The Instigator
Sexy_Back
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
animea
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Failed states are more of a threat to the U.S. than Stable nations

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2009 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,047 times Debate No: 9927
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Sexy_Back

Pro

Pro Argument: Andruw Bigcock (thats me!)

I am favor of the resolution resolved; failed nations are a greater threat to the U.S. than stable nations.
I would like to define the following words in the statement. According to dictionary.com, fail means to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved. The word stable means according to dictionary.com, not likely to fall or give way. The word threat means, an indication or warning of probable trouble.

Say arguments.
Argument 1: Afghanistan is a failed state, and is a threat to the United States. I feel that Afghanistan is a failed state because the present government can not govern and provide security to the entire country. This is due to the present insurgency by the Taliban and other militants. In addition they are not able to provide basic public services to all the people such as medical, electricity, clean water, food, education, and sewage. Today's unstable Afghanistan is a threat to the United States because the Taliban are slowly gaining control of the country causing greater instability of the government. The concern is if the Taliban gain control of the government they most likely will permit Al-Quaida to return. Al-Quaida then could establish terrorist training camps similar to the training camps before 9/11. Al-Quaida could spread terrorism into the surrounding regions which would make the area unstable. For example, Pakistan's government could be threatened. If terrorists gained control of Pakistan, they would gain control of its nuclear weapons. Thousands of American troops are in Afghanistan because our government supports the need of a strong, stable, central government in Afghanistan to combat the Taliban and the associated terrorist threat.

Argument 2: Somalia, a failed state, is a threat to the United States as well. Many terrorists are born in Somalia. Since there is so much chaos in Somalia, people will turn to terrorism and hijacking ships for the money. Somalia has had no central government since 1991 when its president was overthrown. In 1998, Somalia was widely believed to have been the country that blew up two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Last April, Somalia pirates held a U.S. ship captain captive until navy seals were able to shoot the pirates and rescue him. Somalia is an imposing threat to the United States because US cargo ships as well as merchant ships from other countries can not sail on the eastern coast of Africa safely.

Argument 3: Stable nations are not as much of a threat to the United States. When was the last time you heard a country like Norway or Sweden threaten the United States. They have strong, democratic governments and do not condone terrorism. Countries such as Afghanistan, Somalia, and other failed nations where terrorists can exist threaten the United States.
animea

Con

First, lets define stable.

Stable- not likely to fall or give way, as a structure, support, foundation, etc.; firm; steady.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, � Random House, Inc. 2009.

Now, my opponents made 2 main arguments

1. Failed nations are a threat to the US(Afghanistan and Somalia)

2. Stable nations are not a threat(sweden)

However, while I will concede that failed nations do pose somewhat of a threat to the US, a stable nation is a much greater threat for a simple reason, nuclear weapons. While factions in Afghanistan and Somalia may be able to kill a couple thousand Americans, none of these factions could anywhere near match the destructive potential of an Iranian or North Korean nuclear missile. A nuclear attack would do thousands of times more damage in life and tens of thousands of times more property damage, especially when you consider that a dirty bomb renders an entire city uninhabitable for decades to come.

Now, consider this, a failed state lacks the resources to get nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons require large scale facilities that takes a large amount of resources to build and a stable government to protect. Both of which are exclusively in the domain of a stable nation.

On the other hand, modern day stable nations are in the process of building nuclear weapons that pose a threat to the United States, North Korea and Iran for instance. This in itself is more dangerous than any failed state could ever be. 1 Nuclear attack on the US would render every single attack on the US by a failed state ever made insignificant. As such, they pose a much greater threat.

The nuclear threat of a stable nation clearly outweighs anything a failed state could do, so the resolution mandates a con vote.
Debate Round No. 1
Sexy_Back

Pro

Sexy_Back forfeited this round.
animea

Con

animea forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Sexy_Back

Pro

Sexy_Back forfeited this round.
animea

Con

animea forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I don't think Norway and Sweden are the most dangerous stable nations out there.
No votes have been placed for this debate.