Trade-off da – gdi 2011 1 Earth Science D/A 2

Defense – Impact T/O – Long TF

Download 0.9 Mb.
Size0.9 Mb.
1   ...   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83

Defense – Impact T/O – Long TF

The F-35 is years from development
Air Force Magazine 10 (

On Feb. 24, Schwartz told Congress the Air Force would likely not have its first combat-ready F-35A unit available until the end of calendar 2015—a full two years later than the 2013 target date prior to the program restructuring. Air Combat Command chief Gen. William M. Fraser III said in February at AFA’s Air Warfare Symposium that ACC was actively re-examining the target date to field USAF’s initial combat-ready unit of F-35As, in light of restructuring and extension of development by 13 months. "It has got to be about combat capability—and that is crews trained, spares, supportability, all of that together," Fraser said. Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton B. Carter, meanwhile, estimated that the Navy and Air Force would actually have their aircraft operational in 2016.

Defense—Impact Turn—F-35—TNW Module

Foreign countries will have to use F-35 to maintain nuclear roles
Snyder & Zeijden 11 (Susi, Director Nuclear Disarmament Program, Wilbert Van Der, Pol Sci. MA in Intl Rel., March,

Redundancy of TNW is by far the most mentioned reason why more and more NATO countries are leaning towards or even openly calling for a change or an end to the nuclear sharing policy. Some diplomats also point to the coming increase in financial burdens for the countries involved in nuclear sharing. In the near future, four of five host countries face the replacement of the fighter aircraft assigned to nuclear tasks. The future of TNW influences, to a certain extent, the choice for replacement aircraft, and vice-versa. Only the U.S. produced F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter) plans include a modification that allows for carrying and dropping TNW. Modification costs for this so-called ‘dual capability’ come on top of the many recent cost overruns, delays and technological problems the F-35 development program is facing. If countries need to maintain their nuclear roles, they are pretty much tied to the uncertain future of the F-35.
TNW’s cause miscalc which escalates to a hot war between U.S. and Russia that culminates in extinction.

Engdahl 7 (William F., Journalist and geopolitics specialist, Global Research. ca MKB

With NATO troops creeping up to Russia’s borders on all sides, US nuclear B-52s and SSBN submarines being deployed to strategic sites on Russia’s perimeter, Washington extending its new missile shield from Greenland to the UK, to Australia, Japan and now even Poland and the Czech Republic, it should be no surprise that the Russian Government is responding. While Washington planners may have assumed that because the once-mighty Red Army was a shell of its former glory, that the state of Russian military preparedness since the end of the Cold War was laughable. But Russia never let go of its one trump card—its strategic nuclear force. During the entire economic chaos of the Yeltsin years, Russia never stopped producing state-of-the art military technology. In May 2003, some months after George Bush unilaterally ripped up the bilateral Anti-Missile Defense Treaty with Moscow, invaded Afghanistan and bombed Baghdad into subjugation, Russia’s President delivered a new message in his annual State of the Union Address to the Russian nation. Putin spoke for the first time publicly of the need to modernize Russia’s nuclear deterrent by creating new types of weapons, ‘which will ensure the defense capability of Russia and its allies in the long term.’ In response to the abrogation by the Bush Administration of the ABM Treaty, and with it Start II, Russia predictably stopped withdrawing and destroying its SS-18 MIRVed missiles. Start II had called for full phase out of multiple warhead or MIRVed missiles, by both sides by 2007. At that point Russia began to reconfigure its SS-18 MIRV missiles to extend their service life to 2016. Fully loaded SS-18 missiles had a range of 11,000 kilometers. In addition, it redeployed mobile rail-based SS-24 M1 nuclear missiles. In its 2003 Budget, the Russian government made funding of its SS-27 or Topol-M single-warhead missiles a ‘priority.’ And the Defense Ministry resumed test launches of both SS-27 and Topol-M. In December 2006, Putin told Russian journalists that deployment of the new Russian mobile Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile system was crucial for Russia’s national security. Without naming the obvious US threat, he declared, ‘Maintaining a strategic balance will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapons systems he possesses.’  It was unmistakable whom he had in mind, and it wasn’t the Al Qaeda cave-dwellers of Tora Bora. Russian Defense Minister, Sergei Ivanov, announced at the same time that the military would deploy another 69 silo-based and mobile Topol-M missile systems over the following decade. Just after his Munich speech Putin announced he had named his old KGB/FSB friend, Ivanov to be his First Deputy Prime Minister overseeing the entire military industry. The Russian Defense Ministry reported that as of January 2006, Russia possessed 927 nuclear delivery vehicles and 4,279 nuclear warheads against 1,255 and 5,966 respectively for the United States. No two other powers on the face of the earth even came close to these massive overkill capacities. This was the ultimate reason all US foreign policy, military and economic, since the end of the Cold War had covertly had as endgame the complete deconstruction of Russia as a functioning state. In April 2006, the Russian military tested the K65M-R missile, a new missile designed to penetrate US missile defense systems. It was part of testing and deploying a uniform warhead for both land and sea-based ballistic missiles. The new missile was hypersonic and capable of changing flight path. Four months earlier, Russia successfully tested its Bulava ICBM, a naval version of the Topol-M. It was launched from one of its Typhoon-class ballistic missile submarines in the White Sea, travelling a thousand miles before hitting a dummy target successfully on the Kamchatka Peninsula. The Bulava missiles were to be installed on Russian Borey-class nuclear submarines beginning 2008. During a personal inspection of the first regiment of Russian mobile Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missiles in December 2006, Putin told reporters the deployment of mobile Topol-M ICBMs were crucial for Russia’s national security, stating, ‘This is a significant step forward in improving our defense capabilities.’ ‘Maintaining a strategic balance,’ he continued, ’will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapons systems he possesses.’  Putin clearly did not have France in mind when he referred to the unnamed ‘he.’ President Putin had personally given French President Chirac a tour of one of Russia’s missile facilities that January, where Putin explained the latest Russian missile advances. ‘He knows what I am talking about,’ Putin told reporters afterwards, referring to Chirac’s grasp of the weapon’s significance.  Putin also did not have North Korea, China, Pakistan or India in mind, nor Great Britain with its ageing nuclear capacity, not even Israel. The only power surrounding Russia with weapons of mass

Defense—Impact Turn—F-35—TNW Module

destruction was its old Cold War foe--the United States. The Commander of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces, General Nikolai Solovtsov, was more explicit. Commenting on the successful test of the K65M-R at Russia’s Kapustin Yar missile test site last April, he declared that US plans for a missile defense system, ‘could upset strategic stability. The planned scale of the United States’ deployment of a…missile defense system is so considerable that the fear that it could have a negative effect on the parameters of Russia’s nuclear deterrence potential is quite justified.’ Put simply, he referred to the now open US quest for Full Spectrum Dominance—Nuclear Primacy. A new Armageddon is in the making. The unilateral military agenda of Washington has predictably provoked a major effort by Russia to defend herself. The prospects of a global nuclear conflagration, by miscalculation, increase by the day. At what point might an American President, God forbid, decide to order a pre-emptive full-scale nuclear attack on Russia to prevent Russia from rebuilding a state of mutual deterrence?  The new Armageddon is not exactly the Armageddon which George Bush’s Christian fanatics pray for as they dream of their Rapture. It is an Armageddon in which Russia and the United States would irradiate the planet and, perhaps, end human civilization in the process.  Ironically, oil, in the context of Washington’s bungled Iraq war and soaring world oil prices after 2003, has enabled Russia to begin the arduous job of rebuilding its collapsed economy and its military capacities. Putin’s Russia is no longer a begger-thy-neighbor former Superpower. It’s using its oil weapon and rebuilding its nuclear ones. Bush’s America is a hollowed-out debt-ridden economy engaged on using its last card, its vast military power to prop up the dollar and its role as world sole Superpower.

Defense—Impact T/O—F-35—NATO—No Link

No link to NATO – Countries are cutting back purchases
CBC News 11 (

And are there cheaper alternatives that can satisfy national security and foreign commitments? We still have time to reconsider. There's some wriggle room in Canada's arrangement with Lockheed Martin and delays with early production may now push delivery of the F-35s back to 2018. What's more, most NATO countries now appear to be cutting back on aircraft orders as well, so we'd be no exception. In the meantime, shouldn't we be asking ourselves whether a more modest procurement might, for example, free up more funds for our undersized navy, which every year is called out on some international or humanitarian deployment?

Defense – Impact T/O – NATO

NATO is outdated and dangerous – U.S. support prevents more effective European solutions which solve all of their impacts and leave open the option of cooperation in the future.

Barbara Conry (foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute) 10/23/1996 “Let Europeans Defend Themselves,” CATO INSTITUTE

So strong is the determination to maintain NATO that the alliance no longer seems to be viewed as a tool to protect American vital interests; in the eyes of many of its proponents, NATO itself has risen to the level of a vital interest. That approach is wrong and potentially dangerous. NATO functioned effectively during the Cold War, but it is out of place in the new environment. The conditions that led to its creation - the Soviet threat and the extraordinary coincidence of American and European interests in containing that threat - no longer exist. The Soviet Union is gone, and the concurrence in American and European interests has diminished dramatically. Conflict, not cooperation, has been the hallmark of U.S.-European relations in the post-Cold War era. Former British diplomat Jonathan Clarke makes the provocative observation, "If NATO did not already exist, it is doubtful that Washington would now invent it." Yet Washington not only refuses to "disinvent" NATO, it seems determined to reinvent it. Much of the foreign policy community is obsessed with proposals for new NATO missions and expanded NATO membership. Many of the proposals conflict with one another, and others are inherently unworkable. But their authors remain engaged in an earnest discussion of how to ensure that NATO remains relevant in the post-Cold War world. To most of NATO's champions, no suggestion is too radical for serious consideration - except the suggestion that the alliance has outlived its usefulness and should be eliminated so that an alternative arrangement for European security, one that is appropriate to the post-Cold War era, can be made. What should be done? The Western European Union, the security arm of the European Union, should replace NATO as the primary guarantor of European security. A robust WEU would have a number of advantages over NATO. WEU member states have many common security interests, in contrast to the increasingly divergent U.S. and European perspectives that already have produced serious disarray in NATO. The West European nations have ample economic resources and are capable of providing for their own defense without a U.S. subsidy. Finally, Moscow is likely to view the WEU as less provocative than a U.S.-dominated NATO - especially an enlarged version that expands to Russia's borders. Maintaining NATO as the primary European security institution is expensive and risks drawing the United States into military entanglements even when no vital American interests are at stake.Replacing NATO with the WEU would emphasize that most disputes in Central and Eastern Europe are more relevant to the European nations than to America, and that dealing with such problems is properly a European responsibility. Moreover, once the West Europeans develop a full independent military capability, the WEU would be a strong partner for the United States in the event of a future threat to mutual U.S.-European security interests.
Their claims are alarmist – collapse of NATO would not cause arms races, hurt hegemony or lead to war – Western European Union would solve their scenarios better.

Barbara Conry (foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute) 9/18/1995 "The Western European Union as NATO's Successor" CATO INSTITUTE

It is inaccurate to suggest, as NATO partisans often do, that the only alternative to Atlanticism is a return to the dark ages of the interwar era: nationalized European defenses, American isolationism, xenophobia, demagoguery, and the other evils associated with the rise of Hitler and World War II. Former U.S. senator Malcolm Wallop (R-Wyo.) warns that weakening NATO will have dire consequences. "As we have thrice before in this dreadful century, [we will] set in motion an instability that can only lead to war, shed blood, and lost treasure. Pray that we are wiser."[4] Lawrence di Rita of the Heritage Foundation similarly defends NATO as an "insurance policy" against a future world war. "If keeping 65,000 young Americans in Europe will prevent 10 times that many new headstones in Arlington cemetery once the Europeans turn on themselves again--as they have twice this century--then it's a small price to pay."[5] Such alarmism underestimates the significance of 50 years of economic and political cooperation among the West European powers and the role of pan-European institutions such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. It also ignores the fact that a viable institutional alternative to NATO--the Western European Union--already exists. With the proper resources and recognition on the part of Washington and the Europeans that an independent European defense is essential in the post-Cold War era, the WEU is a promising alternative to Atlanticism. Far from being a lame second choice to NATO or defense on the cheap, a robust WEU would be superior to NATO in many ways, better suited in the long run to protecting European and, indirectly, American interests.

Defense – Impact T/O – NATO

Transatlantic alliance just ensures U.S. involvement in overseas wars.

Barbara Conry (foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute) 9/18/1995 "The Western European Union as NATO's Successor" CATO INSTITUTE

The financial benefits to the American people of disentangling U.S.-European security are significant. More important than the economic benefits, however, are the security implications. It should not be forgotten that NATO is a military alliance--which by definition entails a risk of sending American troops to war. During the Cold War, that may have been a risk worth taking, as an attack (presumably from the Soviet Union) on Western Europe would havebeen likely to threaten America's own security. NATO's probable missions in the post-Cold War era, however, are far less likely to have an immediate and substantial impact on American interests. Any scenario involving NATO action in the foreseeable future would almost certainly inject the United States into a parochial European conflict--which would be neither necessary nor wise.
NATO is resilient

Beth Jones, Assistant Sec. of State, 3-13-2003, “US Official says ties to Europe,”

For over fifty years, the United States and its European Allies have been joined in a common cause through NATO. We have been working hard since the September 11th attacks to transform the Alliance to address these new security threats. The Summit meeting of heads of state and government in Prague last November represented an historic milestone in this process. Mr. Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your chairmanship of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and to thank you for your advocacy of U.S. interests in that organization. I also want to applaud your deep engagement at Prague and your continuing support for NATO's transformation. At the Prague Summit, NATO members agreed on an ambitious program proposed by the U.S. to develop "New Capabilities, New Members and New Relationships" to transform the Alliance. Our European Allies agreed to improve their military capabilities, through resource pooling and specialization, helping NATO to undertake collective action against the new threats that we face around the globe. The Allies also endorsed a U.S. proposal to establish a NATO Response Force, which will give the Alliance a cutting-edge land, air and sea capability. We agreed to streamline the NATO command structure to make it more lean, efficient and responsive to today's threats. Work on implementing our new capabilities initiative is well underway. Our decision to invite seven new members to join the Alliance will extend the zone of NATO security and stability from the Baltic to the Black Sea, helping to further secure a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. We are pleased that each of the seven invitees has already made significant military contributions to the war on terrorism and we will look to them to provide specialized niche capabilities to the Alliance in the future. Prague also celebrated the establishment of a new relationship between NATO and Russia. NATO states and Russia are working together in the NATO-Russia Council as equal partners on selected projects aimed at expanding and deepening our mutual cooperation. Current projects are focused on peacekeeping, civil emergency planning, non-proliferation and missile defense. I am pleased to report that so far the NATO-Russia Council has been relatively successful. Russian participation has been constructive and cooperative. As this process continues, we will seek ways to broaden and deepen the NATO-Russia relationship. The NATO-Ukraine Action Plan agreed at Prague provides a roadmap which, if implemented by Ukraine, will draw Ukraine closer to the Alliance and bolster internal reforms. It is a source of some regret that last month some Allies chose, at least initially, to confuse the obligation of the Alliance to provide purely defensive assistance to Turkey with the broader debate over the question of what we should be doing about Iraq in the UN and elsewhere. This is not the first time NATO has experienced disagreement on a difficult and important issue. One only has to think back to the debate over the INF deployment in the 1980s. The fact is that NATO remains the fundamental means by which the Allies guarantee their common security and the indispensable defense link that binds North America to Europe.
NATO is politically and strategically useless and will soon be replaced

Jonathan Strong, editor of the Family Security Foundation Inc., 7-30-2007, EXCLUSIVE: BEYOND NATO: A NEW ALLIANCE FOR A NEW THREAT

A new alliance may not need a formal command structure, but it would not hurt to have one to proclaim a body of collective defense for freedom and democracy to the world. It would also put other “fair weather” allies, who are less than cooperative, on notice that their voice will not be heard, or can at least be ignored, if obstruction is chosen over cooperation. Think Germany and France at the moment. Beyond this, Europe seems to be dying demographically and culturally as Islamic immigration and falling birth rates continue to change the face of Europe. The time to act is now. It is always better to act sooner than later in the face of terrorism because of its invisible nature, which does not heed national boundaries, treaties, or conventions. A new threat has resulted in the need for a new security structure. The threat of terrorists with WMDs forces us to ignore fair-weather friends and allies of convenience. We require allies who are willing to act preemptively and swiftly to confront this threat. While NATO had its place in the past and can continue to be a useful structure in Europe, it is not an adequate organization for dealing with the threat of terrorism and the states that sponsor it.

Defense—Impact Turn – F-35s Bad – Heg

F-35 kill airforce readiness – trades off with alternatives that are better
Goozner 2/10 (Merrill, independent author, former journalism prof @ NYU, JPG

The F-35 is a terrible idea,” said Winslow Wheeler, a long-time Hill staffer who worked for both Republican and Democratic senators on defense issues and now heads the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information. “It will quite literally set our Air Force backwards, not forwards. “Even if it lived up to its performance promises, and it’s not, it would be a huge disappointment as an air-to-air fighter; it is an insignificant bomb truck to replace F-16s; and it is a giant leap backwards in replacing the A-10 for close air support.”

Download 0.9 Mb.

Share with your friends:
1   ...   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83

The database is protected by copyright © 2024
send message

    Main page