A Missile Defense System

My opponent seems to have completely missed my point. I would like to point out that my opponent has also contradicted himself. He says that missiles kill people, and we need missile defense systems to save lives. Then, which makes absolutely no sense, he says, "Why did Hitler try to make V2 Rockets? Why did the USA make nuclear bombs? The reasons is because essentially missiles save lives." So, if in some weird way, missiles do save lives, then why do we need to defend against them? My point here is that the pro side does not have his argument together whatsoever. Secondly, my opponent doesn't seem to understand the repercussions of some countries having a defense system while others don't. My opponent stated that, "This arms race is for protection against missiles which could cause a lot of destruction.The question is would a country with missiles fire on a country that can just repel them?" An arms race for protection? That is just pure misguided insanity. Now, in case I was unclear, If one country gets a defence system first, who is to stop them from firing their missiles at other countries? No one, they can fire at will and just defend against coming missiles, allowing the first countries to do whatever they want. This is exactly what happened in the cold war, Russia had some missiles, so America started building their own so they could threaten Russians with them. If someone built a missile defense system first, they could very well fling it in someone's face, and though no missiles were launched Cold War, who's to say it won't happen this time? Right now with our threats of you bomb us and we bomb you are all the defense we need, and a defense system would just out right imbalance that. Another major flaw in my opponents argument, is that he says, "Eventually if every nation had a missile defense system..." When he already stated, "The countries that may not be able to afford a missile defense system may not have missiles anyway and there maybe some that do." This sentence is quite difficult to make out, but essentially my opponent contradicts himself again. He says not all countries have to get one, and then states that when all countries get one there will be no need for missiles. Finally, my opponent agreed with me; "It make sense to save money and in my opinion we can do that by spending less in the military budget to things the military may not need anymore." We don't need missiles, so instead of making a missile defense system that could cost millions to billions of dollars; Let's make all the heavy missile carrying countries disarm their missiles. This would be a better plan than his and would save a lot of money. My opponent wants to keep building newer and newer weapons and defenses, when countries already have something that works. The we don't bomb you and you don't bomb us is the only missile defense system most countries need. All in all, when you really think about it, the countries that could benefit from these systems the most are countries who can't build missiles, and what would make them able to build a defense system as well? I urge you all to vote for the con side. I have proven that my opponent has contradicted himself twice, and then he agreed with me. His own contradictions make his whole argument fall apart, it is clear to me that his plan, as he has described it, is a misfire.