1ac heg Advantage Scenario 1 is Leadership
Download 1.32 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- EMP Extns AT: Deterrence Solves
EMP Extns: SMD KeyRussia/Iran developing tech for EMP attack—SMD is key to prevent that – hardens infrastructure Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis 9 – Chaired by Dr. Robert L Pfaltzgraffi Jr., Shelby Cullom Davis Professor of International Security Studies, and Dr. William R. Van Cleave Professor Emeritus at Department of Defense and Strategic Studies Missouri State University, 2009, “Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century” Independent Working Group, online: www.ifpa.org/pdf/IWG2009.pdf Notably, Russia has considered attack options that include EMP. During the May 1999 NATO air campaign against Serbia, members of the Russian Duma, meeting with U.S. congressional counterparts, reportedly speculated about the paralyzing effects of an EMP attack on the United States.89 To amplify on the Rumsfeld statement cited under "Ship-borne Scud Threat," above, Iran is reported to have tested whether its ballistic missiles, such as the Shahab-3 or the Scud, could be detonated by remote control while still in high-altitude flight. The most plausible explanation for such tests is that Iran is developing the capability to explode a high-altitude nuclear weapon that could destroy critical electronic and technological infrastructures.90 Without an effective missile defense the United States will remain vulnerable to the EMP threat given its extensive dependence on high-tech, electronic infrastructure that cannot easily be hardened to withstand such an attack. The ability to launch an incapacitating EMP strike against the United States provides enemies with an asymmetric threat that would not only inhibit U.S. military action but would also strike a severe economic and psychological blow. SMD key to avoid electromagnetic release from nuke weapons- solely relying on them while in space causes destruction to satellites 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 It is also known that enemies of the United States can put a nuclear weapon over U.S. territory using a ballistic missile. The detonation of this weapon at a high altitude could unleash an electromagnetic pulse that would wipe out satellite and airborne navigation, intelligence, and communications systems and impede any U.S. military response to the aggression. Such a pulse of energy would disable or destroy the unprotected technological infrastructure of a region or the nation. According to the emp Commission, "a regional or national recovery would be long and difficult and would seriously degrade the safety and overall viability of our nation. . . . [A]t some point the degradation of infrastructure could have irreversible effects on the country's ability to support its population." Space-based interceptors may be the only effective way to counter this threat and mitigate the effects of an electromagnetic pulse resulting from the intercept. Engaging the missile close to its launch point would release the resulting explosion of gamma rays closer to the attacker's territory. Relying on an intercept in space, in the midcourse of a missile's flight, risks damaging unprotected satellites (i.e., just about all commercial and civilian satellites), regardless of who owns them. EMP Extns AT: Deterrence SolvesTraditional deterrence fails against an EMP attack and the US is extremely vulnerable to an attack Graham and Frankel et. Al 8 - Dr. William R. Graham, Chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack, and Dr. Michael J. Frankel, Executive Director of the EMP Commission and one of the Nation’s leading experts on the effects of nuclear weapons, April 2008, “Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack,” The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from an EMP Attack, http://www.empcommission.org/docs/A2473-EMP_Commission-7MB.pdf The consequences of an EMP event should be prepared for and protected against to the extent it is reasonably possible. Cold War-style deterrence through mutual assured destruction is not likely to be an effective threat against potential protagonists that are either failing states or trans-national groups. Therefore, making preparations to manage the effects of an EMP attack, including understanding what has happened, maintaining situational awareness, having plans in place to recover, challenging and exercising those plans, and reducing vulnerabilities, is critical to reducing the consequences, and thus probability, of attack. The appropriate national-level approach should balance prevention, protection, and recovery. The Commission requested and received information from a number of Federal agencies and National Laboratories. We received information from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the President’s National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee, the National Communications System (since absorbed by the Department of Homeland Security), the Federal Reserve Board, and the Department of Homeland Security. Early in this review it became apparent that only limited EMP vulnerability testing had been accomplished for modern electronic systems and components. To partially remedy this deficit, the Commission sponsored illustrative testing of current systems and infrastructure components. The Commission’s view is that the Federal Government does not today have sufficiently robust capabilities for reliably assessing and managing EMP threats |