Resolve: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than Stable nations.

DEFINITIONS The definitions provided below represent the research-based care that should be given to such a topic and are well-warranted, as failed status should not be assigned lightly or without due consideration. Plus, I'm aff. Failed nations: Otherwise known as "failed states," characterized by the Fund for Peace. Their 2009 index (which only includes sovereign nations) characterizes failed states thusly: "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. The 12 indicators cover a wide range of state failure risk elements such as 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. States can fail at varying rates through explosion, implosion, erosion, or invasion over different time periods. " Included in the 38-nation "alert" list for failed states are Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Lebanon, Pakistan, and Sudan. Stable Nations: In this case, a stable nation is not simply defined by its sovereign status, according to international policy. So, we can construct the meaning of "stable nation" via Fund for Peace and the American Heritage Dictionary. "Stable" is characterized as: A) Not subject to sudden or extreme change or fluctuation; B) Maintaining equilibrium; self-restoring; C) Enduring or permanent. In combination with the above qualities, Fund For Peace states that stable states will (generally) lack extensive corruption or criminal behavior, will have a taxation and revenue structure that is not in sharp decline, will not contain large numbers of displaced persons, will have a stable, non-persecutorial government, etc. Fund For Peace lists these countries amongst the stable, sustainable nations in its index: Canada, the United States, Australia, Russia, most of Western Europe (France, UK, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Ireland, etc. ), Greece, etc. With all of that said, the ground of this debate is whether or not the U. S. has more to fear from mutually stable and strong nations (like Russia or China, for example) or from weaker, failed states, like Iran, North Korea, Al Qaeda, etc. CASE C1: Rogue nations and terrorist organizations are fundamentally different from stable nations. As is clearly evidenced by the fundamentalist mentalities exhibited by the heads of rogue nations like North Korea, Iran, & Iraq, as well as a multitude of terrorist organizations which dislike the United States, such states or groups are inherently unpredictable in the current geopolitical climate. Nations such as those listed above have a deep-seeded, ideological hatred for the United States, and rarely take into account the effects of their decisions on the international community. The exact opposite attitude is exhibited in stable nations. Since their international position, as well as their governmental mechanisms, are far more securely rooted, the stable nation is deterred from militaristic threats or other forms of harassment against the US by two things: mutually assured destruction or a (rational) fear of an international economic crisis. Because a rogue nation or terrorist group has little to no interdependence on the success or failure of the United States, it is not bound by the same obligations as a stable member of the international community. C2: Battles waged against rogue nations and terrorist organizations are often losing ones. Consider Iraq and Afghanistan momentarily, not because each may or may not have been an initial military blunder on the part of the US, but because of our relative success in the region. The US has, at its own enormous cost, realized that fighting local insurgency forces is well nigh impossible in comparison to the battles fought of old. A direct comparison can be made to the Vietnam War; if the opposing side has natural and familiar infrastructure, as well as what seems like an endless supply of fundamentalist soldiers, battles can turn into decade-long struggles waged in caves and in villages, rather than in open fields. One cannot possibly compare the style of battle from World War II, for example, to the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Fighting between stable nations, while certainly gruesome and large-scale, is not nearly as dangerous (especially in an age of nuclear warfare) as attempting to quell an insurgency force. Finally, consider the presence of nuclear weaponry. If we combine the ideology of a failed state with weapons that lead to mass destruction of the human race, we see how truly dangerous a failed state is. While Russia, China, France, England, etc. may possess a nuclear weapon, they will not use it. The Cold War proved this. However, the reason why the US is so eager to extend a diplomatic hand to failed states is because those failed states have the capacity and the determination to use those sorts of weapons, long-term consequences be damned. RESPONSES TO NEG CASE: C1: 1. This argument holds no offensive ground for the neg, as it is merely an assertion of the number of weapons that a single nation has amassed. The amount of weapons does not translate into tangible threat. 2. My opponent lists countries such as China, Russia, & France. I challenge him to warrant these nations as a realistic threat to the US. Not only does mutually assured destruction negate his entire position, but each of those countries has no vested interest in turning the US into a sheet of glass. China is our number 1 debt holder, Russia has shown zero military aggression since the Cuban Missile Crisis (give or take), and though France and the US hold a social dislike for one another on a citizen-level, these two governments' interactions cannot compare to those of, say, the US and North Korea. 3. Cross-apply my entire contention 1 to this argument. While stable nations have an economic and survivalistic investment in seeing a thriving world community, rogue and failed states, which are primarily comprised of fundamentalist leaders, have no such investment. This is why terrorist tactics are so effective: terrorists have little to lose. C2: 1. Turn this argument: a lack of contemporary education is a well-nourished Petri dish for fundamentalist ideology. With an unchecked, unsupervised, or even failed educational system, younger generations are not exposed to the marketplace of ideas, which inevitably leads to their indoctrination. This is why insurgent armies never seem to run out of soldiers. Stable nations with more educational opportunities for their citizens will always have those that doubt wartime scenarios, military involvement, etc. because they have a viable worldview. C3: 1. Look directly to my analysis in my contention 2. I remind my opponent that nuclear weaponry ENDED WWII via mutually assured destruction, and kept the Cold War from becoming a hot war. WWII and current insurgent wars cannot possibly be compared. 2. Notice that, since WWII, stable nations have not been a threat to the US. I encourage my opponent to name a single military conflict that directly involved a stable nation militarily threatening US soil since that war ended.