The United States should develop a missile defense system.

This debate is for Round 1 of Tournament 1 of the Facebook group "Online Debate Tournaments." It is over topic #7, "The United States should develop a missile defense system." I am advocating the PRO stance. Clarification: Missile defense systems are any systems designed to protect a nation against incoming Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs), which typically are designed to carry nuclear warheads across large distances through sub-orbital spaceflight. The idea of defending against nuclear warheads delivered in such a manner originated in the Cold War. Various missile defense systems have been developed by the United States over the course of the last 50 years or so, and there are systems under development today. However, the resolution does not stipulate that we must speak of systems that have been developed or are being developed; so there is no need for the PRO to defend those particular systems. The resolution, rather, leaves the details of a proposed missile defense system up to the PRO to fill in, so I will fulfill that burden before moving on to the justification for my stance. Proposition: The United States should develop a missile defense system with the intent of preventing a small-scale nuclear attack. As there are currently no nations with large-scale nuclear capabilities who would utilize those capabilities against the United States, small-scale defense is all that is needed to ensure the U.S. is safe against any upcoming nuclear powers that develop the means to launch their weapons onto U.S. soil. This means the defense system would have the capability to shield the United States against an ICBM nuclear barrage of perhaps ten warheads at any given time. This would be achieved primarily through the use of hit-to-kill vehicles equipped on satellites deployed in low orbit using GPS tracking to ensure they remain well distributed over the United States. The United States would also have a limited number of ground-based defense facilities, from which guided anti-ballistic missiles could be launched, in the event that an ICBM managed to penetrate the orbital defenses. This is all easily within the capabilities of American engineers. Justification: The major premise of my justification is that a nation's government has both a right and a responsibility to defend its citizens and land against external threats. This is a well-established concept in moral and political philosophy, and is absolutely necessary for the continuation of human civilization as we know it. For the purposes of this debate, I will back this concept up with social contract philosophy, upon which America was built and has been maintained. The important part of this for our purposes is that one of the government's obligations under this philosophy is to provide for the security of the people. The proposed missile defense system is directly pursuant to that obligation. I will solidify this justification with 3 points. 1. The proposed system could save lives. Obviously, it would be a catastrophe for a nuclear strike on the United States to be successful. This system would prevent the worst from happening. 2. The proposed system would provide a useful deterrent. If there is a defense system in place against nuclear ICBMs, this decreases the likelihood that any nation would launch such missiles against the United States; for if they were bound to be unsuccessful, there would be no reason to launch them. 3. The proposed system would put no innocent populations at risk. This system would be completely docile and harmless, unless there was an incoming ICBM – and in that case, the system's capabilities would be fully directed at ending that threat, not at attacking any innocents. This gives the system an inherent advantage over preemptive war, the other commonly promoted method for dealing with upcoming nuclear threats. The reasoning behind the proposed missile defense system is clear. I now stand by for my opponent's rebuttal.