Negation of Deployment of anti-missile systems is in South Korea's best interest

Resolved: Deployment of anti-missile systems is in South Korea's best interest: Negation Speech

Introduction/Hook:

Peace. Something we should strive for in our everyday lives. But how can we strive for peace if we try to install a missile system in South Korea? It will only invoke more violence and war which is what we’re trying to prevent.

We negate the resolution which states that deployment of anti-missile systems is in South Korea's best interest.

We would like to present the following definitions

1. Deployment is defined by Merriam Webster to mean to extend (a military unit) especially in width or to place in battle formation or appropriate positions deploying troops to the region
2. Anti Missile System defined by Merriam Webster to mean an anti-ballistic missile defense system designed to shoot down short, medium, and intermediate range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase by intercepting with a hit-to-kill approach.
3. Interest defined by Merriam Webster to mean the state of wanting to know or learn about something or someone

The Framework for this round should be that if we as the negative can prove that installing an anti missile system would be ineffective if placed in South Korea you should vote in negation.

Contention One. The THAAD system is defective

Our argument is the United states hasn’t been very successful in their THAAD missile system so why should South Korea spend one billion dollars installing a system that might be defective.

The evidence to support this is the THAAD system was in development for decades, since the first Gulf War in 1991, but success was slow in coming, and dozens of tests failed in the early years. Since the $40 billion program was prematurely declared operational in 2004, just three test intercepts have successfully killed a mock target in nine attempts. This is a very low percentage of success compared to other methods of defense. Another example is that the Pentagon’s independent testing office assesses that ground-based midcourse defense system only has a partial and as yet demonstrated capability to defend the homeland against small numbers of simple ICBMs and that the reliability of the system is low. The performance of the ground-based midcourse defense system in testing has actually been getting worse over time when it should be getting better. Only one of the past four intercept tests have been successful. These failures look even worse given that tests of the system occur in a controlled, scripted environment, meaning the defense is provided with information ahead of time that no real adversary would ever provide. Furthermore, three quarters of the most recent flight intercept tests have failed to hit the target; that is, three failures out of four tries since January 2010. Clearly, the system cannot be depended upon to intercept an intercontinental ballistic missile from North Korea. Also, the system has not been tested in battle, and analysts are aware that an enemy could try to counter it by sending a swarm of missiles. “That’s always a problem with any air defense system, that you can simply overwhelm it” stated David Axe, a writer who worked closely with the department of missiles. Lastly, The president has provided few details about his vision for missile defense systems. A brief reference on the defense issues page of the White House website states, “We will … develop a state-of-the-art missile defense system to protect against missile-based attacks from states like Iran and North Korea.” how can we assure that the missile systems will actually work when the President of the United States hasn’t even given us a brief outline of hs future plans for THAD.

Contention Two. The THAAD system is harmful

Our argument is that the Single THAAD system already in place in South Korea has proven to cause more harm than help.

Our evidence to support this is the single THAAD battery that recently became operational in South Korea is positioned too far south on the Korean peninsula to be able to protect Seoul. And it’s difficult to judge the ability of the battery to protect other parts of the country without knowing how many interceptors are deployed, how quickly interceptors can be reloaded, and how many incoming missiles the system can handle at one time. THAADs target medium and intermediate-range ballistic missiles on their descents, meaning they're ineffective against missiles midway through their trajectory. There also have been several protests in South Korea by people who live near the deployment site, who are afraid of becoming targets. Anti-war protesters have also clashed with riot police. Another negative is that in this situation, installing missiles might not help in defending South Korea from North Korea. While missile defense has a role to play as part of a comprehensive strategy to combat the North Korean missile threat, it’s neither as capable nor as significant as many seem to hope.Their capability against short-range ballistic missiles ranks a bit better at “fair.” Apart from the point-defense Patriot system, no systems in the current U.S. arsenal of ballistic missile defenses have been used in combat.. The missile defense system does not provide an escape route from the vulnerability of the United States allies, deployed forces, and citizens in the region to North Korea’s nuclear and conventional missiles.

We have provided 2 strong arguments which were the THAAD system is defective and harmful

For these reasons please vote in negation of this resolution