Missile Defense

I shall start by refuting her contentions in favour of the anti-missile defense system. 1. As it stands, the United States is in more danger from loose nuclear material or undetectable terrorist cells attacking American nuclear plants (. http://www.cdi.org...). Building anti-missile defense systems does nothing to stop this as it is completely under the radar - there is no red blip coming at us to see. The money being put toward building such a system would more be better spent ramping up surveillance of America's borders and the surveillance of nuclear material in other countries which could come under threat. For instance, it would be much more productive (not just for the US, but for the entire world) if the money meant for anti-missile defense was spent towards locking down Pakistani missiles, keeping them safe from the ever-encroaching Taliban. My opponent says that it is possible that so-called 'terrorist riddled' or oppressed nations such as North Korea and Iran will launch an attack on the US for moral or political gains. Aside from the fact that neither Iran or the DPRK are 'terrorist-riddled', this is an absolutely absurd notion. There is no gains to be made from oblivion, which is the state that those countries would be in if they ever decided to launch an attack on the United States. The backlash from the people within those countries (just before they become smoking piles of ash) would be enormous at the same time, and there would be no political or 'moral' order left in the country. For the ruling elite of a country, this is not a feasible option. No matter how many centrifuges are spinning in Iran, or how many smaller-than-Hiroshima-sized nuclear weapons North Korea has (. http://www.cdi.org...), the United States has many, many more powerful weapons ready to go the second anything happens. One can make the argument that terrorists have no political or moral order to begin with, and actually seek oblivion above all else. Terrorists launching an attack against the US with missiles is not outside the realm of plausibility, but as I noted earlier, it would be much more efficient if money was put towards better surveillance and the lock down of nuclear arsenals in vulnerable countries, like Pakistan. I believe the best example of this was the magnificent, and rather startling, story of A. Q. Khan, the father of the Pakistani bomb, whom I shall elaborate on in a later argument. 2. I could not agree more with my opponent's statement, but the way she is proposing to save lives will in the end actually cost them. There is two ways this occurs. i) By focusing on the anti-missile defense system, America ignores the biggest threat to their safety - terrorists that sneak in undetected. By allowing themselves to focus on the ghosts of the Cold War, the US will turn a blind eye to the protection of loose nuclear material and the surveillance of nuclear arms smuggling. That will cost lives. ii) By ramping up their defenses, the United States sends a clear message to other nuclear-armed nations in the world that should they ever try an attack, the US will be prepared. Is that such a bad thing to American citizens? Of course not. But to other nations, it is only the call-to-arms because now the US can attack those countries, but they can't fire back. By installing such a system, the US could inadvertently set off an arms race among other nations for the same reason my opponent cites; the value of life. In doing so, the US will cost the lives of its citizens, and the lives of many others around the world. 5. Once again, my opponent is quite correct in stating that Americans should not be hindered by fear of an attack. Yet, the anti-missile system does nothing to prevent America's biggest threat, and as I stated before, the anti-missile system will more likely provoke an arms race than hinder your enemies. I fail to see how that brings down America's fear levels. 6. My opponent once again makes good points. Military investment does help increase technological advances, and there is some very good examples she sourced. But the simple fact is, and if I may use her own argument against her, you cannot trade the value of life for technological advancements. There may be great scientific wonders to come out of building the anti-missile defense systems, but it is all pointless if there is no one around to witness them. 7. The assumption that this type of defense would lead to militant opposition by other nations is indeed *not* flawed. My opponent fails to recognize that despite all of America's efforts to curve nuclear proliferation in the past decades, India, China, Pakistan, Israel and more recently, North Korea and possibly Iran, have all become nuclear-armed nations. Does my opponent really believe that those nations will not build the exact same systems she is promoting, therefore negating the United States' position? As well, I would like to introduce my opponent to Ivan (. http://en.wikipedia.org...). This is what you get when you have an arms race; weapons become bigger, badder and scarier. In building the anti-missile defense, the United States is only inviting other nations to learn how to get past it, and I almost guarantee you they will. The US does not need another arms race. The world doesn't need it either. Instead of promoting peace, it will only opt to destroy it. 8. My opponent cites the building of the anti-missile defense system as an economic stimulus. Well, great! I can sure use money when that mushroom cloud comes rolling towards me. The fact of the matter is that my opponent can't really say whether or not it will be a good economic stimulus. Even if it was productive, are the trade-offs worth it? What is the use of an economy when we're being bombed? Is there even an economy after we're bombed? Won't disturbed foreign relations sink the economy as well? Too many unanswered questions, which makes this point vague at best. As well, getting such a large work force involved in what should be secret military applications seems like a risky move that will undermine my opponent's 'peace' theory. As it stands now, there is already Chinese agents working in American industry that siphon off military technology (. http://www.popularmechanics.com...). Can you imagine what will happen when they get a hold of anti-missile defense tech? The whole system crumbles, and makes the entire effort pointless. 3 and 4. Finally, I would like to address my opponent's allusions to the Social Contract. Just so we are clear, I completely agree with the Social Contract and how it stands. But there is a point to be made here. Just because the anti-missile defense system is 'feasible', doesn't mean it is effective. While it may protect American citizens for a time, it would only lead to greater danger down the road, all the while ignoring the other, very present dangers that surround not only the US, but other countries as well. It will only lead to more sacrifices by the American public for very little effectiveness. Even though the government will have fulfilled its side of the Contract, it clearly doesn't do it right. If my opponent really wishes to show American superiority in the world, the US should focus on helping vulnerable nations lock down or destroy their arsenal, co-operate with other nations to keep watch on loose nuclear material, and promote the ideals of non-proliferation and even eventual dismantle of major nuclear stockpiles. The anti-missile defense system does none of these things. I await my opponent's sound rebuttal.