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

First, let's look at my opponent's responses to my crossfire questions. For question 1, he admits that the terrorist groups that Iran supports only attack Israel. The Taliban may attack US troops in Afghanistan, but they are an insurgency, not a terrorist group, and they wouldn't be attacking us if we weren't in Afghanistan. For question 2, my opponent concedes that North Korea has attacked South Korea. He says the impact of these attacks are minimal, which means he considers the real possibility of a North-South war to have little impact, even if the US would be forced to be involved. Iran may fund groups we are fighting against, but my opponent fails to consider that we fight these groups out of choice and not necessity. For question 3, my opponent concedes that North Korea could have an ICBM and argues that "could have" doesn't mean "have". Even if the Taepodong 2 isn't an ICBM, it can still hit the US, and therefore is a threat to the US. And if North Korea can fit regular warheads on a long-ranged missile, there is no reason it can't fit a nuclear warhead or a biological warhead on a long-ranged missile. For question 4, my opponent claims that mutually assured destruction is the reason nations don't attack each other. True enough, but the Soviet Union didn't have to attack the US to be a threat. Likewise, if North Korea develops nuclear capabilities, it doesn't have to attack the US to be a threat. For question 5, my opponent claims that the US provided $1.3 billion to North Korea over a span of 15 years. That's just $.1 billion on average per year, and it takes more than $.1 billion to run a country. I would think that North Korea relies more on countries with which it has friendly relationships, such as China and Russia. For question 6, my opponent claims that North Korea is not a threat because it would never launch a nuke. That's the equivalent of arguing that the Soviet Union wasn't a threat because it would never launch a nuke. For question 7, my opponent claims that terrorist groups funded by Iran kill US soldiers in Afghanistan. As stated before, the Taliban is an insurgency, not a terrorist group, and US troops wouldn't be dying in Afghanistan if the US government didn't choose to send them to Afghanistan. I agree with my opponent that the resolution is a status-quo resolution. Both North Korea and Iran are developing nuclear technologies. Therefore they are both a threat at the present moment. It's just that North Korea is more of a threat because while Iran (not Israel, as my opponent said in his final focus) funds terrorist groups that attack Israel, North Korea has long-ranged missiles capable of hitting the continental US and of being fitted with WMD's. North Korea also attacks South Korea with a lot more vigor and aggression, while Iran just sets scattered terrorist groups on Israel. My opponent's economic threat contention falls because the protests are more a consequence of political unrest in the Middle East than they are a consequence of anything Iran might have done. In conclusion, North Korea's aggression, long-ranged missiles and WMD's outweigh Iran's scattered terrorist groups. I urge a PRO ballot.