1ac heg Advantage Scenario 1 is Leadership
Download 1.32 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Pfaltzgraff and Van Cleave 9
- Kugler 3
- Unilateral deployment is key to maintain heg Frederick 8
- They link back to politics- international cooperation over SMD is unpopular
- Unilateral pursuit by the federal government is key to SMD
AT – InternationalUS focus on SBMD allows allies to focus on terrestrial missile defense- creates global layered system that enforces extended deterrence, Pfaltzgraff and Van Cleave 9 - Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century,” p. 108, The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf Such U.S. and allied missile defense efforts will create the foundation for a “system of systems.” And although the United States will contribute to each layer of a global missile defense system, it is likely that a logical division of labor will evolve in which the United States focuses primarily on space-based components while allies and coalition partners emphasize sea- and land-based systems. A system of systems will make it extremely difficult for an adversary to undermine U.S. crisis decision making by threats to launch ballistic missiles against either the United States, U.S. forces forward deployed, or America’s allies or coalition partners. Such an approach will reassure allies who otherwise might feel increasingly vulnerable to WMD and missile threats, including EMP attacks from ship-borne Scuds, as well as helping to dissuade states from developing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems by reinforcing U.S. extended deterrence Perm solvency- cooperation increases extended deterrence- mutual benefits- solves lack of investment Pfaltzgraff and Van Cleave 9 - Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, President, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Professor Emeritus Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century,” p. 108, The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, http://www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf However, what overseas partners often lack is the level of investment necessary to move technologies from the drawing board to actual systems that could be deployed.70 Politically, the United States could strengthen its overall relationship with its allies by cooperative programs where the United States and its allies and coalition partners share threats and interests, and can benefit mutually from pooling their resources to produce a truly global layered missile defense that includes a space-based component, thus reinforcing the extended deterrence provided by the United States to numerous allies and coalition partners. Perm solvency- Allies will co-operate on missile defense- empirically proven by multiple projects in squo Kugler 3 – Mitch Kugler, 6-30-2003, director of Strategic Initiatives for Boeing’s Missile Defense Systems business which was in charge of missile defense activities in NATO member countries, “INTERNATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE COOPERATION AND THE MTCR,” Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, http://www.npolicy.org/article_file/Presentation030630_Kugler_Missile_Defense_Cooperation_and_MTCR_TB_030211_0555.pdf In fact, international cooperation has already begun. The United States is – and been – working with Israel on the Arrow interceptor for quite some time, and enhanced co-production of the interceptor is beginning in the United States. We are working with Japan on the Standard Missile-3 and Japan has noted publicly its interest in working on a larger booster for the SM-3. We are working with Italy and Germany on the MEADS program, and with the United Kingdom on the upgrade to the early warning radar at Fylingdales. It appears that a similar upgrade, in cooperation with Denmark, will 3.also soon begin on the Thule early warning radar. The bilateral missile defense relationship also appears to be proceeding quickly with Poland, as does the multilateral missile defense work with NATO, which in a recent major move forward added the protection of population centers to its considerations for missile defense. So there is cooperation with six countries – Israel, England, Japan, Germany, Italy, and Denmark; expanding cooperation with NATO; and imminent cooperation with Poland, which is rapidly emerging as one of America’s closest allies Unilateral deployment is key to maintain heg Frederick 8--- Lorinda Frederick, Lieutenant Colonel in the USAF, “DETERRENCE AND SPACE-BASED MISSILE DEFENSE” SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES AIR UNIVERSITY, June 2008, pg 40-41 In deciding if the United States should pursue SBMD to deter ballistic missile attacks, the next administration can choose to act unilaterally or multilaterally. Based on Michael Doyle’s complex realism model, SBMD may be important enough to pursue unilaterally. However, based on an argument articulated by William H. Riker, it would be better for the United States to pursue SBMD multilaterally. Arguments for a Unilateral Approach to SBMD A realist moral philosophy holds pursuit of the national interest as an ideal guide to the formulation of state policy, especially in a dangerous international system. 3 Dangers abound internationally due to political uncertainties in states and rogue elements. World politics may be characterized by a “state of war,” not a single continuous war or constant wars, but the constant possibility of war among all states. 4 Viewing the unilateral pursuit of SBMD through the lens of complex realism, reveals areas the United States may emphasize. Unilateral pursuit of SBMD strengthens United States’ ability to protect itself without international constraints on how the US projects power and maintains freedom of action. The ability to project power lets sovereign nations defend their interests without relying on other states. SBMD could enable a global on-call missile defense capability and a timely response to rapidly evolving threats. 5 The United States has the freedom to launch SBMD assets into orbits favorable for deterring or responding to threats from hostile states. After unilaterally deploying such capabilities, the United States would be free to launch its space-based interceptors when it felt the need to project power. Landbased defenses located on foreign soil, by contrast, might have to request permission from the host nation before launching their interceptors. SBMD could therefore enhance both power projection and freedom of action. SBMD can also help the United States reduce its dependence on other states further. Augmenting the current BMD architecture with SBMD could let the nation redeploy land, sea, and air assets and reduce its dependency on overseas bases. Foreign public opinion may not support other forms of missile defense technology on their sovereign territory. 6 Political ties between the United States and other countries may be strained if there is public controversy over proposals to field land-based missile defense. Foreign populations who view interdependence as a potential vulnerability may find it unsettling to depend on the United States for their defense. SBMD could insulate the United States from the oscillating currents of foreign public opinion. Although some worry that a unilateral US approach to SBMD could start a new arms race or increase tension, the lens of complex realism questions the inevitability of these outcomes. Realism typically focuses on relative power and not absolute power, and SBMD do not have to upset the balance of relative power. They link back to politics- international cooperation over SMD is unpopular Lambakis 7 – Steven Lambakis, pHd, national security anmd international affairs analyst specializing in space power and policy studies for National Institute for Public policy, February 19, 2007, “Missile Defense From Space,” RealClearPolitics, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/missile_defense_from_space.html In August 2006, the Bush Administration issued a major, high-profile pronouncement about space arms control. The administration rightfully reminds us that arms control is not an end in itself, but rather a tool to help the nation realize its national security strategy. Officials believed the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty posed a danger to security, impeding the development, testing, and deployment of effective missile defenses to defend the country and U.S. troops, allies, and friends. When Washington withdrew from the treaty in June 2002, the restrictions on deployment of missile defenses in the air, sea, and space environments went away. We effectively got rid of the single greatest obstacle to the deployment of non-nuclear space arms, although this was not the reason cited by officials for withdrawal. It is plain that the U.S. government believes there is no need today for new outer-space arms-control agreements. There are a number of standing agreements that already sufficiently regulate military activities in outer space. And so Washington supports the existing space law regime and the development of the rule of law in that environment. Unilateral pursuit by the federal government is key to SMD Frederick 9 – Lt Col Lorinda A. Frederick, USAF, BA, Michigan State University; MBA, Regis University; Master of Military Operational Art and Science, Air Command and Staff College; Master of Airpower Art and Science, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, 9/1/09, “Deterrence and Space-Based Missile Defense,” Air and Space Power Journal, Fall 2009 Unilateral pursuit of SBMD strengthens United States’ ability to protect itself without international constraints on how the US projects power and maintains freedom of action. The ability to project power lets sovereign nations defend their interests without relying on other states. SBMD could enable a global on-call missile defense capability and a timely response to rapidly evolving threats.5 The United States has the freedom to launch SBMD assets into orbits favorable for deterring or responding to threats from hostile states. After unilaterally deploying such capabilities, the United States would be free to launch its space-based interceptors when it felt the need to project power. Land- based defenses located on foreign soil, by contrast, might have to request permission from the host nation before launching their interceptors. SBMD could therefore enhance both power projection and freedom of action. SBMD can also help the United States reduce its dependence on other states further. Augmenting the current BMD architecture with SBMD could let the nation re- deploy land, sea, and air assets and reduce its dependency on overseas bases. Foreign public opinion may not support other forms of missile defense technology on their sovereign territory.6 Political ties between the United States and other countries may be strained if there is public controversy over proposals to field land-based missile defense. Foreign populations who view interdependence as a potential vulnerability may find it unsettling to depend on the United States for their defense. SBMD could insulate the United States from the oscillating currents of foreign public opinion. Directory: files files -> Answer True False 2 points Question 2 files -> Integer programming and game theory files -> 4 Integer Programming files -> Bpa vehicle Window Repair Scenario #1 task: Procure vehicle window relacement. Objective files -> Pop Warner History files -> North Carolina Inclusion Initiative Mapping Where Children with ieps are Being Served Purpose files -> Fall 2013 Spring 2014 Program Data: Standard 1 Exhibit 4d files -> Hanban – asia society confucius classrooms network 2010 request for proposal files -> Northern England’s set-jetting locations Download 1.32 Mb. Share with your friends:
|