Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations
Debate Rounds (4)
The National Security Strategy of the United States reports that "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." It is because I agree with this statement that my partner I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution which states, "Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations." I will prove my stance through the following main points: 1. Failed Nations provide a great terror threat to the United States 2. I will show specific examples of failed nations and how they are a threat to the United States 3. The Only true stable nations are peaceful nations that do not pose any threat to the United States.
I will be using The Failed States Index of 2009 from "The Fund for Peace" and "foreignpolicy.com" to determine which nations are stable, failed, or neither. This index is generally accepted as the best indicator of a nation being failed or stable and is the sole globally accepted index making it the most logical resource to use in today's debate. (http://www.fundforpeace.org...)
Now for my first main point: Failed Nations provide a great terror threat to the U.S. From the Economist, "Ungoverned, under governed, misgoverned and contest areas offer fertile grounds for terrorists and other nefarious groups", says the Pentagon's National Defense Strategy, issued last year. In addition, The European Union reports that "misrule, violence, corruption, forced migration, poverty, illiteracy, and disease can all reinforce each other. Conflict may impoverish populations, increase the availability of weapons, and debilitate rulers. Weak governments, in turn, are less able to stop corruption and the production of smuggling of arms and drugs, which may in turn help finance warlords, insurgents and terrorists." Weak nations provide an immense threat to the United States because they have unstable governments who cannot control their citizens. Without government control, terrorists are free to operate and it is easier for terrorist groups to plan and act out attacks on countries such as the United States. Our government has even recognized that failed nations are a great threat as The National Security Strategy of the United States reports that "America is now threatened less by conquering states than we are by failing ones. We are menaced less by fleets and armies than by catastrophic technologies in the hands of the embittered few." (http://www.globalsecurity.org...)
My second main point will show specific examples of failed nations and how they are a threat to the United States. The Failed States Index of 2009 reports that there are currently 38 "Alert", or otherwise failed nations, with many more nations in the "Warning", or otherwise failing category. These nations include Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and several other countries that currently pose a threat to the United States. Suzanne Nossel, founder of Democracy Arsenal, states that "The U.S.'s image in the Middle East has gone from bad to worse in much of the Middle East as a result of the Iraq War." (http://www.democracyarsenal.org...) The majority of failed nations are in the Middle East. Their attitudes towards Americans have gone sour, and thus they would have reason to attack the United States. In addition, Michael Gerson of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com...) finds that The events of Sept. 11th, 2001, which began in state-sponsored terror academies in Afghanistan, are not yet generally regarded as a myth. The spread of Taliban havens in Afghanistan would permit al-Qaeda to return to its historical operating areas. This would allow, according to one administration official, "perhaps a hundredfold expansion of their geographic and demographic area of operation." And Taliban advances in Afghanistan could push a fragile, nuclear Pakistan toward chaos. The tragedy of September 11 was a result of a failed nation having no control over terrorist groups. = The attacks of 9/11 completely altered the landscape of the United States government; can it really be stated that a greater threat lies elsewhere? The greatest threats to the United States are those in the form of a failed nation. These nations have no control and are breeding grounds for terrorists and dangerous weapons that are very harmful to United States interests.
Which brings me to my third main point: The Only true stable nations are peaceful nations that do not pose any threat to the United States. The Failed States Index of 2009 reports that there are 12 "sustainable", or otherwise stable nations. They are Iceland, Canada, Luxembourg, Austria, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, and Norway. All of these are peaceful nations and have no reason to pose a threat to the United States. It can be argued that countries like Russia and China are threats to the United States, but by definition neither of those countries are stable and thus hold no weight in today's debate. The 12 truly stable nations are benign; therefore the United States has no reason to look to them as a threat. Failed nations such as Pakistan and Afghanistan are greater threats to U.S. security quite simply. If the world had more truly stable nations, then maybe all of the conflict going on today would not be around. Failed and failing nations are problems, and it is unrealistic to say that stable nations like Norway and Canada are greater threats to the United States than failed nations like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In conclusion, I have spoken to you about the following 3 main points: 1. Failed Nations provide a great terror threat to the United States 2. I have shown specific examples of failed nations and how they are a threat to the United States 3. The Only true stable nations are peaceful nations that do not pose any threat to the United States. The U.S. has realized how great of a threat failed nations are. Failed nations mean more terrorism and more crime, which can be and has been disastrous for the security of the United States. If anything, stable nations are good for the U.S. Stability is what this world needs, and it is what must happen if the United States can ever feel completely safe. For these reasons I urge a Pro ballot.
Con - November topic
Dr. R�diger Overmans states that over 60 million people died from WWII which was primarily between stable nations. This is why my partner Joseph and I stand in negation to the resolution which states: Resolved: failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations. We will prove our stance through the following main points: 1. Stable nations have a greater ability to access and obtain weapons of destruction. 2. Stable nations have more diplomatic power and therefore are a greater threat to the United States. 3. Failed states aren't a terrorism risk, even terrorists cant operate there effectively. And 4. Stable nations offer a greater threat to the United State's economy.
First off i will be using the following definition of a stable nation in todays debate. Merriam Websters, 2009, "Stable" 1.a : firmly established: fixed, steadfast. For todays debate this is the most logical resource and is international known.
Moving to my first main point we will see that stable nations have a greater ability to access and obtain weapons of mass destruction. A perfectly good example for this statement is modern day China. Aaron L. Friedberg, a professor of politics and international affairs of Princeton University states, "Over the course of the past twenty years, shifts in priorities have been reflected in a substantial, sustained military buildup, especially in China's aerospace and naval capabilities. With the nation's economy expanding at near double-digit rates, Beijing was able to increase defense budgets even faster without imposing noticeable burdens on society." Such increases include their development of submarines, naval power, chemical, nuclear, and missile technology. This shows that stable nations are a far greater threat than failed nations due to their ability to access and obtain weapons of destruction.
Furthermore, my second main point is that stable nations have more diplomatic power and therefore are a greater threat to the United States. As can be clearly seen in the past, France in World War II was able to use their diplomatic power in order to gain the support and help of greatly need allies. This includes the military support of the United States, Great Britain, China and multiple of other countries. Therefore if a stable nation becomes a threat to the United States, it won't only be that nation at their side, it will multiple other equally powerful countries. This advocates my second main point proving that stable nations are a greater threat than failed nations.
Continuing to third main point we will see that failed states aren't a terrorism risk, even terrorists cant operate there effectively. Foreign Policy.com states, "A recent report by West Point's Combating Terrorism Center, drawn by al queda documents, revealed that Osama bin Laden's outfit had an awful experience trying to operate out of Somalia, for all the same reasons that international peacekeepers found Somalia unmanageable; terrible infrastructure, excessive violence, and criminality, and few basic services, among other factors. In short, Somalia was too failed even for al Qaeda. This advocates and proves my third main point. Due to the conditions and factors playing into failed states, the dangerous activity is too difficult to accomplish and therefore terrorism isn't present in these failed states.
Now for my fourth and final main point, Stable nations cause a greater threat to the United State's economy. Micheal Cohen of the Demoncracy Arsenal states, " If a single American bank were successfully attacked it would have an order-of-magnitute greater impact on the global economy than Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. McConnell also warned that ‘the ability to threaten the U.S. money supply is the equivalent of today's nuclear weapon." This is an attack that comes directly from a stable nation, not a failed due to lack of resources. The US is economy and money management is of vital importance and is in the reach of stable nations.
All in all, I have spoken to you on the following four main points. 1. Stable nations have greater resources, and therefore have greater ability to access and obtain weapons of destruction. 2. Stable nations have more diplomatic power and therefore, are a greater threat to the United States. 3. Failed states aren't a terrorism risk, even terrorists cant operate there effectively. And 4. Stable nations cause a greater threat to the United State's economy. In Conclusion, can we learn for history, or are all the deaths caused by wars with stable nations in vain. Please vote CON.
ToTheMax forfeited this round.
124056 forfeited this round.
ToTheMax forfeited this round.
124056 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.