Resolved: North Korea poses a more serious threat to US national security than Iran

I will begin my rebuttal by answering my opponent's crossfire questions. 1.A couple of things here: a. you say that North Korea is supplying dangerous things to Iran. Well let me offer this analogy: if someone shoots a man to death, who is held responsible? the killer or the man who sold the killer the gun? If Iran is going to cause harm with these arms and nuclear secrets, it would be their fault. They would be the threat. Besides, if North Korea did not supply the arms, they would just get them from Russia. This article explains the Iran-Russia arms trade. http://www.cfr.org... b. even if I were to concede that both Iran and North Korea were supplying terrorist groups, I still win this point in two ways: i. if the threats are equal, it is a con win for reasons referred to in my framework. ii. Iran is a heavier sponsor of terrorist groups of concern to the US. As I stated in my case, Iran sponsors a greater number of terrorist groups and the terrorist groups are ones that the US is currently fighting. This article outlines terrorist-sponsoring states quite clearly. http://library.thinkquest.org... 2. Iran is located right next to Israel, another close ally. One can draw the conclusion that both countries have the same grip on U.S allies, making the threat in this respect equal. If you refer back to my framework, you will see why this results in a CON win. 3. My point with the oil argument was not that Iran was going to launch some sort of embargo. My point was that if some sort of military conflict were to occur in Iran, regardless of America's involvement, gas prices would skyrocket. This would further extend the damage done to the US public as it would hurt our economy. A logical precedent to provide here is Libya. rebels fought back, gas prices rose to an average of $3.57 a gallon. We get more oil from Iran than we do from Libya, so if a similar conflict were to happen in Iran the effects would be even more devastating. This extension of damage does not exist in N.K. considering we do not get any valuable resources from there. moving on to My opponent's contentions. C1: you say that North Korea is "theoretically" able to reach US soil with its nukes. First off, this is only theoretical, so there is really no hard proof that the threat exists. I have proof that North Korea is currently not even close to being able to reach the United States. The longest ranged missile, the Taepodong-1 has a range of about 2,500km with a theoretical range of only about 6000km. according to travelmath.com, one would have to travel over 10,000km to reach the United States from North Korea. If you do the math, It is simply impossible for North Korea to hit us any time soon. Iran on the other hand currently has an active missile program in Venezuela. Although the missiles there are not nuclear, they are able to reach the united states. Do not forget that an April 2010 report stated that Iran could produce a nuclear weapon within a year. It is now march of 2011. In one month, one year will have passed. Iran's nuclear program is well underway. Their program in Venezuela provides Iran with the geographical leverage they need to provide a legitimate nuclear threat. C2: this one is quite simple. Iran has chemical weapons, such as sarin and mustard gas, as well as the geographical advantage over North Korea which increases the likelihood of damage. Once again, Iran wins outright. Here's my source. http://www.iranwatch.org... C3: This contention was a bit foggy, but I think I got the basic gist. You are basically saying that the weapons program is more advanced in North Korea than in Iran. Basically a recap of your first two contentions. The only thing I can really ad at this point is that in order for your points about nuclear weapons to stand, you will have to prove why North Korea will use such offensive weapons if they know that they will quickly lose a nuclear war. The same can be said for Iran, making the nuclear threats equal, making it, once again, a CON win. Crossfire questions: Q1: Can you prove that North Korea would chose to use a weapon as offensive as a nuke even when they obviously know that they would be quickly crushed in a nuclear war? Even if they wanted to use them, how do they pose a threat to us if they cannot even reach us? Q2: What makes North Korea's location close to South Korea any more detrimental than Iran's position close to Israel? Q3: Does North Korea have a more threatening program on terrorism than Iran? If not, how do you propose to win the probability of harm point?