Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

[Meyerlifts]

Ok, all of you wonderful Filefront Forums people, I have some debate topics. I pulled this topic from NFL(National Forensics League) Public Forum topics. Here is the topic:

Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

Now I want a good, clean debate here. I want people going both pro and con. For example, some pro arguements would be "failed nations are a greater threat because 16 out of 17 armed conflicts occured in instable nations in 2008" or a con arguement would be "stable nations are a greater threat because the posess the ability to construct nuclear weapons".

I don't want to the arguements to be all about military power. I want military, economic, and environmental arguements. Don't verbally assult the other side. Also, find good sources and cite them! Use them in your arguements! The more evidence you have in your cases the better!

[Zamamee]

to the Pub. This forum is more suited to such discussion than GD.

[Mr. Pedantic]

What do you mean by failed? Do you mean failed as in 'past its heyday', or failed the way the US likes to look at it, as in 'doesn't have democracy'?

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pedantic

What do you mean by failed? Do you mean failed as in 'past its heyday', or failed the way the US likes to look at it, as in 'doesn't have democracy'?

If failed is the opposite to stable then he is probably not talking about non-democracies as dictatorships or totalitarian states can be stable as well.

I guess as far as terrorism is concerned he is right. Chaotic countries are nice places for terrorists to operate from. There is also the fear that failure of governments in nuclear armed countries could have bad consequences. That was the typical horror-scenario for Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and it is the current horror-scenario for Pakistan.

As for others threats (e.g. the threat that they might start a conventional war) a chaotic country is probably less of a problem.

[Admiral Donutz]

It really depends, a stable country can still be hostile towards an other (and possibly even result in war), but an instable country can harbour criminals (piracy near the Somalia coast anyone?) and the new threat of global terrorism.

But overall a stable country is probably better to have around, you can trade with them even if your politcal relations are neutral, cold or hostile (the worse the relations the less trade probably but still). And most countries don't really care about the politcal structure (dictatorship, undemcoratic, corrupt rulership, theocracy, ...) of an other country if they country is a good trading partner or the enemy of an enemy. Though it's silly to assume you're enemies enemy is your friend.

[Roaming East]

Failed states are significantly LESS of a threat than anything else. Failed states cant wield large military's without having them fight themselves. Failed states cant outcompete the US in terms of resource allocation or impact large scale trade. Failed states are only a 'threat' to the US when we decide to intervene in them i.e. Somali.

[Admiral Donutz]

Originally Posted by Roaming East

Failed states are significantly LESS of a threat than anything else. Failed states cant wield large military's without having them fight themselves. Failed states cant outcompete the US in terms of resource allocation or impact large scale trade. Failed states are only a 'threat' to the US when we decide to intervene in them i.e. Somali.

I believe the US and other nations intervened because the piracy was affecting trade...

Threats come in many shapes and may affect a variety of things. If you're trade is affected it means your economy is affected, which means your country is affected.

[Sadim-Al-Bouncer]

All the Balkan states like former Yugoslavia, and the Middle East are full of former Soviet states that were run by Russia or under heavy influence and are the most conflict-filled, though they don't pose much of a threat.

[AlDaja]

The US will destroy itself from within. We are doing it right now and have been for the better part of two decades, and it is being done on purpose.

[crisissuit3]

Originally Posted by Meyerlifts

Ok, all of you wonderful Filefront Forums people, I have some debate topics. I pulled this topic from NFL(National Forensics League) Public Forum topics. Here is the topic:

Resolved: Failed nations are a greater threat to the United States than stable nations.

Now I want a good, clean debate here. I want people going both pro and con. For example, some pro arguements would be "failed nations are a greater threat because 16 out of 17 armed conflicts occured in instable nations in 2008" or a con arguement would be "stable nations are a greater threat because the posess the ability to construct nuclear weapons".

I don't want to the arguements to be all about military power. I want military, economic, and environmental arguements. Don't verbally assult the other side. Also, find good sources and cite them! Use them in your arguements! The more evidence you have in your cases the better!

Debating here isn't a new thing...

But "failed nations" have failed. simple as that.

there is no organization and the country is in basic infighting.

Stable nations have the organization to collect rescources, make an army, and wage war.