We Need to Build a Death Star

"It's primary weapon, the turbolaser, is ineffective on fleets of ships.... most ships, even capital ships would have flown out of range." Actually, in Return of the Jedi, the Death Star effectively destroys an entire ship. This was discussed in my first contention and I attached a source for it at the end of my argument. Here it is again (). "How would you aim it? Do you know how much energy it would take to turn this thing?" The Death Star actually can aim without turning the entire station. The Death Star is armed with eight tributary lasers (and four backups) that allow the superlaser to aim. Here's a source for that: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com.... I also said in both round one and round two that the research would be for a Death Star or Death Star-like device, meaning that we could research better methods for aiming and apply them to a similar device rather than construct an exact replica of the superlaser. "The only planet we could possibly hit is our own." As previously stated in round two and in this round, the superlaser on the Death Star is capable of destroying entire ships. Also, the death star is capable of travelling at light speed (in A New Hope, it travels from Alderaan to Yavin IV; this would have taken years without light speed capabilities, and A New Hope takes places in a few days). This means that is could quickly travel to different systems. Here's two sources for that: 1. http://movies.stackexchange.com... 2. https://www.quora.com... "It would only aggravate other civilizations into thinking we are a threat." There is no evidence provided that this would happen. In my opinion, our Death Star (or Death Star-like device) would be seen more as a defensive weapon to protect against hostile extraterrestrials. "We don't have the materials." That's why I made sure to say Death Star-like device, meaning a device with very similar capabilities as the Death Star rather than an exact replica. "Rocket launches to send all that metal and other building materials to space would pollute the atmosphere." This is true, and I don't disagree with you. It is precisely why we should expand research into construction before we immediately begin construction now or in the future. Scientists tasked with this research must find how to work past these complications. One potential solution (just a possibility, I am not a scientist) would be the use of clean energy in rockets. Here's a source on how recent innovations in clean energy are taking place: https://spinoff.nasa.gov.... - Response to money, energy, and getting workers/supplies into space points: Our device does not have to be an exact replica of the Death Star. Research into construction would allow us to develop solutions to these issues. I am affirming that we should begin research, not construction. - Response to putting it too close to Earth and threat to life on Earth. Research into construction would allow us to develop solutions to these issues. I am affirming that we should begin research, not construction. "Money would be better put into expanding a current starfleet." I don't think we should choose between a starfleet and a Death Star. Instead, we could do both. In my third contention in round two, I discussed other space initiatives that would get us closer to our goal of constructing a Death Star. We could begin researching both a starfleet and a Death Star now, then construct the starfleet when we are ready. After, at the proper moment, we could construct a Death Star or Death Star-like device.