The United States should develop missile defense systems.

Like Con, I agree that the government is a tool for the citizens and not vice versa. That is why the government has both the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens through any feasible means. This proposition has nothing to do with promoting fear; in fact, doing the opposite -- eliminating fear to allow ordinary citizens to go about their lives without worrying about our enemies' intentions. Despite Con's assertion that the United States is not being threatened with nuclear attacks, the truth is that our Special Intelligence investigates numerous threats (both potential and overt) on a daily basis. To ignore the danger our society faces today would serve a great injustice to the people of the United States. Even Con recognizes the position of America right now -- "When you have countries like the United States violating and pulling out of nuclear treaties, of course you are going to have countries that feel threatened by them and pointing weapons across the ocean at them." Yup. That's precisely why we've got to protect ourselves. -- In terms of the economy, I have already answered Con's questions about how this project would help (quite sufficiently, might I add) when I noted, "The building project would require a large amount of personnel; i.e. the creation of new jobs. In a country where outsourcing is a major threat... this could potentially save many people and families from the undesirable reality of unemployment... workers will in turn pump some money back into the economy... contribute via taxes, and not deplete economic resources such as Welfare or Unemployment" back in R1. -- In regard to psychological effects, "American citizens are already overtly cautious, xenophobic, and stressed with fear from terrorist attacks that could not have been anticipated." I highly disagree with this opinion. How can the most diverse country in the world be considered xenophobic? While new measures may have been implemented to divert terrorist attacks from this country, as a whole we still have extremely unsecure borders and easy access into our ports. The common citizen is aware of possible terrorist attacks on this country; however, it is fair to say that the vast majority of individuals have not had their lives altered in any way out of fear of being attacked. Furthermore, any minor hysteria can easily be attributed to the government's strategic use of fear-mongering -- a policy directly associated with the Bush Administration, which should no longer be an issue as of November 2008. Con has said, "We have a social contract for informing our citizens of true threats, not misinforming and scaring out citizenry. That is dishonest and cruel, and goes against human values." I agree. The fact remains that the United States in unpopular, and other countries have the technology (and possibly the inclination) to pose a threat to the U.S. History is riddled with wars, and it only takes one crazy individual to instigate a nuclear holocaust. I say that it is in our best interest to protect ourselves, just in case. That does not mean spreading lies or trying to scare citizens in any way. -- Con asked, "Wouldn't putting them up threaten more countries and make them think we are bigger bullies and military heads?" Hmm, I don't see why. Afterall, I never said that the U.S. should develop offensive nuclear technology. What I did propose was a system of missile DEFENSE, whatever that may be. This same reasoning applies to Iran and Con's other examples. If Iran wishes to develop technology that would keep them safe from an incoming Israeli attack, I'd say good for them. In fact I think every country in the world could benefit from a system of missile defense that does not necessarily have the ability to achieve highly intentional and destructive missile offense. Unlike Con, I believe that this would actually encourage trust and peace. -- Con's next point mentioned a U.S. missile defense base in Poland. In response, If Russia were to feel insulted or threatened by our defensive strategy, I could just as easily say that Americans should feel threatened and insulted that we are being given a hard time about wanting to protect our country. Further, in addition to protecting the United States, the agreement with Poland to have a base within its borders is win-win for both parties (and other European nations) involved. Under the new agreement, Poland would host an American base with 10 interceptors designed to shoot down a limited number of ballistic missiles, in theory launched by a future adversary such as Iran. A tracking radar system would be based in the Czech Republic. In exchange for providing the base, Poland would get what the two sides called "enhanced security cooperation," notably a top-of-the-line Patriot air defense system that can shoot down shorter-range missiles or attacking fighters or bombers [1]. Given the recent conflict in Georgia, it has become evident that Russia will not hesitate to use military force to achieve political gains. This is yet another reason as to why the United States, and other nations bordering Russia should have the ability to properly defend themselves against hostile countries. -- As far as the U.S. backing out of nuclear non-proliferation treaties, in a sense I agree that this could essentially be a bad idea. However, fortunately for Pro our involvement (or disinvolvement) with said treaties has nothing to do with the topic of debate, so I digress. Additionally, I understand Con's concerns about our current economic crisis... However again, it has little to do with the resolution of this debate. What the United States *should* do should not be based on our actual ability to do it. Moreover, I've already expressed how eliminating ridiculous (failing) government programs can severely lessen our financial burden. -- Sources: [1] http://www.iht.com...