Missile Defense

1. Con asserts that building anti-missile defense systems does nothing to stop [radioactive attacks] as it is completely under the radar - there is no red blip coming at us to see. While this is true, it has nothing to do with the fact that what missile defense CAN eliminate is an attack from a nuclear missile(s). Not everyone has access to radioactive warfare, and nuclear weapons still exist. Why should we not protect ourselves against what we can, simply because the likelihood of a various attack may be greater? This especially does not make sense, since the reason that a radioactive attack is more likely (even though it does less damage) is BECAUSE of the very systems (though flawed) that we currently have in place. Con does not disagree that a need for extensive defense is necessary. Even if he advocates for an increase in technological defense against the alleged more likely radioactive attacks, does not necessarily mean that missile defense should not exist or continue to be developed. Also, as a point of clarification, a group called Iran Focus (self-explanatory) has obtained a list of 20 terrorist camps and centers run by Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, thus making the notion that there are terrorist groups in Iran valid. Moreover, I didn't say that there were necessarily terrorists in North Korea; what I said was terrorist-riddled OR oppressed nations such as North Korea... and certainly my opponent would not argue that North Korea is not oppressed. Moving on, my opponent notes that there are no gains to be made from oblivion; the backlash from citizens + the rest of the world would make an attack "not worth it." This is a less than adequate defense for many reasons. First, I have already established the aspect of a "threat" to the United States. What my opponent is forgetting is that extremists, or those who are hungry for war, RARELY USE LOGIC AND REASONING. Was it reasonable for those involved in the 9/11 attacks to commit suicide by crashing a plane into a NYC building? After all, look what the results were: suicide, death/murder (which goes against the peaceful teachings of Islam), global conflict, war in the Middle East, U.S. occupation of several Islamic countries, terrorist allies being imprisoned and tortured in camps, etc. In other words, those who did the killing really did not accomplish much for their cause, I would say. And yet people are motivated by the most bizarre things; don't under-estimate the lengths people will go to for the honor of that which they find to be of utmost important. Even oblivion. More importantly, the rest of my contentions had nothing to do with the LIKELIHOOD of an attack. Rather I made points regarding why missile defense would be a good idea and/or beneficial to society in general. These points included the philosophy of the Value of Life and Role of Government (the idea that protecting citizens is important, and the government has the right/responsibility to do so using the philosophy of the Social Contract Theory which many of our laws and traditions are based on); The positive psychological impact having the missile defense would serve (as a sort of weapon against fear-mongering); The technological advances and impacts that this development would have on the world and future at large; And finally the economic rewards that this type of project could have. -- 2. A) Re: By focusing on the anti-missile defense system, America ignores the biggest threat to their safety - terrorists that sneak in undetected... That is simply not what I have suggested at all. One, advancing technology to be able to detect these "under the radar" threats can be incorporated into the newly revamped missile defense. Problem solved. Two, I never suggested less focus on eliminating terrorism; I'd still be all for Special Intelligence gathering information and deterring attacks of all kinds. B) Re: The US could inadvertently set off an arms race... In doing so, the US will cost the lives of its citizens, and the lives of many others around the world... Nay. An arms race is defined as a competition between two or more parties for real or apparent military supremacy. Nowhere does this mandate an actual attack of any kind, thus saying that building defense would automatically lead to a loss of lives is a clear use of the Appeal to Fear fallacy. This line of reasoning is fallacious because creating fear in people does not constitute evidence for a claim. -- 5. Re: Once again, my opponent is quite correct in stating that Americans should not be hindered by fear of an attack. Yet, the anti-missile system does nothing to prevent America's biggest threat... This is faulty logic. That's like saying because heart disease is the leading cause of death for women, that steps to detect or prevent breast cancer are not important, as it is more likely that women will die from something else. -- 6. Re: You cannot trade the value of life for technological advancements. There may be great scientific wonders to come out of building the anti-missile defense systems, but it is all pointless if there is no one around to witness them... Correct, but Con has never proven that a loss of life is more likely to occur with the missile defense in place. He simply asserted that there may be an arms race (which I conceded to, as it does not hinder my argument), and that the U.S. should focus on other more prominent threats, such as a radioactive attack (which I also agreed with, as it once again is irrelevant to my contentions for this debate). Thus, if we can assume that the end of the world is not likely to occur as a result of missile defense technology, and/or that the defense would actually inhibit an attack (using my opponent's arguments again HIM this time, in stating that countries would want to avoid an all-out nuclear war with a result like oblivion), then all of my arguments regarding the benefits of technological advances still stand. Apply these arguments here as a win for the Pro. -- 7. Re: My opponent fails to recognize that despite all of America's efforts to curve nuclear proliferation in the past decades, India, China, Pakistan, Israel and more recently, North Korea and possibly Iran, have all become nuclear-armed nations. Con just helped me build my case, and undermined his. He tried to state that nuclear weapons aren't important, since an attack on the U.S. is more likely to come in the form of small-scale terrorism. Then he noted all of the countries that continue to develop missiles... hmm. This seems like a reason to take my points into account even more. It also makes the readers apply the concept of countries (with crazy leaders!) like North Korea to my other arguments. Thanks, Con. -- 8. Re: Even if it was productive, are the trade-offs worth it? What is the use of an economy when we're being bombed? 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, i.e. Obama's plan to create jobs in looking towards Alternative Energy. Thus Con only cites the unnecessity of an economy after the country/world has been destroyed. The use of several fallacies can be applied here, including Misleading Vividness (dramatic events are taken into account in order to persuade someone, i.e. suggesting living in a "mushroom cloud" as a result of establishing missile defense... ha). Like I said, there is no evidence to suggest that we'd be living in a mushroom cloud with no use for an economy as a result of the government investing in new technology and creating new jobs. -- 3 & 4. Re: Even though the government will have fulfilled its side of the Contract, it clearly doesn't do it right... Mayhaps this is an appropriate time for an Ends Justifies the Means argument? Re: American superiority in the world... No characters; I'll address this in the next round!