Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to United States national security than Iran.

Observations:1. This is a status quo resolution, meaning that we must address threats in the present and near future. Unfounded claims that serve to hypothesize rather than provide actual proof should not be weighed in this debate. 2. The burden of proof is on the Pro, meaning that the power of fiat is reserved for the Con. In other words: the only way for the Pro to win is to prove, without a shadow of a doubt, that North Korea poses a more serious threat. If neither side can effectively prove their point, then the resolution is negated by default. Now, I will first address my opponent's case before introducing my own. Affirmative Case: 1AC: North Korea will have longer-ranged ballistic missiles than IranMy opponent asserts that “NK will have ICBM's in 5-10 years.” Let us understand that such claims are hypothetical. The same source that my opponent cites (BBC news) sheepishly admits, “Like most things about North Korea, little is known for certain about the Taepodong 2 missile.” [1] In fact, the entire article concedes a factual basis, even admitting “Just how far it might be able to travel and with what weight and type of warhead and level of accuracy is uncertain.” Furthermore, Greg Thielmann, senior fellow at the Arms Control Association and a former Director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office at the State Department, suggested it was "a little misleading" to imply the North could have ICBM-range missiles within five years. Thielmann furthers, “the only serious threat to the US would be an ICBM with a nuclear warhead. Although the North has twice tested nuclear devices, experts believe it does not yet have the capacity to miniaturise them and mount them on a missile.” Let us also understand that these nuclear tests have been failures. According to Tania Branigan of the Guardian, “Pyongyang has been attempting to create a long-range missile for several years. But a test in 2006 lasted only seconds. Two years ago the Taepodong-2 stayed airborne for longer but failed to put a satellite into orbit. Other countries judged that test to be related to the long-range missile programme because it involved the same launch technology.” [2] At the point where there is no actual proof that North Korea is capable of, has, or even will develop ICBMs – in addition to the fact that there is no proof North Korea is capable of miniaturizing and mounting nuclear warheads on said ICBMs, we can see that North Korea's ballistic missile threat is highly over exaggerated, if existent at all. Historical precedent points to failed tests, erratic technological development, and other factors which, when converged, suggest that North Korea is not a ballistic nor nuclear threat at all. 2AC: North Korea is more aggressive than Iran R1: North Korea Aggression Is a Diplomatic Maneuver According to Donald G. Gross of Foreign Policy, “The greater the threat North Korea appears to pose, the more satisfaction it gives that country's leadership and the more diplomatic leverage it confers on the cabal in Pyongyang. They see nuclear weapons as a way to compensate for the coun-try's severe economic failure, extreme poverty, and inability to feed its own citizens.” [3] Douglas H. Paal of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace explains, “North Korea’s behavior over the past two years—or one could say sixty years—indicates that it has every incentive to use the threat of instability and conflict to enhance its diplomatic maneuverability, gain resources, and reinforce its leadership succession.” [4] The only warrant my opponent cited was the attack on Yeonpyeong Island. This was also part of diplomatic maneuver. Andrei Lankov of CNN explains, “Is this attack [Yeonpyeong] just another sign of Pyongyang's alleged "irrationality?" Not really. As a matter of fact, the North Korean leaders might be brutal and ruthless, but they are very rational, and always know what they are doing (and normally get what they want.) This time, North Korean leaders merely reminded Seoul that they are capable of making a lot of trouble if their demands are ignored.” [5] These demands being the concessions that NK has, in the past, and is currently trying to acquire from the United States. The U.S. and SK recognize this strategy, also understanding that such aggression isn't actually reflective of NK foreign policy. At the point where this is true, we can see that NK doesn't actually intend to seriously bombard the United States nor SK, but rather – use their military power as a bargaining chip. R2: Iran-NK Military Power Isn't EqualMy opponent asserted that Iran and North Korea's military power were about equal, but this is simply not true. According to Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute, “Pyongyang retains a quantitative military edge, but its equipment is antiquated; North Korean troops are malnourished and get little training. The North is effectively bankrupt and without allies.” [6] Compare that to Iran who, according to globalfirepower.org, has a defense budget roughly twice of that of North Korea's, and much more army/naval/air force equipment and vehicles than North Korea. [7] [8] 3AC: North Korea has more types of WMD's than Iran R1: North Korea Can't Transport Biochemical WeaponsThere is no proof that NK has or will develop ICBMs. As such, NK is unable to harm anything with its alleged biochemical weapons, because it doesn't have a means of transporting them. See my response to his first contention. R2: Biochemical Weapons Aren't UniqueWhile my opponent claims NK has multiple types of WMDs, the only one he cited was biochemical – so that's the point I'll refute. According to the Center For Strategic & International Studies, Iran also has been pursuing a biochemical weapons program since as early as 1982. [9] In addition, contrary to what my opponent told you, Iran is ICBM capable [10]. Thus, we can see that this point is a turn. Negative Case: C1: Iran is not restrained by mutually assured destruction through nuclear proliferationIf you look to my first response to my opponent's second contention, I show that NK is a rational actor. Mel Gurtov of Portland State University explains that NK's ultimate goal is its own survival. Even if you don't extend my BBC, Thielmann, and Branigan evidence where I show NK is incapable of using WMDs, understand that NK simply doesn't have an incentive to do so in the first place. The Cato Institute points out that attacking the US or an ally such as SK would be suicidal for NK – because of the M.A.D. which would be sure to occur. Given NK's rationality, there is no incentive for NK to attack (even if they were capable of doing so). In contrast, Iran is capable of proliferating WMDs to terrorist organizations, who aren't deterred by mutually assured destruction. Iran is developing WMDs [11] , so the impact of the contention is clear: a nuclear Iran will spell out doom for the US because Iran will proliferate to terrorists, who aren't deterred. Conversely, NK won't proliferate and is deterred by mutually assured destruction. [12] C2: Iran avidly supports terrorismFormer U.S. Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell told CFR.org in June 2007 there is "overwhelming evi-dence" that Iran supports terrorists in Iraq and "compelling" evidence that it does the same in Afghanistan. According to declassified intelligence reports released by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point in October 2008, Iranian support to militants in Iraq has included "paramilitary training, weapons, and equip-ment." The U.S. is fighting two wars against terrorism, Iran undercuts our economic and military investments through its support. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...4. http://tinyurl.com...5. http://tinyurl.com...6. http://tinyurl.com...7. http://tinyurl.com...8. http://tinyurl.com...9. http://tinyurl.com...10. http://tinyurl.com...11. http://tinyurl.com...12. http://tinyurl.com...