The United States Federal Government should continue to invest in a missle defence system.

"You stated that 122 billion dollars have been spent on missile defense ..." Well we can safely assume the government wasn't spending 2 billion in 1950, but you need to remember that this is a single military program amongst many, a program that has a trial failure rate of around 50%. It has twice as much funding as any other weapon system. The last US financial budget included the elimination of 141 programs for $15 billion. In addition to restraining discretionary spending, the 2007 Budget proposed reforms to mandatory programs that would cut an additional $59 billion. The government is drastically cutting programs to fuel unnecessary spending. To put it in perspective, remember this is a single defence program, not the entire Armed forces budget; education receives 54billion, National Science Administration receives a measly 6 billion. http://www.whitehouse.gov... "Your argument on the ABM treaty is ..." Firstly I never said that the treaty was about an absolute zero defence, the treaty is about non proliferation. George Bush withdrew from the treaty in 2002, stopped talks with N. Korea, America then proceeded to increase its ballistic capabilities. This is called an arms race, it was the reason the treaty was proposed after the cold war. When one country procures a weapons technology, the response is to match then up the ante, and this is exactly what the NMD is about. It is an active force in the very thing it aims to deploy against. "He is concerned that the annulation of this treaty may provoke an arms race, especially in the missile area, and further undermine disarmament and non-proliferation regimes. He calls upon all states to explore new binding and irreversible initiatives to avert such unwelcome effects." (14 December 2001, UN Web Site, Statement of the Secretary-General(Kofi Annan)) "Your third argument is illogical in that the missiles used by NMD ..." Unfortunately you show a lack of knowledge about the system itself, the Aegis component of the NMD grid is designed primarily to intercept IBMs in the boost and midcourse stage. Ground based interceptors target the midcourse and terminal stage. Yes the system requires atmospheric interception, mainly due to the safe zone of detonation and secondly, once the missile re enters the atmosphere, time to impact is <30s. Remember, the purpose of the NMD is the defence from Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. "Your evidence is from 2000, since 2000 we have come a long way." Feel free to show me exactly how those same issues are not relevant today, I will be showing you they are shortly. "Your evidence refers to analogous systems, which are often flawed and rarely used in today's warfare." Analogous: corresponding in some particular http://dictionary.reference.com... Analogous isn't a system type it's an adjective, in the case I stated, that the NMD defence grid is a technically complex system, ‘like' (analogous) those listed, and susceptible to the same problems. "The fact that there may be flaws is more reason to invest money and get the problems fixed." Either the system has flaws or it doesn't which one is it? Additionally, why should the government continue to pump money into a fallible, unnecessary system? "You have provided one example ..." How exactly would it not? What basis are you making these claims? Merely saying, I don't think so, is not enough. Again, the mode of delivery for chemical and biological weapons most definitely does not necessitate a missile delivery system. It was also not one missile; it was a brief run on counter measures. There are more, like atmospheric chaff, weapon coolant etc. ______________________________________________ Excerpt from MDI on trials in 2006 "Wednesday's trial had been put off four times because of bad weather at launch sites and, on Sunday, because a radio transmitter failed." The system cannot operate in bad weather? Hardly promising. To put it bluntly, Bush is to deploying very expensive weapons, without the slightest hint of evidence that they have any chance of being successful. http://www.mda.mil... A General Accounting Office report has concluded that "MDA does not explain some critical assumptions—such as an enemy's type and number of decoys—underlying its performance Goals." It urged that "DOD carry out independent, operationally realistic testing of each block being fielded." The DOD replied "formal operational testing is not required before entry into full-rate production." General Accounting Office report GAO-04-409 Missile Defense: Actions are Needed to Enhance Testing and Accountability Testing 2007: FTG-3 was conducted 2Q FY 2007. The purpose was to demonstrate the functionality of the GBI engage on UEWR Beale engagement sequence group (ESG) for a GBI launched from Vandenberg AFB performing all functions through acquisition, discrimination, transition to terminal, and intercepting the lethal object. Due to target failure, interceptor was not launched. http://www.mda.mil... The "threats" N. Korea North Korea maintains one million men under arms; it is the only nation which is presently militarily hostile to the United States, however, it is a country intermittently hit by famine with a GNP only 4 percent of Taiwan's with test facilities that are primitive. Exchanges between the heads of state of North and South Korea indicate it is coming out of its isolation and acting constructively to improve its international position. Imagine if the US government spent its resources on diplomacy instead. Iran Iran's priority is not to threaten the U.S. but to create regional hegemony. For this intercontinental ballistic missiles are unnecessary and inconsequential. Alterations to the diplomatic environment could obviate any Iranian threat. If U.S. - Iranian affairs continue to improve and the domestic influences of Iranian conservatives fade, financial support for missile programs can be cut. Successful U.S. efforts to prevent North Korean, Chinese, and Russian missile exports, which the Iranian program depends, would stifle any Iranian program. The MDI concedes that the both Iran and N. Korea have no IBM's, additionally countermeasure development isn't part of the current budget (planned sometime....2014...maybe...) http://www.mda.mil... Unfortunately my opposite seems to think that his opinion is enough for this debate, it is clearly not, and he has shown no evidence as a basis to any claim. Japan may mutate a lizard into Godzilla, does that mean we should develop "what if" scenarios and budgets for that too? Hardly; just because we can conceive a scenario does not make its eventuality any more probable, or the solution linear. My opponent's belief that throwing enough money at something will make it work is foolish and irresponsible of the government that does so, when there are more alternatives available.