Missile Defense

I feel neither here nor there regarding the issue of Missile Defense, admittedly, but there haven't been a great deal of debates in the Challenge Section recently. Thus, I thought I'd start one up again regarding a topic I've tried to debate in the past, though never really got to finish. Stating the first argument, I'll assume the position of Pro. However, I wouldn't be opposed to debating this from the position of Con in the future. Nevertheless, I wish good luck to my future opponent, whomever that may be. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Introduction: The idea concerning the defense of an incoming nuclear attack has been prevalent in the United States since the Cold War era. Today, various systems currently exist and continue to be developed by the U.S. as a pro-active effort to avoid turmoil and destruction. Admittedly, these current systems are essentially useless, as well as a drain on our already staggering economy. As Pro, I am advocating for the development of new, efficient and practical systems designed to serve and protect the United States of America, and/or massive reform to our current missile defense. Definitions: Missile Defense -- A system, weapon, or technology involved in the detection, tracking, interception and destruction of attacking missiles [1]. Social Contract Theory -- The view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society; It implies that the people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order [2]. Contentions: 1. Threat --> The possibility of a nuclear attack is not as far-fetched as one might think. As it stands, America is one of the least popular countries in the world. Other nations see us as arrogant, expensive bullies. Our presence in the Middle East can very well be a catalyst for a strike, or perhaps terrorist-riddled or oppressed nations such as North Korea or Iran will launch an attack on the U.S. for either moral or political gains. 2. The Value of Life --> An incoming nuclear attack could take thousands or even millions of lives. Because we live in a society where life is considered of high moral value, protecting and saving lives should be a major priority. 3. Social Contract --> The Social Contract Theory is one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West [2]. It is the concept upon which America was founded and maintained. According to this philosophy, endorsed by thinkers such as Locke and Hobbes, the government should provide protection to its citizens through any feasible means, as citizens should be willing to sacrifice some tax dollars to ensure the protection of the nation and each other. This would certainly be feasible through the elimination of other unnecessary government funded projects, such as Abstinence Only sex education, or possibly even the highly unsuccessful and frankly unconstitutional War on Drugs. 4. Role of Government --> Based on the ideology posited by the Social Contract Theory, the government has both the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens. Failure to do so would speak volumes about our country and change the way we are perceived both domestically and abroad. In the past, the United States has been regarded as a strong and powerful country to be respected and revered. Today, many people doubt, ignore or deny our prestige in terms of politics, the economy and our military. Such a project has the potential to change the world view about our nation, and inspire Americans to achieve further economic growth. 5. Psychological Impact --> We live in a volatile world where many people fear or are preparing for the worst. The Bush regime with overly endorsed fear ongering has finally come to an end, but perhaps the repercussions have not. For Americans, this type of defense can serve as a reminder that for the most part, We Are Safe. There's nothing wrong with embracing freedom rather than fear, so long as we do not remain ignorant or isolated to the world's problems. To clarify, I am not suggesting that we ignore potential threats, but rather improve the quality of our lives by not being hindered by fear of something as catastrophic as a nuclear attack. 6. Technological Advances --> The U.S. does currently have several small-scale nuclear defense systems in place. I propose that seeking to revamp or improve the quality of said systems would lead to technological innovation that could change the world in terms of defense, or possibly other aspects of science. Results have the potential to globally impact the world in a positive way. An example would include technological know-how by automobile mogels Mercedes-Benz, who during World War II created a notable series of aircraft, tank, and submarine engines ... also produced parts for German arms, most notably barrels for the Mauser rifle [3]. 7. Global Repercussions --> The assumption that this type of defense would lead to militant opposition by other nations is flawed. Instead, we can assume that our efforts will serve as a useful deterrent, and hinder any inclination to launch an attack on the U.S. After all, if we were equipped to defend our nation, then to attack our country would be illogical as it would only instigate a hostile (and probably violent) response. To leave our country open to an assault would be irresponsible. Further, the fear of any country actually using these weapons (and thus introducing the concept of WWIII, and - as some people say - the end of the world as we know it) may actually increase the notion that PEACE is important and something we should strive for not just because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but because we have the power to ultimately destroy humanity. If that doesn't serve as an argument for peace, I don't know what does. 8. Economic Repercussions --> Sure, a massive project such as this would cost the government a great deal of money. However, it would require a large amount of personnel; i.e. the creation of new jobs. In a country where outsourcing is a major threat to the workforce today, this could potentially save many people and families from the undesirable reality of unemployment. The logic behind this thinking is that the many workers and contractors employed to design and maintain these systems will in turn pump some money back into the economy. They will also be able to contribute via taxes, and not deplete economic resources such as Welfare or Unemployment. Conclusion: That's all for now, folks. Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org...... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu...... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...