The Instigator
lannan13
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
thephfactor
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Resolved: The United States of America needs a Missle Defense System.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
thephfactor
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/4/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 22546
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

lannan13

Pro

This will be a Missle Defense System debate to wether the U.S. needs it or not.
1st rounds is for acceptance and defining terms.
Rules:
No FF
No cussing
No slandering
Now I shall define words.
United States of America - North American republic containing 50 states - 48 conterminous states in North America plus Alaska in northwest North America and the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific Ocean; achieved independence in 1776 http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

needs- Of necessity; necessarily http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
thephfactor

Con

I accept the terms of lannan13 and look forward to a good debate.
Debate Round No. 1
lannan13

Pro

(Just an FYI, I'll have my case in a policy debate, form so it's not plagerism)

Inherency

----DOD has done nothing to prepare for this

Wreitz 08(Ronald Wreitz, Ph. D, written Oct. 20, 2008,http://www.heritage.org..., accessed Nov. 1, 2011, AL)

Comprehensive threat assessment and scenario planning for EMP attacks remain underdeveloped. This inaction is in the face of warnings, such as the one in the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review(QDR)which stated clearly that the "expanded reli­ance on sophisticated electronic technologies by the United States, its allies and partners increases their vulnerability to the destructive effects of electro­magnetic pulse (EMP). Yet, the Department of Defense has not implemented the QDR's proposed EMP Action PlanMeanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has focused on other threats, such as from conventional explosive devices or chlorine bombs, concluding that EMP is simply not a large enough threat for its attention.

----Current defense system ineffective

Kennedy 08(Brian Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, wrote Nov. 23, 2008, http://online.wsj.com..., accessed Oct. 31, 2011, AL)

As severe as the global financial crisis now is, it does not pose an existential threat to the U.S. Through fits and starts we will sort out the best way to revive the country's economic engine. Mistakes can be tolerated, however painful. The same may not be true with matters of national security Although President George W. Bush has accomplished more in the way of missile defense than his predecessors -- including Ronald Reagan -- he will leave office with only a rudimentary system designed to stop a handful of North Korean missiles launched at our West Coast. Barack Obama will become commander in chief of a country essentially undefended against Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched terrorist missiles. This is not acceptable.

----Even one day of EMP costs 7-10 Billion dollars

Wreitz 08 (Ronald Wreitz, Ph. D, written Oct. 20, 2008, http://www.heritage.org..., accessed Nov. 1, 2011, AL)

The day of the blackout brought massive traffic jams and gridlock when people tried to drive home without the aid of traffic lights. Additional transpor­tation problems arose when railways, airlines, gas stations, and oil refineries also halted operations. Phone lines were overwhelmed due to the high vol­ume of calls, while many radio and television sta­tions went off the air. Overall, the blackout-which lasted only one day-cost $7 billion to $10 billion in spoiled food, lost production, overtime wages, and other related expenses inflicted on more than one-seventh of the U.S. population

----Cost is cheap and duable in today’s econ.

Harvey 09( Cole Harvey,writer, written on April 09, http://www.armscontrol.org..., accessed Nov. 1, 2011, AL)

The report notes that, for the sixth year in a row, GAO was unable to assess conclusively the total cost of ballistic missile defense programs because the MDA does not provide baseline budget numbers as other major defense programs do. Nevertheless, by reviewing individual contracts, GAO estimates that MDA contractors overran budgeted costs by $152.4 million in fiscal year 2008. The Space Tracking and Surveillance System (STSS), a proposed group of satellites intended to monitor the globe for missile launches, exceeded its budget the most of the 14 contracts GAO examined. STSS costs exceeded budget projections by $87.9 million in fiscal year 2008, accounting for more than one-half of the MDA's red ink. The report estimates that, by the time all 14 contracts are completed, cumulative costs will exceed their budget projections by at least $2 billion and possibly as much as $3 billion.

----Great to protect against arms race

Stephen Peter Rosen 03 (PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government, Harvard University) Spring 2003 “An Empire, If you Can Keep It,” The National Interest, , LN Academic, UK: Fisher

Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East, Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others. Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not put the end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the alternatives are that much more attractive.


Solvency 2/2

----Space Based Wepons have been tested and work well.

Space special wepon project monitor 11 (written Dec. 15, 2011, http://www.fas.org..., accessed Dec. 15, 2011, AL)

The ability to control a beam was demonstrated at low power under the Large Optics Demonstration Experiment (LODE)in 1987. The current high power beam control technology is now being integrated with the Alpha laser and the LAMP mirror in a high power ground demonstration of the entire high energy laser weapon element. This is known as the Alpha-LAMP Integration (ALI) program It is estimated that a SBW can negate 94% of all missile threats in most theater threat scenarios.

----SBLs can make advances in technology.

Space special wepon project monitor 11 (written Dec. 15, 2011, http://www.fas.org..., accessed Dec. 15, 2011, AL)

The SBL program could develop the technology to provide the U.S. with an advanced BMD system for both theater and national missile defense. BMDO believes that an SBL system has the potential to make other contributions to U.S. security and world security as a whole, such as inducing potential aggressors to abandon ballistic missile programs by rendering them useless. Failing that, BMDO believes that the creation of such a universal defense system would provide the impetus for other nations to expand their security agreements with the United States, bringing them under a U. S. sponsored missile defense umbrella.

thephfactor

Con


Although I hadn't expected a Policy debate format, I will go ahead and respond in the same way.

First off, I would like to clarify the Pro definition of "needs". Although Pro brought up a definition, it was rather vague in that it defined it as "Of Necessity, or necessarily". Which of course requires a definition of Necessity.

Necessity: an imperative requirement or need for something. (dictionary.com)

So from this definition of Necessity, you can see that Pro must prove that there is an imperative requirement for a missile defense system. Please keep that in mind as I address the Pro points and progress with the debate.

Moving on:

Under Inherency 1, I would like my opponent to clarify exactly what "this" is in his tagline. The evidence seems to suggest the mysterious "this" is an EMP attack. But it is not clear and I would like him to clarify this, or we don't know what point he is trying to make.

Inh 2
This piece of evidence basically says that in case of an Russian, Chinese, Iranian or ship-launched attack, the US would be essentially undefended. This begs the question: "Are we in danger of an attack from Russia, China, Iran, or a ship-based attack?" There is no reason to believe, and the Pro has not brought any evidence in favor of, the affirmative.

Moving down to Solvency...

Solvency 1 & 2

These pieces of evidence are grouped as "Solvency". But they don't solve for anything. For example, the Pro brought up under Inherency that EMP attacks are expensive. But nowhere in his "Solvency" evidence does it say that implementing a Space based weapons system would prevent EMP attacks. I already pointed out that the Inherency 2 point is not really a danger. Even if, theoretically, the Space-based system could prevent an attack from one of these countries, since there's no evidence of probability from the Pro, it's not Solvency by any stretch of the imagination. It's an advantage.

But the Pro needs more than advantages to win this debate. They need to demonstrate a need. They have resolved that "The United States of America needs a Missle Defense System". They need to prove that the US really needs this system, which means proving real harms, and proving real solvency. The Pro hasn't brought anything like that into today's debate round. As the case stands now, Con wins because the Pro can't demonstrate a need, which is absolutely essential for Pro.

I would like to bring some evidence of my own into today's debate under Inherency:

(Ground-based) Missile defense systems a high-priced failure.
This is from an article by Frida Berrigan and William D. Hartung, writing for the Institute of Policy Studies, July 14, 2006, (http://www.fpif.org...)

"Missile defense rarely makes front-page news. But as the government throws more and more money at this wasteful and unnecessary program, it deserves scrutiny. Spending on ballistic missile programs has doubled during the Bush presidency. Yet the system remains a high-priced failure. The last three tests of the system's ground-based element failed. In two, the interceptor missile didn't even make it out of the launch silo."

Space-based missile defense systems unnecessary, expensive
The CATO Institute, "CATO Handbook for Congress", 2003, (http://www.cato.org...)

"[Congress should] eschew grandiose sea- and space-based missile defenses—which are unnecessary, expensive ‘‘international’’ systemsdesigned to protect wealthy U.S. allies and friends and providea robust shield for unneeded U.S. interventions overseas;"
The evidence is clear: The United States does not need a Missile Defense System.
Debate Round No. 2
lannan13

Pro

(sorry wasn't able to post all of my case, ran out of room.)

----U.S. defense can only defend certain point.

Lambkins 07( writer, written march 07, http://www.spacedebate.org..., accessed Oct. 31, 2011, AL)

Conversely, ground interceptors that are near the target can defend only a small area, but they can potentially protect that point from launches anywhere in the world. Yet it is simply unaffordable to do a point defense for every place you want to defend in the United States, every place that U.S. forces go, or everywhere that our allies are. The ability to do area defense - to defend against multiple launch points as opposed to doing point defense of a very limited area - is fundamental to successful missile defense.


We’ll be using NASA and the DOT.
We will reallocate $170 million from NASA’s existing budget by taking $100 million from the exploration research and development department, $43 million from the education fund, and $27 million from the space technology fund.
This will be enforced through normal means.
We reserve the right to fiat and define all terms.

Advantage 1: Areospace

____. The Aerospace industry will grow in the Status Quo – In fact, the U.S. markets are stimulating global growth now.

iStockAnalyst 2010 (iStockAnalyst forecasts market growth in economic sectors. December 13th, 2010, “Aerospace Industry to Grow Faster on Asian Growth”, http://www.istockanalyst.com...)

During the financial-crisis of 2008, Aerospace industry was the hit hard sector. However, it has recovered and now growing at a faster rate. According to a report, the general aerospace and defense market is forecasted to register a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of over 5 percent during 2011 - 2013.The Global Aerospace industry has witnessed an impressive growth in the last few years, with civil aviation segment emerging over commercial aviation segment as the biggest contributor towards the growth of the industry. The USand European countries are the dominant markets for the aerospace industry and are acting as catalyst for the overall industry growth.

____. The Aerospace industry will grow in 2011

AMD 2011(Aerospace Manufacturing & Design Magazine “Positive predictions for 2011”, FEBRUARY 2011, http://www.onlineamd.com...)

What is ahead for the aerospace industry in 2011 and beyond? How can small and medium sized firms plan in today’s narrow field of new weapon systems, a global economy in transition, and an ever changing challenge of new and advanced science and technology? The best way to plan is to trust your instruments, or the aerospace indicators. Based on today’s data, the gauges and instruments are clear that 2011 will be a year of growth. According to the “Aerospace Economic Report and Outlook 2010,”recently published by Embry-RiddleAeronautical University(Barr et. al.), major OEMs and primeslike Boeing, Lockheed Martin, EADS, and others forecast the near and long term future of aerospace manufacturing on the growth ofGross Domestic Product (GDP). The underlying principal is that the economy changes first, either up or down, and then the industry simply follows suit. Tracking the GDP, one clearly sees the trend of the economy.

____. The Aerospace Sector is growing – Elbit Systems is the top growing aerospace market businesses and grew 62%

CNN Money 2010 (This was a table and I’m sorry. Here’s the table below it. “100 fastest-growing companies”, Pre-March 2010, http://money.cnn.com...)

Company Elbit Systems Fastest-growing rank 56 $ millions (past 4 qtrs.) 2,793.7% growth (3 yr. annual rate) 23$ millions (past 4 qtrs.) $234.6 % growth (3 yr. annual rate) 62.




Now on to the attack by my opponet.

Under Inherency 1, I would like my opponent to clarify exactly what "this" is in his tagline. The evidence seems to suggest the mysterious "this" is an EMP attack. But it is not clear and I would like him to clarify this, or we don't know what point he is trying to make.

By this I'm saying that DOD hasn't done anything to prepare for an EMP strike against the U.S. True we have the world's strongest military but we're wide open for an attack. Not only are we wide open but our troops are spread out across the globe from Japan to Austriala and the middle east.


This begs the question: "Are we in danger of an attack from Russia, China, Iran, or a ship-based attack?" There is no reason to believe, and the Pro has not brought any evidence in favor of, the affirmative.

This was a senario we can be attacked from a terrorist group even in todays world we can be hit by anyone anytime from anywhere.

Solvency

Just an FYI my solvency began at my Harvey 09 card for some reason it didn't copy and paste. Con states he has the same refute for these as the other so this didn't need to be touched.


This begs the question: "Are we in danger of an attack from Russia, China, Iran, or a ship-based attack?" There is no reason to believe, and the Pro has not brought any evidence in favor of, the affirmative.

Like I said at the top I ran out of room to put my advantages.

GBMDS

Card at top of page. The only MDS we have are in Alaska and California. We have nothing to cover us in the east coast area.

SBMDS Expensive
Your card saying it is expensive is in 03 but mine in 09 is more updated so therefore we should look at mine over his.

thephfactor

Con

First off, the Pro didn't satisfactorily adress my arguments on round 2. I attacked his Inherency 2 argument by pointing out that there is no reason to believe that the US is in any real danger of an attack by any of these countries. Instead of proving his point with evidence, he merely asserted that there was danger, and mentioned a terrorist attack. In Policy debate, we can't trust the assertions of the debaters, we need evidence. My opponent failed to bring evidence supporting his assertion, so we can't trust it.

Under Solvency, the Pro didn't adress the arguments I made, and only brought up more "advantages". I'm sure you can see the problem of this. For one thing, I pointed out that he couldn't solve for the problem he brought up in Inh 1, and he didn't address it. I'd like to reiterate, if the Pro plan can't solve for it's main harms, we don't need it. And the Pro needs to demonstrate a need. Secondly, a main point of my Solvency argument was that his evidence under Solvency was actually Advantage evidence, and that it doesn't matter how many advantages the plan brings if we don't have a demonstrated need. Rather than address either of these points in his last post, my opponent simply added more advantages, which I will address later.

Under the evidence I brought up earlier, my opponent wrote limitedly.

Ground-based missile defense systems a high-priced failure.
My opponent briefly addressed this, showing evidence that seemed to say GBMDS could only cover certain, limited areas. This supports my own argument, saying that both GBMDS are high-priced (to cover a significant area) and are not the best solution. I think it is clear from both my and my opponent's evidence that we do not need a ground-based missile defense system. So the remaining option for Pro is a Space-based missile defense system.

Space-based missile defense systems unnecessary, expensive
My opponent only addressed this argument on one point: that of expense. He claimed that his evidence that supposedly said the systems were inexpensive was from a later date than my evidence, so was more reliable. However, his evidence did not say that at all. It didn't address whether or not SBMDS were expensive or not. It did say that "the MDA does not provide baseline budget numbers as other major defense programs do. Nevertheless, by reviewing individual contracts, GAO estimates that MDA contractors overran budgeted costs by $152.4 million in fiscal year 2008." Since my opponent didn't show how SBMDS are not expensive, my evidence saying they are stands tall in the debate. So we can see that these systems are, in fact expensive. And since that is true, it makes no sense to add to the 152.4 million redline, especially when I showed with the same evidence that these programs are unnecessary. And that brings me to the main argument in this evidence. The evidence specifically said that these programs were unnecessary. Although I've already shown how my expense argument holds true, it doesn't matter if it was a dollar a missile. It's still unnecessary. And the Pro needs to bring up specific evidence saying there is a real need for this, or he doesn't fulfill his resolution. It's that simple.

Now I'd like to address the new evidence brought into the round by Pro. He brought up "Advantages" that said the Aerospace industry would grow. First of all, this growth is already happening and is not a result of the affirmative plan. This is not an advantage. The evidence is very clear that this growth is already happening now, or is projected to happen under the status quo. These are essentially useless Inherency points, not Advantages.

Again, the Pro needs to prove a need. He has not done so. He hasn't shown that the US needs a missile defense system. He is not fulfilling his own resolution, or solving for his own harm. He hasn't satisfactorily addressed any of the Con points. As a result, Con should win the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
lannan13

Pro

First off, the Pro didn't satisfactorily adress my arguments on round 2. I attacked his Inherency 2 argument by pointing out that there is no reason to believe that the US is in any real danger of an attack by any of these countries. Instead of proving his point with evidence, he merely asserted that there was danger, and mentioned a terrorist attack. In Policy debate, we can't trust the assertions of the debaters, we need evidence. My opponent failed to bring evidence supporting his assertion, so we can't trust it.
We are currently putting sanctions on Iran say they don't want anymore sanctions so they fire an EMP at us. or the fact that North Korea is launching a missle over Japan. Japan and South Korea have both said they would shoot it down if it flies over their territory. If this isn't a declaration of war I don't know what is.


Ground-based missile defense systems a high-priced failure.
My opponent briefly addressed this, showing evidence that seemed to say GBMDS could only cover certain, limited areas. This supports my own argument, saying that both GBMDS are high-priced (to cover a significant area) and are not the best solution. I think it is clear from both my and my opponent's evidence that we do not need a ground-based missile defense system. So the remaining option for Pro is a Space-based missile defense system.
I said we needed a missle defense system I never specified which one.


Now I'd like to address the new evidence brought into the round by Pro. He brought up "Advantages" that said the Aerospace industry would grow. First of all, this growth is already happening and is not a result of the affirmative plan. This is not an advantage. The evidence is very clear that this growth is already happening now, or is projected to happen under the status quo. These are essentially useless Inherency points, not Advantages
Growth would double to the point were NASA would acctualy have a use.
thephfactor

Con

We are currently putting sanctions on Iran say they don't want anymore sanctions so they fire an EMP at us. or the fact that North Korea is launching a missle over Japan. Japan and South Korea have both said they would shoot it down if it flies over their territory. If this isn't a declaration of war I don't know what is.
A hypothetical situation is not evidence. The Pro needs evidence to prove there is a danger. Also, the fact that Japan and South Korea would shoot down a missile coming from North Korea would mitigate any percieved danger from North Korea, although, again, the Pro has brought no evidence that there is a danger.

I said we needed a missle defense system I never specified which one.
Correct. I've proved that both GBMDS are unnecessary, and that SBMDS are unnecessary. Is there a third option for Pro?

Growth would double to the point were NASA would acctualy have a use.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. It's not derived from evidence, and it doesn't refute my argument. Could you clarify this in your final round?

As you can see, Pro has failed to satisfactorily address my arguments. In fact, he didn't even bring up my argument that SBMDS are unnecessary in the 4th round. He has consistently failed to prove a need for any type of missile defense system, and I've already shown that the two systems he mentions are unnecessary. Currently, Pro does not uphold his resolution, and loses the debate.
Debate Round No. 4
lannan13

Pro

Nuclear missles= danger, Iran developing missles. Iran allied with Pakistan and NK, They don't like us= war. http://www.brecorder.com... is proof NK is launching a missle over Japan.


3. NASA currently isn't doing anything.
thephfactor

Con

First of all, the link didn't work. Also, I continually remind you that assertions and hypothetical situations are no substitute for proof. Pro has continually failed to bring any evidence supporting his assertions into the round. In Policy debate, the debaters must prove everything instrumental to their case with evidence. This is called the burden of proof. Since Pro depends on proving a need to uphold his resolution, he has the burden of proof to provide evidence to support his arguments.

Pro has continually failed to do this.

I've shown how many of Pro's arguments and evidence are not relavent to the debate, and that both Ground-based and Space-based missile defense systems are unnecessary.

But the biggest issue for voters is that the Pro has failed to prove a need, and thus fails to uphold his own resolution. In Policy debate, this alone merits a Con ballot, besides the fact that I've shown with evidence that the two systems mentioned in this debate are unnecessary. So with that, I would like to thank lannan13 for a fun debate and close by urging you to vote Con. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by baggins 5 years ago
baggins
lannan13thephfactorTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to justify the US need for missile defense.