terrorists, definitely constitutes a major threat to the U.S. and their allies. Finally, power changes hands often (a trait common in failed nations),the odds are greatly increased that some faction will come into power that is distinctly anti-American. This is risky in itself, but even more so in failed nations that are also in possession of nuclear arms. For example, Pakistan, which has 70-90 nuclear weapons, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council, has been in political turmoil for hundreds of years, with a coup d'ï¿½tat occurring as recently as 1999. If the current, relatively friendly government was displaced by one that was openly hostile to the United States (and there are numerous such groups in Pakistan), then those close-to-100 nuclear weapons would be in the hands of an enemy of the U.S., which could very well have catastrophic results In conclusion, this resolution must be affirmed because failed nations are perfect breeding grounds for terrorism, are dangerously regionally unstable, and because failed nations have very high odds of having an anti-American government.