418 Ss Nmd 2ac

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

1

NMD 2AC 1. Their link is awful- it says that Poland wants us to invest in the Polish air force. The U.S. changing the type of fuel it uses won’t be traded for NMD. 2. We control Uniqueness- threats to the United states are High- missile defense prevents these attacks INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY 11/7/2007 “Missile Defense Before It's Too Late” http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=27933152 9327444&secure=770

Is it possible that Democrats are still skeptical that a missile shield will actually work? If so, evidence that it will has reached the point that it can no longer be denied. Or is their lack of support simply due to a reflexive opposition to the military and toward symbols of what they perceive to be projections of U.S. power? Either way, their actions could leave us vulnerable to nuclear attack from a rogue nation such as Iran (see editorial at left) or North Korea, which is supposedly backing down on its nuclear weapons program but will remain a threat as long as its communist regime stays in place. The risk doesn't end, however, with those two legs of the Axis of Evil, both of which are on the State Department's list of terrorist states. Nuclear-armed Pakistan is now an ally, yet it could become an enemy depending on how its internal turmoil is resolved. Both al-Qaida and the Taliban have powerful bases in the region. What if the Musharraf government one day falls and one of those terrorist groups suddenly has the keys to a nuclear arsenal? It's just as plausible that the threat could come from any of the Mideast nations that want to keep up with Iran's nuclear program. With Egypt making its announcement last week, there are now 13 countries in the region that have in the last year said they want nuclear power. They can claim, as Iran has, that they want it merely for energy. But the step from nuclear power to nuclear weapons is not that far. Given the volatility of the region, it would be wise to make sure that all precautions — and that includes a missile defense — are taken. Even Russia, with its extensive nuclear weaponry, could be a threat. President Vladimir Putin has raised objections to America's allying with former Soviet satellites to place U.S. missile defense components in their countries. This, warns Putin in language reminiscent of the Cold War, will turn Europe into a "powder keg." For his part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has declared: "The arms race is starting again." Are congressional Democrats prepared to leave us only partly protected in a world where nuclear arms might soon begin to spread like a Southern California wildfire? Some have looked at the Democrats' actions and said, emphatically, yes. "Their aim," Heritage Foundation defense analyst Baker Spring said earlier this year, "is to force the U.S. to adopt a position that prohibits it from developing — much less deploying — missile defense interceptors in space under any circumstance and for all time." Since they hold the majority in Congress and might also take the White House next year, Democrats owe the nation more forward thinking on matters of national security. Missile defense is not a mere political issue to be used to score points. It's at the core of a real life-and-death struggle.

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

2

3. Poland wants military aid as the quid pro quo -- plan would not affect that RIA Novosti August 1, 2008 . Tusk said then: "We need firm guarantees from Washington that the deployment of a missile defense base will enhance Poland's security," but that on this issue "we did not achieve a result that would be satisfactory to Poland."In long-running negotiations with the U.S., Warsaw has been pushing Washington to spend billions of dollars improving Poland's air defenses in exchange for allowing the deployment of the interceptor missiles.

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

3

NMD 2AC 4. Turn - Iran makes European missile defense necessary Space & Missile Defense Report 8/4/08 Iran refused to abandon its illicit nuclear materials production program, with an obstinate statement issued by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, according to the International Herald Tribune. Fears that Iran might build nuclear weapons and launch them on missiles aimed at Europe or the United States are the driving force behind plans for a European Missile Defense system that would be installed in the Czech Republic and Poland, based on the U.S. Ground-based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska and California. Ahmadinejad said Iran won't give up a single iota of its nuclear rights, even as a Saturday deadline arrived for Iran to abandon the production program or suffer sanctions in addition to those already in place. Western leaders fear that Iran will use the nuclear materials to build nuclear weapons to mount atop its ever longer-range missiles, rather than to fuel nuclear power plants as Iran claims.

5. Cooperation with Russia avoids impact John C. Rood, Acting Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Washington, DC March 31, 2008, State Department Documents and Publications The negotiations we have held with Poland and the Czech Republic have brought about strong complaints by Russia, including reprehensible threats to target missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic. In response, the Administration has sought to allay Russian concerns, by engaging in the most extensive and far-reaching dialogue of its kind. In this process, we have learned a great deal about Russia's concerns, including the fact that Russia's primary concern is that these facilities would be placed in NATO states that formerly were part of the Warsaw Pact. The Russians have explained that if these missile defense facilities were located elsewhere in Europe that they would not be concerned. As part of this dialogue, the United States has also offered far-reaching proposals on missile defense cooperation. Our thought has been that missile defense cooperation is the best confidence building measure we could offer, which is why last April the U.S. offered to cooperate with Russia across the full spectrum of missile defense activities. Since then, we have gone further, offering the prospect of a joint regional missile defense architecture between Russia, the United States, and NATO.

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

4

NMD 2AC 6. Missile defense is key to avoid nuclear miscalculation and war in Europe and the Middle East. Space & Missile Defense Report 4/21, 2008 Monday “Missile Defense Prevents War” L/N Missile Defense Makes War Less Likely, Rather Than Precipitating Conflict: General Another Minuteman Overhaul May Be Needed U.S. moves to form a multi-layered ballistic missile defense (BMD) shield help to avert conflict, much as the vast U.S. arsenal of nuclear weapons dissuades any who otherwise would attack American targets, a general said. His comments counter statements of Russian leaders, who allege that U.S. plans to emplace a Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system in Europe are an offensive threat aimed at Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Maj. Gen. Roger W. Burg, commander of the 20th Air Force at Warren Air Force Base, Wyo., made his comments during a breakfast seminar of the National Defense University Foundation at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington. Burg said he sees the American array of ICBMs tipped with nuclear weapons as a force for peace, because no one would dare attack the United States and elicit a devastating nuclear retaliation. Similarly, he said U.S. development of a ballistic missile defense shield should deter enemies from attacking the United States, its allies or interests, and perhaps make enemies back away entirely from developing weapons of mass destruction. On another point, Burg said the current fleet of Minuteman ICBMs is about 80 percent through a recapitalization plan to improve their capabilities, but warned that Congress will have to fund a further refurbishment of the ICBM fleet if the Minuteman is to be pushed from its 2020 design life limit to 2030. Separately, a similar view on missile defense as a facilitator of peace came from the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance (MDAA). According to MDAA, the creation of a U.S. missile defense shield provides any president of the United States with an option other that mutual assured destruction attacks, if an enemy launches a missile attack on American targets. Missile defense systems can avert nuclear war, according to the MDAA. "With the continued movement of Iran in its role in Iraq as well as its doubling of centrifuges for enrichment of uranium which was displayed last week in Washington D.C. and Tehran, our nation has limited options, of which military action is one," according to MDAA. Some have said that the United States should strike Iranian nuclear production targets, annihilating them before the missiles-wielding Middle Eastern nation gains the power to use nuclear blackmail against other Middle Eastern nations, European countries or the United States. "We believe that the advent of deployed missile defense systems on the borders and beyond Iran will give our nation another option that it currently does not have, so that we can prevent future conflict and protect our men and women of the armed forces," according to MDAA. That referred to those plans for a GMD defense shield based in the Czech Republic (radar) and Poland (interceptors in silos). "Most important is the international mandate and cooperative efforts being done today that was reflected by the NATO endorsement of 26 nations for missile defense to protect, deter and dissuade the threat from Iran," MDAA asserted. Russia had pressured NATO in vain, demanding that it not endorse the U.S. GMD plan. But now, with the United

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

States on the verge of gaining Czech and Polish permission to base the GMD system there, Russia has turned more conciliatory. "It is also very significant that the country that was most opposed to missile defense has made a change on its position, as Russia is now working with the United States on a strategic framework on missile defense," the MDAA observed

5

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

6

NMD 2AC 7. Proliferation inevitable absent a successful missile defense to deter their development and use Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering, October 2007, is director of the United States Missile Defense Agency, ARMS CONTROL TODAY, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_10/Obering.asp

The last two major conflicts in southwest Asia involving U.S. armed forces featured several short-range ballistic missile launches by Iraq, demonstrating a growing reliance by our adversaries on standoff strike capabilities. With ballistic missiles and missile technologies widely available on the global market, we expect an acceleration of ballistic missile and nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons proliferation. North Korea and Iran, in particular, continue investments in ballistic missiles, which are an increasingly attractive means of delivering a conventional or mass destruction payload. These two governments see tremendous value in developing more capable, more lethal missiles, which may be used to blackmail or deter the United States or its allies from defending their interests. Pyongyang and Tehran are striving to acquire longer-range ballistic missiles that will travel far beyond their borders, and they continue to rely on and receive foreign assistance for these development efforts. The U.S. intelligence community estimates that Iran could have a longrange ballistic missile capable of reaching the United States by 2015. North Korea and Iran

flew medium-range missiles in several demonstrations this past year. North Korea demonstrated improvements in targeting accuracy and validated the operational status of its short-range ballistic missile force. The July 2006 launches marked the highest number of missiles ever fired by North Korea in a 24-hour period.[2] In addition, as part of these launches, North Korea attempted to fly the Taepo Dong-2, which is projected to have an intercontinental range. Although North Korea’s long-range demonstration failed shortly after launch, there are signs that Pyongyang has not lost interest in developing a long-range ballistic missile capability. Importantly, Iran is following a similar development and acquisition pattern, using technologies and lessons learned from shorter-range systems to develop longer-range systems. North Korea has demonstrated its capability to develop a nuclear device. When you combine this with its efforts to develop and operationalize ballistic missiles, it is not unreasonable to assume that North Korea is looking at ways to prepare a nuclear payload for missile delivery. We also need to be concerned about North Korea’s rather significant trade relationship with Iran. Iran is a concern, given Tehran’s growing involvement in nuclear enrichment, which could provide the fissile material for nuclear bombs. We must take this trend toward weapons proliferation seriously. For many years, the international community and the United States have tried to limit the proliferation of these missiles using arms control measures, both positive and negative incentives, with some success, but the spread of these weapons continues. A major factor in this proliferation is the value countries place on these weapons, precisely because historically there has been no defense against them. Without a defense

against these weapons, they will continue to be valuable as a means to coerce or intimidate the United States and our allies and friends around the world. In addition, our adversaries are looking for ways to make their offensive forces more survivable using dispersal methods, concealment techniques, and deeply buried storage sites and command posts as well as tunnels to protect operational sites. In other words, reliance on preemption to deter an adversary’s use of nuclear ballistic missiles or retaliatory operations to destroy offensive assets after a devastating attack on our cities is increasingly becoming a high-risk approach to ensuring our defense. Although deterrence will always play an important part in U.S. defense strategy, robust counters to enemy ballistic missiles must include effective missile defenses.

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

7

b. Proliferation causes extinction Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of the Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of the Institute for Defense Analysis, SURVIVAL, Fall,2002, p. 87-90 In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear 'six-shooters' on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations.

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

8

NMD 2AC 8. Ukraine makes US - Russia not unique Svitlana Korenovska, THE WASHINGTON TIMES July 31, 2008 The Washington Times Crimea, the peninsula immortalized in the mid-19th-century war pitting Britain and France against Russia, is again at the center of a growing dispute between Moscow and the West. At issue is whether there is enough room, good will or both for naval fleets from NATO and Russia to share the Black Sea. Russia wants its fleet to remain headquartered in Sevastopol beyond May 2017, when its $93-million-a-year lease from Ukraine is set to expire. Ukraine, which hopes to join NATO within the next decade - a move adamantly opposed by Moscow - wants the Russian navy out of its country before the lease expires. Predictably, the issue surfaces at least once each year - as it did Sunday, when Russia celebrated its Navy Day by firing a salute across Sevastopol's harbor, where Ukrainian battleships anchor beside their Russian counterparts like scowling next-door neighbors. "Russia has never made a secret of its desire to retain its presence in Sevastopol after 2017," said Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, commander of the Russian navy. "After all, it is a natural basing area that has evolved historically," the admiral said, according to the RIA Novosti news agency. A few days earlier, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko told Russia to begin preparing without delay for its withdrawal by 2017. "The start of negotiations on the removal of Russia's Black Sea fleet from Ukrainian territory should be included in the agenda of our relations," he said during a press conference last week. The fleet issue has lately roiled a contentious relationship between the two neighbors that goes back centuries. Russia's Catherine the Great annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 1783. In the mid-19th century, Crimea served as the battlefield for Britain, France and other allies to fight Russia. Soviet leader Nikita S. Khrushchev gave Crimea back to Ukraine in 1954. During the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and Ukraine divvied up the Black Sea fleet. According to the 1997 Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership, Ukraine leased the Sevastopol base to Russia. The rent was applied toward Ukraine's debt to Russia, which supplies the country with natural gas. Inevitable tensions over Crimea have been exacerbated by Ukraine's attempts to join NATO. "If Ukraine joins NATO, well, the alliance gets access to a port on Russia's underbelly," said John Daly, a Eurasian foreign affairs and defense policy analyst for the Jamestown Foundation. Russian objections kept Ukraine from being offered a Membership Action Plan (MAP) - a key step to NATO membership - at the alliance's April summit in Bucharest, Romania. The decision is expected to be reviewed in December. During a visit to Ukraine last month, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer sought to defuse tensions over the possible presence of the alliance in Crimea. "It does not mean NATO bases on Ukrainian soil," he said. "It does not mean any Ukrainian soldier will be forced to take part in NATO's operations or missions. That's a myth, a big myth, and let me debunk that myth in your presence today." However, many analysts consider the basing of Russia's fleet a key issue determining whether Ukraine's bid for NATO membership will ever succeed. "Russians want to keep their fleet there to maintain the presence, which in a way is a kind of leverage to exert on Ukraine and to keep their finger on the pulse," said Steve Larrabee of Rand Corp. "As long as the [Russian] fleet is there, there's little likelihood that NATO would bring Ukraine into the alliance," he said. "Most of the members would be afraid to bring Ukraine there with the Russian presence on Ukrainian soil."

Westminster 08-09 Neha SS

9

Markian Bilynskyj, vice president of the U.S.-Ukraine Foundation, says Russia's naval presence in Ukraine is potentially more divisive than U.S. plans to set up a missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic, both NATO members. "The Black Sea fleet issue is a much more pertinent, much more substantial challenge for the Russians, since it would require a large Russian investment to relocate the fleet," Mr. Bilynskyj said. "It is a psychological question for the missile defense system, but for the Black Sea fleet, it is the whole question of jobs, military strategy, political strategy in that part of the world." Oleksandr Sushko, a director of the Center for Peace, Conversion and Foreign Policy of Ukraine, warns against underestimating the symbolic importance of Crimea to the Russian navy. "There are 46 warships of different classes, including submarines. Most of them are quite old and outdated. ... For Russia, it is more symbolic issue than military one" Still, he said, it would be hard for Russia to find an alternative to Sevastopol with its well-developed infrastructure.