1ac heg Advantage Scenario 1 is Leadership

Das

AT- Politics

The suspect timing of the announcement, just as the administration was attempting to conclude negotiations with Moscow on New START and the bungled handling of the rollout raised further concerns that the administration was willing to barter away missile defense in an effort to overcome Russia's longtime opposition to U.S. missile defense. The treaty text signed by Obama contributed to conservative angst by linking offensive and defensive weapons in the preamble, a linkage that Russia had long sought but that the Obama administration insisted would not affect its future missile defense plans.

Critics contend that weapons in space would destabilize existing security relationships, precipitate an arms race, undermine U.S. foreign policy, and seed anti-American coalitions. Not only are such criticisms based on questionable assumptions,2 but they also have not persuaded the country to forgo the advantages of space weapons. The most one could say at this stage is that the American people are indifferent, noncommittal, and confused.

Yet given the efficiencies space offers, and given the unpredictable, catastrophic, and global nature of threats we expect to face, it makes sense to explore the possible benefits of taking other combat missions to space. Once the benefits of active space defense programs and operations are made plain, the support of the American people will be forthcoming.
Republicans like the plan- view it as critical to security

Brinton 10 – Turner Brunton, Washington Staff Writer, Reporter: Military Space, Missile Defense, September 27, 2011, “GOP Pledges To Fully Fund Missile Defense,” http://spacenews.com/policy/100927-gop-pledges-fund-missile-defense.html

Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Sept. 23 unveiled a new “Pledge to America” policy agenda that includes freezing nonmilitary spending and restoring missile defense funding that it says is needed to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack from Iran.

“There is real concern that while the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015, the government’s missile defense policy is not projected to cover the U.S. homeland until 2020,” the document states. “We will work to ensure critical funding is restored to protect the U.S. homeland and our allies from missile threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.”

Now of course regional defenses are necessary, but they are not sufficient, especially at the expense of defending our homeland. But because any force that we would deploy, that could theoretically be effective against a Russian missile, will offend the Russians, then this administration is bound and determined not to go forward with it. That’s very dangerous.

Obviously the administration believes this is important to its reset. I have not seen a lot of evidence that this reset has really benefitted the United States. but I guess we can argue that another time.
Kyl has pushed for the plan in the past

Nukes of Hazard 7 – Project of the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, October 8, 2007, “Senator Kyl Attempts to Sell Space-Based Missile Defense as Satellite Protection,” http://nukesofhazard.blogspot.com/2007/10/senator-kyl-attempts-to-sell-space.html

Last week, Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) attempted to amend the Senate Defense Appropriations bill to re-insert funding for the "space-based test bed" -- preliminary research into the development of three or more prototype weaponized satellites designed to intercept ballistic missiles launched from the ground. Kyl's case for funding the project was that it was a step towards the development of active defenses for American satellites against anti-satellite weapons, and that it was not necessarily a missile defense project. However, an examination of the budget request for the test bed casts serious doubt on Kyl's argument, indicating that the test bed is quite simply a missile defense program.
Kyl is the Michael Jordan of Congress

Barnes 2011 Fred, Jon Kyl’s Retirement: Major Loss for Senate Republicans, Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard, which he cofounded in 1995. From 1985 to 1995, he was senior editor and White House correspondent for the New Republic. graduated from the University of Virginia and was a Neiman Fellow at Harvard University. 2-10-11

For Republicans, losing Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona is a bit like the Chicago Bulls when Michael Jordan retired. Not only is Kyl the MVP among Republican senators, but he also makes the other senators look good and perform better. I can’t think of a member of Congress who will be missed more than Kyl when he retires in 2012.

Kyl has three great strengths. One is his knowledge of issues.  He knows more about more subjects – from missile defense to the minutiae of health care – than almost anyone else in Congress. And knowledge is power.

Another is his strategic sense. Kyl has a good grasp of how various issues fit into the mosaic of his party’s political ideology. I’ve talked to him many times and always been impressed by this. He’s a serious conservative thinker on policy.

There is something else that we should have learned from the Chinese anti‐satellite test in January of 2007. Some in Congress, many in Congress on the other side, believe that there is an artificial barrier between missile defense and space. This is the so‐called “weaponizing space” argument. But the two concepts are inseparable. They are not viewed as separate by an intercontinental ballistic missile traveling through space to reach a target. That is, clearly, a weapon in space. And, yet, when I tried to restore just $10 million for a study of the so‐called space test bed last year, colleagues raised this issue as if we were trying to start World War IV.