Westminster 08-09 1

Neha SS

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 2
Neha SS

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 3
Neha SS

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 4
Neha SS

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 5
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
Westminster 08-09 6
Neha SS

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 long-
range 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 7
Neha SS

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 8
Neha SS

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 9
Neha SS

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.