Missile Defense

I would like to address my opponent's contentions with a similar situation to our hypothetical situation; a day at the beach. Imagine that you're off to the beach today, and you will bring with you several things. You will have with you a hat, sunscreen, a towel, a book or some sort of activity you can do while out there. The sun is beating down on you, the water is cool, the towel is keeping sand out of your behind and you have a nice activity to do while relaxing in the hot sun. With this situation, I shall debunk some of my opponent's arguments. "Why not protect ourselves against what we can, simply because the likelihood of a various attack may be greater?" If I wear the hat to the beach, I protect my head and shoulders from the sun, therefore negating some of the negative effects of UV rays. This is not a foolproof way though, because I may have to take the hat off and it will not protect my entire body. This is where sunscreen comes in handy, because it helps cover those areas. I am now fully protected from the sun. This is similar to the anti-missile defense system and operations intended to protect from undetectable threats. Now, it seems as if I just proved my opponents argument correct, due to having both the anti-missile defense and the security operations working together to protect the US. But, let us remember that the situation is much more complicated than that. "Con never argues that this would be an unproductive endeavor. Indeed, it's not outlandish for the government to invest in this kind of growth..." Indeed, I never argued that it would be unproductive, and my opponent cites a very good example. But, she fails to factor in our global relations into her economic argument, a question I asked in my previous argument that went unaddressed. I shall explain anyways. I can sit there, relaxing on the beach with my hat and my sunscreen, doing my productive activity and living a nice life. No one will dispute this, as I'm still doing something productive. But it is still so hot out, the heat is bothering me and disrupting my activity. I think I need to go for a swim. Unfortunately, I need to take off my hat to swim. But alas, I still have my sunscreen there to protect me from the UV rays. I am now cool, doing something productive and living a nice life. Now as that was probably a little more vague than I wanted it to sound, so I shall explain it in detail. By building this anti-missile defense system, the US may be boosting its economy with jobs and productivity, it is only hurting its international relations and therefore, it is still hurting the economy. I think the most vivid example of this the current tension between the US, Europe and Russia. If you're not aware of the situation, I invite you to view this link: http://russia.suite101.com... While so far Russia's response has been to threaten to station missiles in Kaliningrad, there is many serious economic repercussions Russia can inflict upon Europe. I just need to refer to the recent Russian-Ukrainian Gas Crisis (http://www.guardian.co.uk...) to prove that point. My analogy works through this; the activity I brought along is equal to the United States living as a protectionist, insular state, that is protected by the missile defense systems. The heat represents the pressure of the world on the US, which disrupts my activity. I decide to jump into the cool waters of globalized trade, but I can't do that if I have my anti-missile defense hat on. Therefore, it is sensible that the sunscreen is on me, to give me some semblance of effective protection, without jeopardizing my international relations. Of course, the US is not Europe but I seriously doubt that increased tensions across the world would equal increased trade and commerce. As the United States has many corporations across the world which rely on foreign business and capital to thrive, the anti-missile defense system will only give those countries that view the defense system reason to shut out American companies. This would affect the American economy greatly, costing many jobs that are dependent on trade. Also, unfortunately for my opponent, her idea that this would help create productive jobs is only a temporary status, much like Obama's infrastructure plans. Therefore, it is clear that while building such a system may prove to be productive and help the economy, the system will only serve to destroy America's global-based economy. Anyways, I shall move on. I would like to address a certain quote my opponent made: "This line of reasoning is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim." Is this not the basic reasoning for my opponents claim as well? To build an anti-missile defense system is to protect from something Americans fear; to win support for such a thing, Americans must fear the possibility of a nuclear attack. If what my opponent says is correct, then it is clear that the very basis for her argument doesn't constitute evidence for a claim. But this of course is not true, as my opponent cites many other reasons to support her argument, as do I. This is negated. I would like to direct my opponent to the link I provide: http://www.indianexpress.com... This link explains my argument of how the anti-missile defense system could create an arms race. It is simple a matter of logic; tit for tat, or tit over tat. As the US creates a system to defend against missiles, giving it a huge advantage in any situation or warfare, other countries shall find ways to build the same systems or shall build new systems to get past the US anti-missile system. I would also like to point out that the missile defense system will cause the US to back out of several major treaties, including the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, a cornerstone of nuclear non-proliferation and peace in the world (http://www.armscontrol.org...). My opponent also says that I helped her case, which is simply not true. I used it as a point to not that the US may advance in technology all it wants, but if it doesn't have effective security operations to help keep down nuclear proliferation then it is all pointless. My opponent can use it as an argument in her case, but she should also address my point. All this culminates in an argument against the anti-missile defense systems. But, instead of elaborating upon A.Q. Khan's story in this argument, I shall present that in the next one. For now I will argue on the basis of my contention to my opponent's "Social Contract" theories, namely: "Even though the government will have fulfilled its side of the Contract, it clearly doesn't do it right..." My opponent says that now may be the time to deploy, "the end justifies the means". She is right, in a sense. But I believe the government has more of an obligation to make sure they get the means to work effectively to the ends. This anti-missile defense system has too many drawbacks to be effective and have net-positive ends, ends that the system may not even be able to provide. I would like to point out how many times anti-missile systems have failed to perform consistently: 1. http://www.armscontrol.org... 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com... 3. http://usmilitary.about.com... If my opponent wishes, I can find many other instances. This is clearly not an effective system, and while there is room for improvement, at the moment it lags far behind the prevent measures that could already be put in place to defend America, its allies and vulnerable nuclear-equipped nations like Pakistan. My opponent is clearly trying to employ justifications that ignore a lot of facts, but none of them stand up to the arguments I have proven. I look forward to my opponent's response.