The United States should develop missile defense systems.

Introduction: The idea concerning the defense of an incoming nuclear attack has been prevalent in the United States since the Cold War era. Today, various systems currently exist and continue to be developed by the U.S. as a pro-active effort to avoid turmoil and destruction. As Pro, I am advocating for the missile defense systems that are currently in place, as well as for the development of future systems designed to serve and protect the United States of America. Definitions: Missile Defense -- A system, weapon, or technology involved in the detection, tracking, interception and destruction of attacking missiles [1]. Social Contract Theory -- The view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society; It implies that the people give up some rights to a government and/or other authority in order to receive or jointly preserve social order [2 & 3]. Contentions: 1. Threat --> The possibility of a nuclear attack is not as far-fetched as one might think. As it stands, America is one of the least popular countries in the world. Other nations see us as arrogant, expensive bullies. Our presence in the Middle East can very well be a catalyst for a strike, or perhaps terrorist-riddled nations such as North Korea or Iran will launch an attack on the U.S. for either moral or political gains. 2. The Value of Life --> An incoming nuclear attack could take thousands or even millions of lives. Because we live in a society where life is considered of high moral value, protecting and saving lives should be a major priority. 3. Social Contract --> The Social Contract Theory is one of the most dominant theories within moral and political theory throughout the history of the modern West [2]. It is the concept upon which America was founded and maintained. According to this philosophy, the government should provide protection to its citizens through any feasible means, as citizens should be willing to sacrifice some tax dollars to ensure the protection of the nation and each other. This would certainly be feasible through the elimination of other unnecessary government funded projects, such as Abstinence Only sex education, or possibly even the highly unsuccessful and frankly unconstitutional War on Drugs. 4. Role of Government --> The government has both the right and the responsibility to protect its citizens. Failure to do so would speak volumes about our country and change the way we are perceived both domestically and abroad. In the past, the United States has been regarded as a strong and powerful country to be respected and revered. Today, many people doubt, ignore or deny our prestige in terms of politics, the economy and our military. Such a project has the potential to change the world view about our nation, and inspire Americans to achieve further economic growth. 5. Psychological Impact --> We live in a volatile world where many people fear or are preparing for the worst. For Americans, this type of defense can serve as a reminder that for the most part, We Are Safe. There's nothing wrong with embracing freedom rather than fear, so long as we do not remain ignorant or isolated to the world's problems. To clarify, I am not suggesting that we ignore potential threats, but rather improve the quality of our lives by not being hindered by fear of something as catastrophic as a nuclear attack. 6. Technological Advances --> The U.S. does currently have several small-scale nuclear defense systems in place. I propose that seeking to revamp or improve the quality of said systems would lead to technological innovation that could change the world in terms of defense, or possibly other aspects of science. Results have the potential to globally impact the world in a positive way. 7. Global Repercussions --> The assumption that this type of defense would lead to militant opposition by other nations is a logical fallacy. Instead, we can assume that our efforts will serve as a useful deterrent, and hinder any inclination to launch an attack on the U.S. After all, if we were equipped to defend our nation, then to attack our country would be illogical as it would only instigate a hostile (and probably violent) response. To leave our country open to an assault would be irresponsible. Further, in addition to making other countries think twice about launching a nuclear attack, there is also the chance that it would discourage other nations from trying to develop nuclear weapons in the first place. 8. Economic Repercussions --> Sure, a massive project such as this would cost the government a great deal of money. However, it would require a large amount of personnel; i.e. the creation of new jobs. In a country where outsourcing is a major threat to the workforce today, this could potentially save many people and families from the undesirable reality of unemployment. The logic behind this thinking is that the many workers and contractors employed to design and maintain these systems will in turn pump some money back into the economy. They will also be able to contribute via taxes, and not deplete economic resources such as Welfare or Unemployment. Conclusion: That's all for R1 -- I look forward to my opponent's response :) Sources: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.iep.utm.edu... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...