The Instigator
1Historygenius
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Rusho
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

A Missile Defense System

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/17/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,782 times Debate No: 18838
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (5)

 

1Historygenius

Pro

In my opinion, a missile defense system is needed for defense and protection from other countries in case of a war. A missile defense system provides great protection from missiles which could destroy a targets. It can be a military target or civilian target which could kill several lives. A missile defense system would provide great protection from missiles in case of war. A missile defense system is one of the keys to saving lives.
Rusho

Con

I'd like to thank you for starting this debate. Now, onto business. Why does every country need a missile defense system? My opponent seems to believe its a necessity for safety, to spend millions of dollars on such systems. How will every country afford this? Surely some countries wouldn't be able to, in which others gain a clear advantage. Now, why is the missile defense system a necessity? I propose that rather than spend more money on this war related device, that all countries save some money. Here is my plan. Everyone has their missiles for one reason, to defend themselves from other countries with missiles. Due to fear, they spend money on these missiles, and for that reason only, not to use them. They spend because someone else has a missile and they want to have their own so they can threaten, "Bomb me and I will bomb you." I propose that, rather than spend money on these missile defense systems, that we move to have every missile carrying power disable their missiles. Now, my opponent has failed to specify what type of missiles these systems will defend against. I must assume he is talking about the larger missiles, such as nuclear missiles, and tomahawk missiles. I am assuming the smaller missiles, such as RPG's, are not considered within these systems. He also fails to mention what the size, and area of coverage these systems have. Will they cover 500 square miles, or will they cover 2 square miles? The size of the systems will directly affect what these systems will defend against. My opponent wishes to create another arms race, as we all have seen during the cold war. If one country gets this defense system they can boast, "Hey! I can bomb you, but just try and bomb me!" Is it really necessary to start such another money pit, or stop this madness and recycle those metallic revenue vortexes.
Debate Round No. 1
1Historygenius

Pro

I thank my opponent for taking me on in the debate. Now why countries need a missile defense system is for their own protection. This can be optional for them and they can make as complex or as simple as they wish. They can make as cheap or as expensive. They can decide how long they wish to have this missile defense system. The countries that may not be able to afford a missile defense system may not have missiles anyway and there maybe some that do. It make sense to save money and in my opinion we can do that by spending less in the military budget to things the military may not need anymore. Now why are missiles necessary? Why did Hitler try to make V2 Rockets? Why did the USA make nuclear bombs? The reasons is because essentially missiles save lives. No I am not addressing the nuclear missiles which can kill far more but rather average missiles. Now these anti-missile defense systems will have a variety of weapons that can attack missiles from the sky. Depending what type of missiles it is will depend on what should counter it. For example the SDI can possibly use satellites from space that have lasers to attack missiles. This arms race is for protection against missiles which could cause a lot of destruction.The question is would a country with missiles fire on a country that can just repel them? Eventually if every nation had a missile defense system then the missiles would have not point causing nations to stop using missiles and try to find an alternate weapon which may not be easy.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Rusho

Con

My opponent seems to have completely missed my point.
I would like to point out that my opponent has also contradicted himself. He says that missiles kill people, and we need missile defense systems to save lives. Then, which makes absolutely no sense, he says, "Why did Hitler try to make V2 Rockets? Why did the USA make nuclear bombs? The reasons is because essentially missiles save lives." So, if in some weird way, missiles do save lives, then why do we need to defend against them? My point here is that the pro side does not have his argument together whatsoever.

Secondly, my opponent doesn't seem to understand the repercussions of some countries having a defense system while others don't. My opponent stated that, "This arms race is for protection against missiles which could cause a lot of destruction.The question is would a country with missiles fire on a country that can just repel them?" An arms race for protection? That is just pure misguided insanity. Now, in case I was unclear, If one country gets a defence system first, who is to stop them from firing their missiles at other countries? No one, they can fire at will and just defend against coming missiles, allowing the first countries to do whatever they want. This is exactly what happened in the cold war, Russia had some missiles, so America started building their own so they could threaten Russians with them. If someone built a missile defense system first, they could very well fling it in someone's face, and though no missiles were launched Cold War, who's to say it won't happen this time? Right now with our threats of you bomb us and we bomb you are all the defense we need, and a defense system would just out right imbalance that.

Another major flaw in my opponents argument, is that he says, "Eventually if every nation had a missile defense system..." When he already stated, "The countries that may not be able to afford a missile defense system may not have missiles anyway and there maybe some that do." This sentence is quite difficult to make out, but essentially my opponent contradicts himself again. He says not all countries have to get one, and then states that when all countries get one there will be no need for missiles.

Finally, my opponent agreed with me; "It make sense to save money and in my opinion we can do that by spending less in the military budget to things the military may not need anymore." We don't need missiles, so instead of making a missile defense system that could cost millions to billions of dollars; Let's make all the heavy missile carrying countries disarm their missiles. This would be a better plan than his and would save a lot of money. My opponent wants to keep building newer and newer weapons and defenses, when countries already have something that works. The we don't bomb you and you don't bomb us is the only missile defense system most countries need. All in all, when you really think about it, the countries that could benefit from these systems the most are countries who can't build missiles, and what would make them able to build a defense system as well?

I urge you all to vote for the con side. I have proven that my opponent has contradicted himself twice, and then he agreed with me. His own contradictions make his whole argument fall apart, it is clear to me that his plan, as he has described it, is a misfire.
Debate Round No. 2
1Historygenius

Pro

The reasons these V2 rockets were built as well as the nuclear bombs was to save lives but that does not mean they still killed. The nuclear bombs killed 246,000 lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki all together. When you put a missile defense system that can even save more lives because their intentions are to stop missiles from even causing any damage.

A missile defense system would ensure the lives of millions of people that could be living in a country. Whoever gets the missile defense system first may not want war and second why would they go to war? The fact is that you can not predict what will happen when a nation gets a missile defense system because A) you do not know which country is is and B) you need to provide an example on why they would go to war. Some nations that you may see as ones that may go to war may actually not and C) how are you so sure that country would not want to share its technology to make the world safer? How will other countries react to this? There are a lot of things at stake when going to war.

You have to remember that I said "Eventually, if every country had a missile defense system...". I said IF not when if it is their choice IF they want one.

I want to get rid of missiles and the best way to that is to make missiles look obsolete by making something that can stop them. Missiles are one of the best weapons today that can fire on an enemy but when it is impossible to fire on that enemy due to a missile defense system then your plan to use missiles has failed. Because missiles are so important today no country would want to get rid of their missiles. The only way to make countries to stop using missiles is by making something that can stop them. This has been a routine that has happened through history. Armor was used to stop sword from hitting areas of your body, muskets were used to penetrate armor, rifles were used to shoot further than muskets, and one shot rifles were eventually replaced by repeating ones. Cavalry was the new fast moving force of the day, and then pikes as well as square formations caused forced to repel cavalry attacks, then the car comes and the tank too. History has shown that unless there is something better that can stop other things (like armor being used to stop swords from hitting areas) then they would mainly keep the same weapon. When something comes that can stop rockets then the world would finally see that there maybe no need for rockets anymore.
http://inventors.about.com...
http://www.history.com...
Rusho

Con

My opponent has proven my own point even further.

First yet another contradiction; "The nuclear bombs killed 246,000 lives at Hiroshima and Nagasaki all together. When you put a missile defense system that can even save more lives because their intentions are to stop missiles from even causing any damage." When he has said, "No I am not addressing the nuclear missiles which can kill far more but rather average missiles." So, the missile defences could save a quarter of a million lives from nuclear bombs, but they can't? Let's say he didn't just contradict himself, and the missile defense systems did protect versus nuclear bombs. As far as I'm aware nuclear bombs do most there damage in radiation. As your own source says, "tens of thousands more would later die of radiation exposure." ( http://www.history.com... ) Does a satellite lazer magically get rid of the nuclear waste, or does the ocean and world's water supply get radiated? Say the radiation was cleaned up before it cause to much damage, how much would that cost?

I would like to thanking my opponent for further proving my own point. My opponent stated, "The fact is that you can not predict what will happen when a nation gets a missile defense system..." Precisely, You cannot predict what any country will do. So, why risk warfare? What we have now works absolutely fine, the we won't bomb you, because if we do you'll bomb us. Do I need to provide examples of why people go to war? Why has almost any war been fought? War is fought for personal gain, money, freedom, and etc. My point is simply this, the countries that could afford this system, such as the satellite you suggested, and we all know from general knowledge that that is not cheap, would not really need it because they have missiles. The countries getting bombed by tomahawks and the like, are poor countries who can't afford missiles, not to mention the more expensive alternative that you would suggest. There is a lot at stake while going to war, let's prevent that war by not changing any variables.

I would also like to address my opponent last and final support of his argument. My opponent said, "I want to get rid of missiles and the best way to that is to make missiles look obsolete by making something that can stop them." How does he know this as a fact? How will missiles become obsolete? New technology is invented every day, I'm sure people will be able to invent missiles that are undetectable by these defense systems. Now, that is purely speculation, but let's look at what the defense system brings to the table. Someone has to operate the system, how would they practice the operation of it, video simulation? Let's face it, that's nothing like the real thing. Now, say a country was hell bent on destroying another one, how will this system defend against ten missiles flying through the air simultaneously? Sure, maybe you will get a few of them, but the damage will be done. Plus, if a country knew you had no missiles to retaliate with, who is to stop them? They could easily send over some jets, send them into the enemy country and take out the operation centers for the defense system, then bomb whatever they wish. That is speculation as well, but it does present a prudent point. Countries need to be able to threaten other countries to stay safe, it is as simple as that.

To further prove my point of the advancement of missiles to get around these defense systems, I will use my opponents argument. My opponent stated, "This has been a routine that has happened through history. Armor was used to stop sword from hitting areas of your body, muskets were used to penetrate armor, rifles were used to shoot further than muskets, and one shot rifles were eventually replaced by repeating ones. Cavalry was the new fast moving force of the day, and then pikes as well as square formations caused forced to repel cavalry attacks, then the car comes and the tank too." I apologize for the long quote, but I feel it is necessary. What my opponent has said here, is not that defense systems stop weapons, but force them to become more advanced, and deadlier still. A sword was replaced by a musket, out of necessity to penetrate armor. So, my opponent wishes to build a very advanced form of armor so that a more deadly weapon can be made?

I urge you all to vote for the con side. I have disproven my opponent's arguments, and turned most of them in favor of the con side. My opponent has failed to disprove any of my arguments, and they all stand. Please vote con, before the world makes its next musket.
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Hey people voted!
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Nuclear missiles are also money wasters and by putting up something that can stop them they would become even more useless and eventually eliminated by something that saves lives instead of causing death. Without it up, nuclear missiles will be around for a long time giving them even more possibility to be used.
Posted by Rusho 5 years ago
Rusho
Pro is arguing that basically, missile defense systems save lives. I am going off the fact that they can be extremely dangerous, money wasters, and useless. Disabling the missiles was a different form of defense; basically, instead of wasting money on defense systems, throwing them out would be safer and cheaper. It is also to outline the obscurities of his argument. My resolution was basically that these defense systems would cause more harm than good.
Posted by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
I think the reason no one is voting on this debate is because no one can figure out what it was about. Is Pro arguing that the US should develop an MDS? That all countries should develop an MDS? That an MDS would end the use of all missiles? Where did Cons R2 "plan" to disable all the missiles in the world come from, and what was the point of bringing it up? What was the resolution here?
Posted by Rusho 5 years ago
Rusho
yeah, at this point I'm really discouraged to do another debate, as this was my first, I mean if no one cares enough to read it and vote, why should I even bother... The whole point of debating is to get the satisfaction of winning, I minus well just go troll the Internet instead of actually making intelligent posts.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Well people really did not care about this debate I guess.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
Ok!
Posted by Rusho 5 years ago
Rusho
writing a history paper at this moment, will not be able to reply with my argument until late tomorrow evening or the next day, just a heads up it may take some time. Do not worry I will be replying, just not as soon.
Posted by Rusho 5 years ago
Rusho
I look forward to round 2.
Posted by 1Historygenius 5 years ago
1Historygenius
I am from the United States but in my opinion every country should be protected from missiles.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
1HistorygeniusRushoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter 16k and sh on the conduct, it already got countered by f16. Pro had more sources
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
1HistorygeniusRushoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:24 
Reasons for voting decision: yeah countering knkles PM thing, and arguments con because he was more detailed. sources pro.
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 4 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
1HistorygeniusRushoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Personally, Rusho did better, and the conduct is to act against lordknuckle for giving away conduct marks due to what happened outside a debate.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 5 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
1HistorygeniusRushoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: A very poor quality debate. Neither side debated based on facts or used sources effectively. 1 point conduct vote to Con to cancel out the previous vote which was based on events that happened outside of the debate.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 5 years ago
Lordknukle
1HistorygeniusRushoTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Close debate but pro did a better job. Conduct for insulting me in a PM and in the forums. Have a nice day :)