A Missile Defense System

My opponent has proven my own point even further. First yet another contradiction; "The nuclear bombs killed 246,000 lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki all together. When you put a missile defense system that can even save more lives because their intentions are to stop missiles from even causing any damage. " When he has said, "No I am not addressing the nuclear missiles which can kill far more but rather average missiles. " So, the missile defences could save a quarter of a million lives from nuclear bombs, but they can't? Let's say he didn't just contradict himself, and the missile defense systems did protect versus nuclear bombs. As far as I'm aware nuclear bombs do most there damage in radiation. As your own source says, "tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure. " ( . http://www.history.com... ) Does a satellite lazer magically get rid of the nuclear waste, or does the ocean and world's water supply get radiated? Say the radiation was cleaned up before it cause to much damage, how much would that cost? I would like to thanking my opponent for further proving my own point. My opponent stated, "The fact is that you can not predict what will happen when a nation gets a missile defense system. .. " Precisely, You cannot predict what any country will do. So, why risk warfare? What we have now works absolutely fine, the we won't bomb you, because if we do you'll bomb us. Do I need to provide examples of why people go to war? Why has almost any war been fought? War is fought for personal gain, money, freedom, and etc. My point is simply this, the countries that could afford this system, such as the satellite you suggested, and we all know from general knowledge that that is not cheap, would not really need it because they have missiles. The countries getting bombed by tomahawks and the like, are poor countries who can't afford missiles, not to mention the more expensive alternative that you would suggest. There is a lot at stake while going to war, let's prevent that war by not changing any variables. I would also like to address my opponent last and final support of his argument. My opponent said, "I want to get rid of missiles and the best way to that is to make missiles look obsolete by making something that can stop them. " How does he know this as a fact? How will missiles become obsolete? New technology is invented every day, I'm sure people will be able to invent missiles that are undetectable by these defense systems. Now, that is purely speculation, but let's look at what the defense system brings to the table. Someone has to operate the system, how would they practice the operation of it, video simulation? Let's face it, that's nothing like the real thing. Now, say a country was hell bent on destroying another one, how will this system defend against ten missiles flying through the air simultaneously? Sure, maybe you will get a few of them, but the damage will be done. Plus, if a country knew you had no missiles to retaliate with, who is to stop them? They could easily send over some jets, send them into the enemy country and take out the operation centers for the defense system, then bomb whatever they wish. That is speculation as well, but it does present a prudent point. Countries need to be able to threaten other countries to stay safe, it is as simple as that. To further prove my point of the advancement of missiles to get around these defense systems, I will use my opponents argument. My opponent stated, "This has been a routine that has happened through history. Armor was used to stop sword from hitting areas of your body, muskets were used to penetrate armor, rifles were used to shoot further than muskets, and one shot rifles were eventually replaced by repeating ones. Cavalry was the new fast moving force of the day, and then pikes as well as square formations caused forced to repel cavalry attacks, then the car comes and the tank too. " I apologize for the long quote, but I feel it is necessary. What my opponent has said here, is not that defense systems stop weapons, but force them to become more advanced, and deadlier still. A sword was replaced by a musket, out of necessity to penetrate armor. So, my opponent wishes to build a very advanced form of armor so that a more deadly weapon can be made? I urge you all to vote for the con side. I have disproven my opponent's arguments, and turned most of them in favor of the con side. My opponent has failed to disprove any of my arguments, and they all stand.