Resolved: The United States of America needs a Missle Defense System.

Although I hadn't expected a Policy debate format, I will go ahead and respond in the same way. First off, I would like to clarify the Pro definition of "needs". Although Pro brought up a definition, it was rather vague in that it defined it as "Of Necessity, or necessarily". Which of course requires a definition of Necessity. Necessity: an imperative requirement or need for something. (dictionary.com)So from this definition of Necessity, you can see that Pro must prove that there is an imperative requirement for a missile defense system. Please keep that in mind as I address the Pro points and progress with the debate.Moving on:Under Inherency 1, I would like my opponent to clarify exactly what "this" is in his tagline. The evidence seems to suggest the mysterious "this" is an EMP attack. But it is not clear and I would like him to clarify this, or we don't know what point he is trying to make.Inh 2This piece of evidence basically says that in case of an Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched attack, the US would be essentially undefended. This begs the question: "Are we in danger of an attack from Russia, China, Iran, or a ship-based attack?" There is no reason to believe, and the Pro has not brought any evidence in favor of, the affirmative.Moving down to Solvency...Solvency 1 & 2These pieces of evidence are grouped as "Solvency". But they don't solve for anything. For example, the Pro brought up under Inherency that EMP attacks are expensive. But nowhere in his "Solvency" evidence does it say that implementing a Space based weapons system would prevent EMP attacks. I already pointed out that the Inherency 2 point is not really a danger. Even if, theoretically, the Space-based system could prevent an attack from one of these countries, since there's no evidence of probability from the Pro, it's not Solvency by any stretch of the imagination. It's an advantage.But the Pro needs more than advantages to win this debate. They need to demonstrate a need. They have resolved that "The United States of America needs a Missle Defense System". They need to prove that the US really needs this system, which means proving real harms, and proving real solvency. The Pro hasn't brought anything like that into today's debate round. As the case stands now, Con wins because the Pro can't demonstrate a need, which is absolutely essential for Pro.I would like to bring some evidence of my own into today's debate under Inherency:(Ground-based) Missile defense systems a high-priced failure.This is from an article by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, writing for the Institute of Policy Studies, July 14, 2006, (http://www.fpif.org...)"Missile defense rarely makes front-page news. But as the government throws more and more money at this wasteful and unnecessary program, it deserves scrutiny. Spending on ballistic missile programs has doubled during the Bush presidency. Yet the system remains a high-priced failure. The last three tests of the system's ground-based element failed. In two, the interceptor missile didn't even make it out of the launch silo."Space-based missile defense systems unnecessary, expensiveThe CATO Institute, "CATO Handbook for Congress", 2003, (http://www.cato.org...)"[Congress should] eschew grandiose sea- and space-based missile defenses—which are unnecessary, expensive ‘‘international’’ systemsdesigned to protect wealthy U.S. allies and friends and providea robust shield for unneeded U.S. interventions overseas;" The evidence is clear: The United States does not need a Missile Defense System.