You are on page 1of 29

NMD DA 1

DDI 08 KO
Crystal Xia

NMD DA
NMD DA.................................................................................................................................................................1
1NC Shell - RUSSIA...............................................................................................................................................2
1NC Shell – CHINA................................................................................................................................................5
Uniqueness: No NMD now......................................................................................................................................7
Uniqueness: No NMD now – Poland.......................................................................................................................9
Link: NMD needs to be resolved...........................................................................................................................10
Link: Soft Power  NMD.....................................................................................................................................11
Link: GB key to NMD...........................................................................................................................................13
IL: Russia hates NMD...........................................................................................................................................14
IL: China hates NMD.............................................................................................................................................18
IL: Russia/China hates NMD.................................................................................................................................19
NMD  Reckless Wars.........................................................................................................................................20
NMD  Arms Races.............................................................................................................................................21
NMD  Instability................................................................................................................................................22
NMD Bad – Generic..............................................................................................................................................24
...............................................................................................................................................................................24
AT: NMD Good/Solves Attacks.............................................................................................................................25
AT: NMD necessary – North Korea.......................................................................................................................26
AT: NMD necessary – Iran....................................................................................................................................27
AFF: NMD Good...................................................................................................................................................28
AFF: No US/Russia War........................................................................................................................................29

NMD DA 2
DDI 08 KO
Crystal Xia

1NC Shell - RUSSIA

1. There is concern over NMD now but global warming is a bigger issue that
could restore US credibility.
Morton H. Halperin, Senior Fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations, 8-15-01, “Bush Unpopular in Europe,
seen as a Unilateralist”, http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=37. [CXia]

Respondents in Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany do not express knee-jerk opposition to all the policies of the
Bush administration. They applaud Bush's support for free trade and his willingness to keep American troops in Bosnia and
Kosovo, reversing a campaign promise to begin taking those troops out. However, echoing the views of their governments,
they express concern about his overall approach as well as his positions on National Missile Defense (NMD), the Kyoto
Protocol and the death penalty. The poll results on National Missile Defense may pose the greatest challenge for the
Bush administration. European publics may or may not favor the principle of missile defense, but overwhelming majorities
disapprove of a deployment that requires withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. More than seven-in-ten
German and French respondents and about two-thirds of the Italian and British respondents share this view. This means that
European governments are unlikely to yield to administration pressure to go ahead with a missile defense system if it leads to
terminating the ABM Treaty. And it suggests that, if any of these governments do go along, the long dormant European anti-
nuclear movement might come to life with a vengeance. Missile defense deployment is the quintessential post-Cold war
issue because, as powerful and as rich as the United States is, it simply cannot proceed on its own. An effective layered
national missile defense of the kind favored by the administration will require the cooperation of many other countries in
providing bases for radar and intelligence-gathering systems, as well as for the deployment of anti-missile launchers or the
support for ship-based systems. Moreover, the cooperation of other countries, including Russia and China, is necessary if
states such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran are to be prevented from developing relatively simple decoys which would
neutralize any small missile defense system. This may help explain why Bush administration officials who favor giving early
notice to Russia that the United States is withdrawing from the ABM Treaty have not yet prevailed. Those who give priority
to negotiating an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin should have their hands strengthened by these poll results,
which suggest serious difficulties for U.S.-European relations, and for an effective anti-missile deployment, if the
administration is seen as cavalierly rejecting the treaty. These problems can only be overcome by reaching agreement with
Russia both on substantially lower levels of nuclear warheads and on amendments to the ABM treaty which permit the
deployment of a modest NMD against potential small missile threats. Global warming also poses a serious challenge for
the Bush administration. The majorities concerned about the American policy in this area are even larger than on
missile defense, and nothing can be accomplished without the cooperation of other states. To reduce tensions over the Kyoto
Protocol, the Bush administration will have to fulfill its commitment to present a proposal on global warming at the
next international meeting. Proponents of this position within the administration should also be strengthened by this poll,
which leaves no doubt that a continuing rift over this issue will have a profound impact on the overall relationship
between the United States and Europe.

and middle-term reasons for engaging Russia lie in policy toward North Korea.ciponline.a rather imperial. Yale Global. but necessary mission. Europe's political culture an`d growing Muslim populations do not allow for serious investments in missions like occupation and state-building. is the only US ally capable of collaborating to bring about Mideast stability. “Shield of Dreams: Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work”.NMD DA 3 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia 2. and the long-term . and Melvin A. vast experience. Neither Europe nor the southern CIS have the resources to accomplish the task. They should strengthen those elements of agenda . President Putin has repeatedly stated that any move to withdraw from the ABM treaty could lead Russia to treat all existing U. Iraq. senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. The US-Russia foreign policy priority should be stabilization and governance promotion in the broader Middle East.S. http://www. “US-Russia Relations Saved for Now”. Goodman. a declining agenda with Russia will sooner or later result in overextension of US resources and global disaster. Despite an EU presence in Afghanistan and some contribution to Iraq. physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. Radical Islamic terrorism and nuclear proliferation are facets of one single problem: degradation of this region. NMD would completely destroy all US/Russia relations.edu/display . [CXia] Russia. with its imperial history. http://yaleglobal. US-Russia relations key to solve Middle East and multiple nuclear war scenarios. As the 2000 NIE points out. But Russian leaders have warned that future reductions are highly conditioned on the United States not deploying a missile defense system. Gerald E. and readiness to invest in security. Craig Eisendrath. Russia would be more prone to accidental or unauthorized launch of its nuclear ballistic missiles 3.htm. 2005. . given its ailing economy.creating the NATO- Russia Council and Russian participation in the G8 .-Russian security agreements as null and void. In maintaining a larger strategic arsenal than it can adequately support. [CXia] For the United States. Iran. Washington and Moscow must work together. thus rejecting a major provision of START II. Russia has announced plans to dramatically reduce its nuclear arsenal from the approximately six thousand nuclear warheads deployed to under fifteen hundred by the end of the decade. Russia could also again deploy shorter-range missiles along its borders and return to multiple warheads for its strategic weapons. Russia. and could deploy additional countermeasures on its missiles to penetrate the NMD system.in the broader Middle East. 5-01. Marsh. February 28.that may still facilitate cooperation and joint action.org/dfd/shield. a senior fellow and director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy.yale.article?id=5348. and China. considers national missile-defense systems as an attempt to gain "unilateral military and security advantages" as well as a violation of the ABM treaty. Short. which continues by orders of magnitude to be the greatest missile threat. This could lock both countries into unnecessarily large nuclear-weapons inventories for the foreseeable future unless unilateral reciprocal reductions take the place of agreements. Ultimately. despite all the difficulties and prejudices.

the possession of nuclear weapons by the United States and the Soviet Union had prevented them. the United States and Israel are using military force to prevent others from acquiring them. the current wars in the Middle East manipulate global problems and escalate their dangers instead of solving them . keynote paper for Cordoba Dialogue on Peace and Human Rights in Europe and the Middle East. Instead of eliminating weapons of mass destruction. while they insist on maintaining their own weapons to pose deadly threats to other nations. In the Middle East. under the balance of the nuclear terror. Formerly.NMD DA 4 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia 4. [CXia] Wars in the Middle East are of a new type. and Afro-Asian People’s Solidary Organization. http://www. proliferation and threat or use of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear chemical and biological) are among the major global problems which could lead. from launching war against each other.htm. to the extinction of life on earth. Bahig Nassar. Arab Co-ordinating Centre of Non-Governmental Organizations. But the production. if left unchecked. Middle East war causes extinction. 11/25/02. the possession of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction leads to military clashes and wars.inesglobal.org/BahigNassar. Different from the limited character of former wars.

as powerful and as rich as the United States is. . Missile defense deployment is the quintessential post-Cold war issue because. which suggest serious difficulties for U. as well as for the deployment of anti-missile launchers or the support for ship-based systems.NMD DA 5 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia 1NC Shell – CHINA 1. Halperin. This may help explain why Bush administration officials who favor giving early notice to Russia that the United States is withdrawing from the ABM Treaty have not yet prevailed. the cooperation of other countries. More than seven-in-ten German and French respondents and about two-thirds of the Italian and British respondents share this view. it simply cannot proceed on its own. They applaud Bush's support for free trade and his willingness to keep American troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. [CXia] Respondents in Great Britain. However. the Kyoto Protocol and the death penalty. which leaves no doubt that a continuing rift over this issue will have a profound impact on the overall relationship between the United States and Europe. European publics may or may not favor the principle of missile defense. These problems can only be overcome by reaching agreement with Russia both on substantially lower levels of nuclear warheads and on amendments to the ABM treaty which permit the deployment of a modest NMD against potential small missile threats. There is concern over NMD now but global warming is a bigger issue that could restore US credibility. Italy and Germany do not express knee-jerk opposition to all the policies of the Bush administration. Morton H. if the administration is seen as cavalierly rejecting the treaty. This means that European governments are unlikely to yield to administration pressure to go ahead with a missile defense system if it leads to terminating the ABM Treaty.org/report/?pageid=37. Senior Fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations. if any of these governments do go along. echoing the views of their governments. And it suggests that. and for an effective anti-missile deployment. Moreover. The majorities concerned about the American policy in this area are even larger than on missile defense. Iraq. “Bush Unpopular in Europe. but overwhelming majorities disapprove of a deployment that requires withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. Proponents of this position within the administration should also be strengthened by this poll. 8-15-01. the long dormant European anti- nuclear movement might come to life with a vengeance. they express concern about his overall approach as well as his positions on National Missile Defense (NMD). An effective layered national missile defense of the kind favored by the administration will require the cooperation of many other countries in providing bases for radar and intelligence-gathering systems. is necessary if states such as North Korea.-European relations.S. The poll results on National Missile Defense may pose the greatest challenge for the Bush administration. Global warming also poses a serious challenge for the Bush administration. including Russia and China. To reduce tensions over the Kyoto Protocol. and Iran are to be prevented from developing relatively simple decoys which would neutralize any small missile defense system. reversing a campaign promise to begin taking those troops out. http://people-press. France. Those who give priority to negotiating an agreement with Russian President Vladimir Putin should have their hands strengthened by these poll results. seen as a Unilateralist”. and nothing can be accomplished without the cooperation of other states. the Bush administration will have to fulfill its commitment to present a proposal on global warming at the next international meeting.

the United States and China cooperated on a range of important arms control and nonproliferation issues.S. Summer 02. Prolif leads to massive death. . Both also want to avoid arms races in Northeast Asia that might lead Japan. including indefinite extension of the NPT.S.S. “Proliferation. if not all. widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons. p. South Korea. This cooperation gradually ended as Chinese concerns about U. Survival. Missile Defence and American Ambitions”. nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips. http://cns.htm. relations for the last 15 years. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped. and the UN Security Council resolutions in response to the 1998 nuclear tests in South Asia. In sum. and the Biological Weapons Convention BWC)) and play an active role in international arms control negotiations. ballistic missile defense plans increased. both the United States and China seek ways to improve the effectiveness of the treaties banning chemical and biological weapons 3. Both countries are members of the key international nonproliferation treaties (including the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even whole nations. Forces. From 1995-98.edu/pubs/reports/sino911. Director of East Asian Nonprolif Program @ CNS.87-90. “Can 9-11 Provide a Fresh Start for Sino-US relations?”. Finally. the United States and China both oppose the introduction of nuclear weapons onto the Korean peninsula and seek to restrain India's efforts to build an operational nuclear arsenal. Victor Utgoff. Saunders. The range and scope of U. and that such shoot- outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. and Resources Division of Institute for Defense Analysis. The continuing presence of nonproliferation issues on the bilateral agenda has masked a considerable degree of convergence in U. the CWC. the world may even be a more polite place than it is today. China and the United States still share numerous common interests in fighting proliferation.miis. and Chinese views and significant progress in addressing proliferation threats. With most. In terms of specific nonproliferation issues. concerns about Chinese proliferation behavior has narrowed appreciably over the years as China has joined the major arms control and nonproliferation treaties and improved its export control laws. we are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s.S. [CXia] Nonproliferation has been one of the more persistent and contentious issues in Sino-U. the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Phillip C. final negotiations on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).NMD DA 6 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia 2. Deputy Director of Strategy. 10-11-01. US/China relations key to solve prolif – NMD destroys relations. and even Taiwan to develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

S. The United States' ambitious pursuit of NMD is giving major powers reason to doubt its intentions. with less than half in Britain. 7-45. We feel we are now safer than we can remember in anybody's lifetime.NMD DA 7 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Uniqueness: No NMD now Other countries fear NMD. France. “Soft Balancing Against the United States”. Sir Timothy Garden. Moreover. 2005.. for reasons that we can't understand. NMD could evolve into a serious effort to acquire meaningful nuclear superiority. sophisticated military system mitigate such immediate fears. the September 11 terrorist attacks demonstrated that rogue states would probably find covert attack more reliable than low-quality ballistic missiles as a means to deliver a nuclear weapon against the United States. May 2001. (Sr Assoc at the Inst for the Study of Diplomacy and adjunct prof in the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown U). Professor of Political Science at UChicago. Further. it is that U. Rather. an effort that would make sense only if the United States had expansionist rather than status quo aims Europe is weary of attempts at NMD now. the technological infrastructure—sophisticated radars and command and control networks—for a limited ballistic missile defense system against a small number of missiles from rogue states has the operational capacity to expand the system to counter a larger number of missiles from major powers. Accordingly. especially with Russia and China.1. we now find it refreshing that we have to cast around on the off chance that we might find some small state somewhere that sometime might.org/act/2001_05/pierre. polls indicate that the French public sees the two overriding foreign threats as Islamic fundamentalism and international terrorism. its efforts are increasing fears that this limited system will expand to allow it to achieve nuclear superiority. Germany. Fundamental Concerns. NMD is creating a classic security dilemma between the United States and other major powers. and Italy even having heard of it as of 2000. enabling Washington to pursue meaningful nuclear advantages in the long term. nuclear retaliatory capabilities are already stronger than those of any other state.armscontrol. efforts will continue to expand. Indeed. Pierre. "In Europe we don't feel this sense of foreboding and threat which seems to underlie all discussions of NMD in the United States. International Security 30. as measured by trajectory distances.S. Arms Control Today.S."3 . thus nuclear deterrence already provides robust security against deliberate missile attack.S. notes. Andrew J. As the United States gains the capability to intercept missiles from rogue states.2 There is hardly any public sense of a ballistic missile threat either from North Korea or from Middle Eastern rogues—even though. The problem is not that the United States will actually gain nuclear superiority in the near term—the inevitable technical difficulties with a new.asp Publics in Europe have yet to follow the missile defense issue very closely.” www. former British assistant chief of air staff. although this could change as the transatlantic debate proceeds. Project MUSE [CXia] The development of U. U. “Europe and Missile Defense:Tactical Considerations. send missiles toward us. citing fears of US expansionism. Robert A Pape. a threat from Iran or Iraq is more immediately relevant to Europe than to the United States. Having lived with the imminent possibility of ballistic missile attack for some 40 years. major powers have a basis to fear that U.

S."53 The U.S. however."54 In July 2000 China and Russia issued a joint statement declaring that U. NMD. and France. Professor of Political Science at UChicago. the United States. including Great Britain. Robert A Pape. Most NATO members. in part because no rogue state has yet tested an operational missile capable of hitting the United States. France. China and other countries.S. NMD would have "the most grave adverse consequences not only for the security of Russia. Concern over the potential negative international consequences among the major powers.S. multilayer defenses after this point. the security of major powers depends on maintaining credible nuclear retaliatory capabilities. the administration officially abandoned the ABM treaty in June 2002. according to one Russian general. the United States and Russia have some 6. authorized more than $17 billion to construct a ballistic missile defense system in Alaska in December 2002. intentions is also aggravated by the Bush administration's nuclear policies. . Following aborted negotiations with Russia. explicitly stating their fears that it threatens their strategic nuclear capabilities. have been consistently opposed to U. The plan calls for ten ground-based interceptors and accompanying radars based in Alaska and California in the first year of operation. Russia. and plans to have the initial system operational in the early years of the second administration. and more ambitious. Although the administration views NMD as a reasonable effort to protect the U. This system will be directed against Russia and against China.000 strategic nuclear warheads deployed in a fashion that could retaliate in short order against a nuclear strike from any state in the world.1. . one Chinese government official stated.S..52 Russia and China have gone further. Germany. 7-45."55 Why is the prospect of U. Great Britain. malign intent. but also for the security of the United States. On any given day.NMD DA 8 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Other countries are suspicious of NMD. ballistic missile defenses increasing the perception of insecurity among the world's major powers? In the nuclear age. claim that it needs missile defense to protect itself from rogue states is. .S. especially its pursuit of an ambitious system of national missile defense. Although the United States has repeatedly declared that NMD is aimed only at North Korea and other rogue states. Even after the end of the Cold War. is already apparent. other major powers see it as a signal of U. International Security 30.50 The Bush administration appears determined to field the first-ever operational system to intercept ballistic missiles heading for the United States.S. Great Britain has several hundred and China several dozen . The consequences are still terrible for us. "That doesn't matter. and China continue to believe that their security requires nuclear forces that can respond to a nuclear attack on their homelands. 2005. homeland from the threat of ballistic missiles from rogue states.51 Whether this system will effectively counter ballistic missiles from rogue states is difficult to assess. “Soft Balancing Against the United States”. "an argument for the naive or the stupid. Project MUSE [CXia] Suspicion of U. ten more interceptors in Alaska in the second year.

Sikorski is saying that the terms under which the shield would be deployed were unclear and that the new government wants the risks to be explained. ''We feel no threat from Iran. challenging Bush administration assertions that some of the biggest threats facing the security of Europe and the United States are from ''rogue states'' in the Middle East. The New York Times. 1-7-08. The previous Polish government had consented in principle to accept missile-interceptor bases as part of a larger system that would include a radar station in the Czech Republic.'' Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski said in an interview published in the weekend edition of the newspaper Gazeta Wyborcza. not a Polish project. the financial costs to be set out and clarification on how Poland's interests would be defended if the bases were put on its territory. Now Mr. . Poland's foreign minister says his country's new government is not prepared to accept American plans to deploy missile- defense bases in Poland until all costs and risks are considered. but no formal agreement has been signed. [CXia] Signaling a tougher position in negotiations with the United States on a European antiballistic-missile shield system.NMD DA 9 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Uniqueness: No NMD now – Poland Poland will not sign an NMD agreement now. Judy Dempsey. “Poland Signals Doubts About Planned US Missile-Defense Bases on Its Territory”. staff writer for the NYT.'' he said. ''This is an American. LexisNexis.

such as the controversies over the multilateral nuclear force in the 1960s. the future of the ABM Treaty and international arms control. Arms Control Today. As we have seen. . and the impact on relations with Russia and China. The fissures are much deeper on the American side. the opportunity costs in relation to other European foreign and security policy priorities.armscontrol. the neutron bomb in the 1970s. such as the seriousness of the threat. (Sr Assoc at the Inst for the Study of Diplomacy and adjunct prof in the National Security Studies Program at Georgetown U). “Europe and Missile Defense:Tactical Considerations. To this must be added doubts about the technological feasibility of missile defenses and the financial cost of their participation in an allied missile defense project.asp The gap between Europe and the United States on missile defense remains wide.” www. Andrew J. those Europeans who are engaged with the issue have yet to be persuaded that the United States has made a compelling case for missile defense. intermediate-range nuclear forces in the 1980s.NMD DA 10 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Link: NMD needs to be resolved Concerns about NMD need to be resolved – massive distrust between the US and Europe. May 2001.org/act/2001_05/pierre. their skepticism is based upon fundamental considerations. Pierre. Unlike most of the great transatlantic security debates of the past. and NATO enlargement in the 1990s—all instances in which the Europeans (like the Americans) were split among themselves—the Europeans in today's missile defense debate are generally unified. Fundamental Concerns. With a few exceptions.

that ratification of the CTBT had become useful to reassure allies and foes alike.S.NMD DA 11 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Link: Soft Power  NMD Other countries will cooperate on NMD with increased soft power. Iraq. the long dormant European anti-nuclear movement might come to life with a vengeance. An effective layered national missile defense of the kind favored by the administration will require the cooperation of many other countries in providing bases for radar and intelligence- gathering systems. European publics may or may not favor the principle of missile defense. vice rector of the United Nations University) March 11. is necessary if states such as North Korea. The Japan Times. and Iran are to be prevented from developing relatively simple decoys which would neutralize any small missile defense system. More than seven-in-ten German and French respondents and about two-thirds of the Italian and British respondents share this view. [CXia] The poll results on National Missile Defense may pose the greatest challenge for the Bush administration. including Russia and China. would be self-defeating. they could well influence the context within which NMD will be developed. http://people-press. Its top priority appears to be the further development and eventual deployment of a national missile defense system. David Malone and Ramesh Thakur. seen as a Unilateralist”. its ultimate scope and its detailed aims. 8-15-01.S. . allies and foes now need to consider their own strategies. (president of the International Peace Academy. but overwhelming majorities disapprove of a deployment that requires withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty. And it suggests that. idea that has long unsettled not only Russia and China. This means that European governments are unlikely to yield to administration pressure to go ahead with a missile defense system if it leads to terminating the ABM Treaty.org/report/?pageid=37. Increased soft power could lead to concessions on NMD. NMD is not something the allies. Moreover. U. the cooperation of other countries. However. but also key European allies and Canada. Moscow or Beijing can stop. Morton H. Senior Fellow @ Council on Foreign Relations. a U. Indefinitely stamping their feet on an issue that may be nonnegotiable in essence but negotiable in specifics and at the margins. 2001. Their eventual consent can also be exchanged against concessions from Washington on related or different issues. It could well decide. “Bush Unpopular in Europe. Missile defense deployment is the quintessential post-Cold war issue because. Halperin. among other measures. Regardless of their views on NMD. it simply cannot proceed on its own. l/n. if any of these governments do go along. as well as for the deployment of anti-missile launchers or the support for ship-based systems. as powerful and as rich as the United States is.

The Bush administration's approach to military reform will therefore be a test case of strategic assumptions and force requirements. and Sikhs -- than the United States has. and policymakers whose underlying agenda is confrontation with China rather than North Korea. 5-01. Kurdish and Algerian militants. Bosnia. and large-scale carrier groups would widen the transatlantic strategic gap. the marginal risks of biological or chemical weapons being deployed in European cities are just not seen as great enough to justify such a response. Foreign Affairs. No European government has initiated programs comparable to U.S. Aircraft-carrier groups benefit from forward bases. Greater U. is a likely contingency for which they must all prepare. Europe is working on a reserve force of military and civilian police to take over the task of re-establishing domestic order within fragile societies as the front-line troops withdraw. entrenched economic interests.from Irish Republicans. or Kosovo. commanders and officials have given. home bases depends on intermediate bases in Europe for refueling. armored divisions. Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics.S. driven by domestic psychology. preparing to fight limited wars. in Africa as well as southeastern Europe.NMD DA 12 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Policies that make Europe happy would cause them to get on board with NMD. European governments do not underestimate the threat of terrorism. and a preference for high-level bombing over commitment on the ground. forces in Europe now serve as the basis for potential deployment across Eurasia and the Middle East.S. left-wing revolutionaries in Germany and Italy. U.S. they have suffered more incidents of terrorism on their soil over the past 30 years -. while collaborative European engagement in Kosovo has provided a further impetus for an autonomous capability in military planning and deployment.S. William Wallace. Bush decried in last year's presidential campaign. The "revolution in military affairs" has also widened the transatlantic rift. European governments have been pursuing a different tack. .000 European troops being assembled for a deployable peacekeeping force. these traits have undermined Europeans' respect for their alliance partner. Shared experiences on the ground in Bosnia provided the foundation for the Franco-British defense initiative. Corsicans. more flexible forces with lighter equipment would bring American and European thinking closer together. Washington's pursuit of the RMA has seemed to most European observers a domestic matter. fundamentalist Muslims. Combined with an unwillingness to accept casualties while ordering others to take greater risks (as in the Balkans). is that they see no need to listen to the knowledge of their allies or of locals in assessing situations. contain disorder. “Europe. whether in Somalia. But rather than overestimating the threat. ones. emphasis on space and NMD.S. LexisNexis. After all. American leadership of the Western alliance depends on its ability to persuade its partners to accept its foreign policy rationale. power by long-range bombers flying from U. Although no other European state has so far joined the United Kingdom in its limited peacekeeping commitment in Sierra Leone. and if necessary invest in the "nation-building" activities that George W. the United States needs NATO as much as its European allies do. National missile defense (NMD) also appears to Europeans as a disproportionate response to a distant potential threat. driven by American industrial and defense lobbies rather than by any clear external threat. now that the Cold War is past. a preoccupation with media opportunities. European military planners are uncomfortably aware that restoring order within failed states. Europeans recognize that a political response must accompany counterterrorism and preventive measures. Basques. [CXia] Terrorism is another good example of where perceptions are diverging. The global projection of U. the Necessary Partner”. But the impression that U. Along with the 60.

Perhaps this explains the apparent differences of opinion in government. The Foreign Secretary. Dave Webb (School of Engineering. However. Meanwhile on Channel 4. No Date given.” www. A number of US politicians have spoken of abandoning the treaty if it becomes too difficult to renegotiate to allow them to deploy NMD. it will not pronounce on what its decision would be should the US ask permission for the changes to be made. Robin Cook. Officials in Washington are also confident that any such requests would not be turned down. [CXia] The UK government does not deny that RAF Fylingdales would play an important role in NMD should it go ahead. it would be premature for us to debate what might be. Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon stated that Britain would be sympathetic to any request from the US to use Fylingdales. On the same evening in March earlier this year. Foreign and Commonwealth Office minister Peter Hain said on the BBC that." It has been said that the UK government is 'working behind the scenes' and is not willing to make public statements that might put the ABMT in danger. particularly since there is no commitment by the United States to ask the question.htm. has said: "Until we know both the nature of the question and also the circumstances in which we are being asked that question.org/consult2/papers1/webb. despite repeated questioning by the press and in the Commons. . he did "not like the idea of a Star Wars programme". Leeds Metropolitan University). “The UK’s role in star wars.russfound.NMD DA 13 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Link: GB key to NMD The UK is an essential part of NMD.

One promising formula for striking a stable balance between offense and defense is to cut deeply the offensive missile arsenals and take all silo-busting U.cdi." While fielding a U.-Russian relations.NMD DA 14 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia IL: Russia hates NMD Russia HATES NMD. “U. Medvedev "stated that there is no real progress in the Russian- U. "The Russian president openly expressed serious concerns at a meeting with U.. http://www.S. and Lithuania have been in talks on a possibility to deploy a base of missile interceptors." NMD would wreck US/Russia relations.-Lithuanian Talks on Nmd Are Unacceptable – Medvedev”. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said. missile defense could redound to our grave disadvantage.S. while perhaps unfounded. the nuclear peril to Americans. a U. If severe constraints on offensive firepower are imposed. dialog on the missile defense issue.html. defenses are not aimed at Russia except for scenarios involving accidental Russian launches. do not help: [Defenses against the former Soviet Union ballistic missile threat] ".red orbit. We have instead embarked on a collision course with Russia that threatens to increase. warheads off alert and put them in long-term storage.S.S.S.S.S. Daily News Bulletin. Russian suspicions. Blair. Dr. taken from a 1995 analysis prepared for Congress by the Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. President [George] Bush about media reports that the U.org/dm/2000/issue8/ nmdruss ia. By de-alerting most or all of the current 2. offensive forces and thus would be more capable of overwhelming U.-Russian relations and of strategic stability might be avoided if fully offsetting reductions in offensive forces are made.. [CXia] Moscow does not tolerate any possibility of talks between the United States and Lithuania on missile defense issues. neither country is presently pursuing this formula. “The Impact Of National Missile Defense On Russia and Nuclear Security”. Russia in fact would be able to de-alert its own strategic missiles and thereby greatly reduce the risk of a mistaken or unauthorized Russian missile attack. 7-7-08. senior fellow in the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution.S. in theory. could even strengthen stability.S. national missile defense would appear less threatening to Russia.S. missile defenses may be tolerable to Moscow and. It was stated that this is absolutely unacceptable. Bruce G. 2k.S.S. [CXia] American officials dismiss Russia's suspicions of NMD as unwarranted on the grounds that U. defenses. But Americans cannot dictate Russian perceptions. Russian strategic missiles would be far less vulnerable to a sudden attack by U.200 U. Unfortunately.S. weapons on high alert. not decrease.com/news/politics/1466793/uslithuanian_talks_on_nmd_are_unacceptable__medvedev/. disruption of U. http://www." Russian presidential aide Sergei Prikhodko told journalists after a meeting between Medvedev and Bush.could augment deterrence by significantly increasing the Soviet planners' doubts that any military attack on the United States could succeed. And statements such as the following. . are understandable given recent setbacks in U.

They doubted that rogue nations would have the capability to attack U. 7-14-02. . Woolf. Furthermore.pdf?sequence=2. when combined with the entirety of U. “National Missile Defense: Russia’s Reaction”. Amy F.org/bitstream/handle/10207/1208/RL3096 7_20020614.S.S. NMD system would be directed against rogue nations and would be too limited to intercept a Russian attack.S.policyarchive. an NMD system would place the United States in a position of strategic superiority. Furthermore. [CXia] Russia claimed that the ABM Treaty is the “cornerstone of strategic stability” and that. The Clinton Administration claimed that the U. and they believed that the United States could expand its NMD system easily. they argued that. https://www. without its limits on missile defense. conventional and nuclear weapons.NMD DA 15 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD would upset Russia and undermine arms agreements. territory for some time. Russia argued that a U.S. NMD system would undermine Russia’s nuclear deterrent and upset stability by allowing the United States to initiate an attack and protect itself from retaliatory strike. specialist in National Defense from the Congressional Research Service. But Russian officials questioned this argument. the entire framework of offensive arms control agreements could collapse.

[CXia] A number of top U. the Missile Defense Agency. http://www. Buzhinsky said Russia appreciated U. The Pentagon agency overseeing the missile program.S. LexisNexis. The United States says the missile system is intended to counter a threat from Iran and could not takeout Russian missiles. and said Washington's trust-building proposals have bogged down in diplomatic arguments. U. “Russia Warns US on Missile Defense”. missile defense plans in Eastern Europe. [CXia] A top Russian general warned on Tuesday that the military will respond to U.com/stories/2008/05/27 /world/main4130043. He said Moscow has no intention of building a similar missile shield. Associated Press. Desmond Butler.shtml?source=related_story.whose backgrounds include elite American universities. Washington has promised to delay activating the planned new sites in Poland and the Czech Republic unless Iran proves itself an imminent threat to Europe.S. thus threatening Russia's nuclear deterrent. Russia adamantly opposes the plan and the dispute has escalated U. Yevgeny Buzhinsky told reporters that Russia was thinking about "asymmetrical" steps if the United States deploys missile defense elements in Europe. staff writer. 5-27-08. but refused to elaborate on what specific measures the military might take.S. That view supports Russia's criticism of the system.S-based physicists have concluded that the United States used inaccurate claims to reassure NATO allies about U. missile defense plans with countermeasures.S. “US Study Supports Russia’s AMD Suspicions”.cbsnews.NMD DA 16 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia Russia hates NMD and promises to retaliate if adopted.-Russian tensions to the highest point since the Cold War. It also offered to let Russian officers monitor the sites to make sure they are not directed against Russia. research labs and high levels of government. .said in interviews that Russia's concerns are justified. rejects the scientists' claims. Claims that the system could not deter Russia are false. system would undermine its security. They say the planned Polish-based interceptors and a radar system in the Czech Republic could target and catch Russian missiles. but added they were not enough to change Moscow's perception that the U.S. saying their analyses are flawed. 10-5-07." But the six scientists . Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has dismissed Russia's concerns as "ludicrous.S. CBS News. proposals intended to soothe Russian concerns. Gen. Lt.

The Kremlin is considering active counter-measures in response to Washington's decision to base interceptor missiles and radar installations in Poland and the Czech Republic. in a move likely to increase fears of a cold war-style arms race. “Russia Threatening new Cold War over Missile Defense”. staff writer. they add. said Moscow felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. and to the world's strategic stability. Luke Harding. But defence experts said its response is likely to include upgrading its nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down.co.NMD DA 17 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD will change the world’s stability – Russia will lash out. "We were extremely concerned and disappointed." . It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance in Europe. putting more missiles on mobile launchers. where they are virtually undetectable. The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. a move Russia says will change "the world's strategic stability". We were never informed in advance about these plans. 4-11-07. [CXia] Russia is preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to build a new missile defence system in eastern Europe. and moving its fleet of nuclear submarines to the north pole. Dmitry Peskov.uk/world/2007/apr/11/usa. Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles launched potentially from the nearby Russian enclave of Kaliningrad.guardian. http://www. In an interview with the Guardian. The Guardian UK. according to Kremlin officials.topstories3. the Kremlin's chief spokesman.

It is exactly this reason that has given Russia (as well as other nuclear weapons states) a confidence that they retain a credible nuclear deterrence vis-à-vis the US. . Excluding the P5. its CSS-4 ICBM force. Pakistan. either that threat has been too remote.org/articles/2000/06 /00_shen_chinas- concern. At later stages.[8] It is highly unlikely that any of them will acquire an ICBM capability within a decade or so. http://www. India. Saudi Arabia. and harm the international relations. However. the US national missile defence would cause even worse strategic relations between Beijing and Washington. [CXia] From China’s perspective. only Israel.[11] China’s concern over the US national missile defence in violation of ABM has been expressed through various channels many times.wagingpeace.[12] Primarily China is concerned about two issues. One is that the NMD will destabilise the world order. Beijing can only take the view that US NMD has been designed to effectively neutralise China’s strategic deterrence.000km. [CXia] According to the NMD plan. it is untenable that the US would spend 60-100 billion dollars on a system which has only “rogue” states in mind.wagingpeace.000km. 6-2k. undermining China’s confidence in its strategic retaliatory capability. “China’s Concern over National Missile Defense”. Dingli Shen. or the overwhelming strength of the US in both nuclear and conventional weapons will be powerful enough to deter potential adversaries from initiating hostilities. as allowed by the existing ABM Treaty. Such capability of intercontinental strike by ballistic missile owned by “rogue” states does not yet exist.NMD DA 18 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia IL: China hates NMD China is incredibly suspicious of America’s NMD program. The US has stated clearly that China has not figured in its NMD calculations. is largely believed by the Western strategic analysts to number around 20. the US would deploy further kinetic kill vehicles in North Dakoda in order to provide nationwide missiles defence. “China’s Concern over National Missile Defense”. would be enough to defend the strategic assets of the US against potential missile threats from outside the P5.htm. 6-2k. a more than sufficient capability to take care of the alleged threat from those “rogue” states’ said to be developing long-range ballistic missiles with which to target America. Dingli Shen. the US could at most hit 25 incoming missiles. Also the envisaged NMD cannot stop an all-out Russian nuclear attack.[9] NMD seems to target China specifically – wrecks relations. The CIA’s classified 1998 Annual Report to Congress on Foreign Missile Development recognised that the ICBM threat to the United States from so-called rogue states is unlikely to materialise before 2010. professor and Deputy Director @ Fudan University’s Centre for American Studies. However. http://www. DPRK and Iran. Assuming a 1 in 4 rate of interception. Though China has not publicly made its nuclear capability transparent. Only four of these states. professor and Deputy Director @ Fudan University’s Centre for American Studies. considering the thousands of strategic weapons at Russia’s disposal. Therefore.htm. China views the situation differently and remains strongly suspicious of the US intentions in terms of NMD development. The other is that NMD will undermine China’s strategic deterrence. DPRK and Iran are currently believed to have medium-range missiles with ranges above 1. part of the US would thus be exposed to some missile threat from “rogue” states. capable of reaching the US with a range of 13. Theoretically.000 kilometres. India. A limited anti-ballistic missile capability. Pakistan. Indeed the one-site base of anti-ballistic missile deployment under ABM framework cannot immunise the whole US from being hit. may also have active programmes to develop intermediate-range missiles with ranges of over 3. From China’s perspective.org/articles/2000/06 /00_shen_chinas- concern. with the possible exception of DPRK. the US will deploy 100 interceptors in Alaska in its first configuration.

org/dfd/shield. The 2000 NIE suggests that China might well increase its ICBM arsenal from twenty to two hundred within a few years. cruisers equipped with Aegis radar. Gerald E. a senior fellow and director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy. China's principal concern is not simply the deployment of U.this would "lead to serious confrontation" and a renunciation of previous undertakings barring nuclear or chemical weapons proliferation and nuclear testing. in Chinese eyes. like Russia. could lead to Taiwanese independence. Marsh. Thus.S. 5-01.S. [CXia] Rather than seeing its own missile system as offensive. Craig Eisendrath. and North Korea and to suggest a regional defense for Europe. a deployed NMD system could provoke responses from Russia and China that would actually exacerbate the threat. equipping some with multiple warheads. believes that deployment of U. physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. effort to deploy a national missile defense system or to reinterpret the ABM treaty has led to improved bilateral relations between them. China. Sino-Russian joint opposition to either a U. Goodman. building more missiles. “Shield of Dreams: Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work”. China. national missile defense but the strengthening of Taiwan through the possible sale or deployment of theater defenses and the sale of U.a figure suspiciously close to China's eighteen to twenty single-warhead ballistic missiles -. NMD has also given President Putin the opportunity to travel to Europe. . and Melvin A. and placing them on full alert.ciponline. missile defenses would be an offensive move. Sha Zukang. senior fellow at the Center for International Policy.S.NMD DA 19 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia IL: Russia/China hates NMD NMD would wreck relations with China and Russia and lead to a major confrontation. http://www. adding decoys and other countermeasures. Meanwhile.S. instead of providing security. Such moves.htm. China would likely expand its nuclear-weapons arsenal. In reaction. China's chief arms negotiator. although his ideas are still quite vague. has suggested that if Washington went ahead with an NMD deployment designed to intercept "tens of warheads" -.

S.S. policymakers might get into unnecessary scrapes with WMD-armed regional powers that could lead to at least one warhead getting through the shield.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-058es. Even a thicker. security policy) could originate from a country that would not have threatened U. security if it had been left alone. wider missile defense offers only a probability of killing incoming warheads. Such interventions would actually reduce U. security.S. it will probably not sting any of the picnickers. not an airtight defense against them. If the wasp is left alone.html. [CXia] If a thicker and wider missile defense causes U. Ivan Eland. In other words.S. policymakers to feel more secure against a direct missile attack and less vulnerable by threatened attacks to its allies. http://www. So it is possible that overconfident U. soil (a failure of the first magnitude in U.NMD DA 20 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD  Reckless Wars NMD leads to a reckless US foreign policy – leads to unnecessary wars. “Lets Make National Missile Defense Truly ‘National’”. but the picnickers will probably be stung if they threaten the wasp by attempting to swat it. . director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute. 2k.cato. a catastrophic attack on U.S. they may be more tempted to engage in reckless overseas military adventures against potential regional adversaries possessing WMD and long-range missiles.S. An apt analogy can be found in attempts to swat a wasp at a picnic.

299 First. http://www. and strengthen. in order to provide better protection of their own against the opponent. a proposal that is "pretty bizarre. The most hopeful prospect for the NMD [National Missile Defense]. According to press reports. Hobart and Smith College. and very clearly. appearance is likely to be interpreted as reality. Prudence. which will impel India to do the same. stockpiles is so great that "the Russians are looking at a U. professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Michael Krepon. breakout level" and will be likely to react accordingly. because in the domain of nuclear strategy. I think. 1993. a new National Intelligence Estimate predicts that NMD deployment will trigger buildup of nuclear-armed missiles by China. “National Missile Defense System”. and Pakistan. Were such armament to occur.info/letters/20000718. Morality. and . [CXia] I would prefer to respond to a slight reformulation of the question. The American Prospect. there was broad condemnation of the NMD on the grounds that it would undermine decades of arms control agreements and provoke a new weapons race. As many have observed. U. Professor. with a further spread into the Middle East. Ethics. If a system is developed that seems feasible. for familiar reasons.S. Arms races lead to nuclear war. China will respond by strengthening its deterrent." one expert commented. p. . and Pakistan. nuclear war could result from the behavior of other states. because "we know their warning system is full of holes" (John Steinbruner). comments that the difference between Russian and U. especially those that had formerly seen themselves as receiving protection from the nation's opponent under the nuclear umbrella. 7-18-08. Some of theses states might well seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Steven Lee. negotiators have encouraged Russia to adopt a launch-on-warning strategy to alleviate their concerns and to induce them to accept the NMD and revision of the ABM treaty.NMD DA 21 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD  Arms Races NMD will spark massive arms races around the world.S. Noam Chomsky. The president of the Stimson Center. and Nuclear Weapons. Russia will assume that such a system can be quickly upgraded and will therefore also regard it as a first-strike threat. India.chomsky. Russia's "only rational response to the NMD system would be to maintain.htm. . the existing Russian nuclear force" (Michael Byers). the uncertainties on all sides may make major nuclear war more likely that it was prior to the nation's unilateral nuclear disarmament . or to enlarge their arsenals if they were already nuclear powers. At the UN [United Nations] conference on the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in May. is that the tests fail. undermining hopes for nuclear disarmament.S.

The most direct and potentially dangerous effect the NMD deployment. or a "cut-off" Treaty). For the military it would mean heightened alert and readiness (who dreamed of dealerting and greater transparency at a recent NPT Review Conference?). with its universal popularity. Yuriy KAPRALOV.armscontrol. but at much larger scale on military. the plans for such defense for the US territory already now adversely affect arms control process. Suffice it to mention the situation around the prohibition of the production of fissile material for weapon purposes at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva (FMCT. It is highly indicative that while the deployment of an NMD has not even started.NMD DA 22 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD  Instability NMD would destroy the world order. would exert on strategic situation and nuclear forces.ru/start/pu blications/kapralov020601. Among other things. The deployment of NMD would result in undermining the strategic stability and a sharp increase in uncertainty and unpredictability. No wonder the START-III negotiations have not even started. has fallen victim of NMD plans: the outgoing US administration during its last months established a linkage between the official negotiations on START III and an agreement on the part of Russia to NMD deployment by the US. both regional and global. http://www. . it would turn upside down the present correlation of offensive and defensive strategic arms. [CXia] The deployment of a National Missile Defense by the United States would ruin this legacy and a hope for better and safer world. for a population it would mean a much greater risk of serious accidents and use of nuclear weapons. Director of the Department for Security Affairs and Disarmament. nullify the tested and proved effective "rules of the game". greatly complicate and toughen conditions of functioning for Strategic Forces Command and Control Centers. Eliminating both conceptual and physical foundation of strategic stability the deployment of NMD would have a lasting and spreading negative effect not only on arms control efforts. “Effects of National Missile Defense on Arms Control and Strategic Stability”. 1-18-01.htm. political. Even the START III negotiations. economic situation and generally on international security. irrespective of its scope.

France and Germany have already warned it could be impossible to sell the NMD to their public. But as well as stirring hostility from China and Russia. is a scaled-down version of Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" initiative. and 100 missile interceptors. but this is not the case for the NMD in its current design. with a pencilled cost of $NZ175 billion. The NMD "could overturn the foundations of defence policies around the world. It would be designed . A parallel programme. a former Nato secretary- general. Most damaging of all though.at least in its first phase .NMD DA 23 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD leads to arms races that would ultimately result in a US/Russia nuclear war. as the radar sites would presumably be first-wave targets in any nuclear war between Moscow and Washington. The European Union's top representative for security and foreign affairs. 1-24-01. "This upheaval could have the gravest consequences for Western Europe. Denmark. are the fears that the ABM treaty will be torn up and another arms race will begin. ground-based radar to spot incoming missiles. director of research at France's Institute for International Strategic Research. [CXia] Bush made the NMD. when the US was able to deploy new medium-range missiles in five Nato countries despite big protests by the left wing. launched by President Bill Clinton in 1999. reviving memories of the wave of anti-US protests of the mid-1980s. which limited their anti-missile defences." says Georges Le Guelte.to protect only the US. declaring it essential for thwarting rogue states such as Iraq. Politicians in Britain. a key plank of his election campaign. It entails building space and ground-based sensors to provide early warning. “Europe Braces for US Defense Moves”. signed by the US and the Soviet Union. Catharine Field. Javier Solana. there is no proof of a similar threat to Europe today. LexisNexis. But for it to work. The New Zealand Herald. which would conceivably help to shield the countries where the troops are deployed. to smash into the warheads while they are still in the air. Unlike the 1980s. the project is under fire in Europe. first and foremost. not its allies. is being designed to protect US forces abroad from medium-range missiles." The NMD. correspondent for the New Zealand Herald. based in Alaska." . Western Europe could again become a strategic battlefield. two radar bases in Britain and Greenland would have to be updated. said it was "questionable" whether the NMD could be effective against rogue nations and terrorists and warned of "difficult discussions within Nato. Iran and North Korea which have missile capability and the perceived intent to acquire nuclear weapons. the Theatre Missile Defence. But the NMD would in effect destroy the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.

ally. Comprehensive missile defenses may inadvertently increase the risk to those they are ostensibly intended to protect—the American people. the allies should be skeptical that U. That increased protection (a “thicker” defense) could do more harm than good if it spurred more dangerous activism in U.) Instead. In effect. allies hostage to persuade the United States to desist from meddling in its business. U. But the United States should refuse to cover wealthy allies—nations that spend too little on their own defense and already benefit from significant U. foreign policy. interventions overseas do not accrue only to allies. director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.S.S.S. interventions would always serve their interests. (For example.S. Germany spends only about 1.S.and space-based missile defenses to a limited land-based system also increases the probability that warheads will be intercepted before they strike U. 2k.S. the adversary.S. “Lets Make National Missile Defense Truly ‘National’”. having a lower probability of successfully attacking the United States. President Clinton recently proposed a superior approach: sharing missile defense technology with the allies. allies should be wary that they might be exposed to the consequences of U. protection by a U. In addition to creating a wider defense by protecting allies. The allies should conclude that without missile defense they could be left “holding the bag” for risky U. security guarantees—with a missile shield.1 1 Using that technology.-directed missile shield would deepen and perpetuate the unhealthy dependence of allies on the United States.html.S. soil. Ivan Eland. foreign interventions. might instead threaten a missile strike against a U. the adversary— betting that the United States would care more about the safety of its economically developed allies than about intervening in the developing world—would hold U. . [CXia] Although a missile defense would undoubtedly make the United States more willing to intervene overseas. and Japan spends less than 1 percent.S. recklessness overseas. allied nations could unilaterally or collectively build their own missile defenses. http://www. If the United States—protected by a missile defense— moved against a regional adversary possessing WMD and long-range delivery systems. The dangers of U.5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense.NMD DA 24 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia NMD Bad – Generic NMD poses a great threat to US allies and the American people. adding sea.cato.S.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-058es. In contrast.S.

NMD DA 25 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia AT: NMD Good/Solves Attacks NMD will be an epic failure. Yet. senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. he's planning to start deploying the first components of an MD system—six anti-missile missiles in Alaska. 5-01. homeland. a senior fellow and director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy. Thus. Bush is starting to deploy very expensive weapons without the slightest bit of evidence that they have any chance of working. development of a missile shield should be confined to the more limited land-based system that the Clinton administration has proposed. that reasoning is a dangerous illusion that could actually undermine U. except by sheer luck. Marsh. “Bush’s Latest Missile Defense Folly”.S. . http://www. only a limited amount of flight test data will be available for the system deployment decision in fiscal year 2000. [CXia] None of the national missile defense systems proposed over the past twenty years has ever proven in tests to be technically feasible. and Melvin A. 2k. Gerald E. The United States is many years away from conducting the kinds of realistic tests that could provide military and political leaders with the confidence they should have in these weapons to deploy them. U. and those currently under development are far from promising. did the anti-missiles actually hit their targets. 1999. In fact. 3-12-04. and flight tests are way behind schedule. if such adversaries cannot threaten the United States or its allies with catastrophic retaliation. in locations not yet chosen. the following year.html. http://www. physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. Goodman. [CXia] The main objective of conservatives in supporting more robust missile defense systems does not seem to be defense of the U. in which the target followed a preprogrammed flight path to a designated position. [CXia] Bush's budget for next year includes $10. But because any missile defense system cannot guarantee that all incoming warheads will be destroyed. Other missile-defense systems being discussed by the Bush administration have failed to pass their tests or remain seriously undertested NMD is only used for offensive reasons. these interceptors will not be able to shoot down enemy missiles.org/dfd/shield. security. The reasoning is that. only fifteen intercept attempts outside the atmosphere have been conducted by the Department of Defense since 1982. as illustrated by the finding of the GAO in 1997 that "Because of the compressed development schedule.slate. http://www.ciponline. NMD is not only expensive. This summer. and a Global Positioning Satellite receiver was placed on the target to send its position to ground control. Fred Kaplan.7 billion for missile defense—over twice as much money as for any other single weapons system. four in California. In only four.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-058es. or 26 percent. Inadequate testing also constitutes a problem.S. director of defense policy studies at the Cato Institute.S. “Shield of Dreams: Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work”. to put it more precisely. Craig Eisendrath.com/id/2097087/." Inadequate testing is also cited in the Coyle report of January 2001. Or. An example is the rigged test of October 2. “Lets Make National Missile Defense Truly ‘National’”.cato. Ivan Eland. The Clinton system faced this problem. columnist. their aim seems to be to create a stronger shield behind which the United States can move against potential regional adversaries possessing weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles to deliver them. the decoy had a significantly different thermal temperature from the target. Instead. the interceptor missile also flew to a preprogrammed position.htm. policymakers will feel more confident in intervening militarily. but will be ineffective. and as many as 20 more. and none demonstrated an ability to distinguish warheads from realistic decoys.

org/dfd/shield. Ironically.by resuming talks with North Korea.htm. Marsh. http://www. Craig Eisendrath. 5-01. Negotiations have worked in the past. Goodman. it is important to realize how small and economically weak North Korea is -. Continued negotiations between the United States and North Korea could well yield a diplomatic resolution." This is perhaps risking the best opportunity to defeat potential. President Bush squandered the opportunity to conclude a verifiable.ciponline. improving its relations with South Korea and Japan. Despite this impressive record. indicate it is coming out of its self-imposed isolation and acting constructively to improve its international position. Western observers would not have been allowed to investigate North Korea's Kumchon-Ni facility when suspicious activity took place in 1998. He stated that talks started in the Clinton era would not resume soon but at "some point in the future. Moreover. a senior fellow and director of the National Security Program at the Center for International Policy. during his March 7. permanent end to North Korea's long-range missile program. its test facilities are quite primitive. and Melvin A. It has only tested two longer-range missiles (it has not tested since 1998). [CXia] Yet. The 1994 Agreed Framework provided a way to verify allegations of missile development.NMD DA 26 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia AT: NMD necessary – North Korea North Korea poses no threat. including a verifiable agreement to end its missile and nuclear programs. “Shield of Dreams: Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work”. and its missile system is not capable of sustaining multiple launches of missiles. its recent moves. without it.a country intermittently hit by famine with a GNP only 4 percent of Taiwan's. . It should also be noted that the threat of military retaliation has deterred North Korea from launching a full-scale attack on South Korea for fifty years. and would most certainly prevent it from launching a missile attack against either the United States or South Korea. long-range North Korean missiles -. senior fellow at the Center for International Policy. the United States is focusing on North Korea as the raison d'etre for NMD at the very time that Pyongyang is moderating its policies. including historic exchanges between the heads of state of North and South Korea in June of 2000. Gerald E. physicist at Argonne National Laboratory. and looking for ways to moderate its modest strategic programs. 2001 meeting with South Korean president Kim Dae Jung.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said. Daily News Bulletin. 7-11-08.html.000 kilometers is proof that Russia was right in asserting that it is irrational for the U. to deploy elements of its missile defense shield in Europe.com/article/viewiStockNews+articleid_2389995&title= Irans_Testing_of.000 kilometers.S." Lavrov told a news conference after a meeting with his Jordanian counterpart Salah Eddin Bashir in Moscow on Friday. "We are still convinced that talk about the Iranian nuclear threat as the reason behind the deployment of the third positing district is unsubstantiated. the tests that took place in Iran just confirmed that Iran now has missiles with a range below 2.NMD DA 27 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia AT: NMD necessary – Iran Your Iran args are wrong AND Russia sees NMD as a threat. “Iran’s Testing of Missile with Range Below 2000 Km Proves NMD Not Needed in Europe – Lavrov”. . missile defense system in Europe is not necessary to monitor and react to these missiles. http://www. "This confirms what we have been saying: the current idea to deploy the third positing district of the U. "As to missile defense. [CXia] Iran's testing of missiles with a range below 2.S.istockanalyst." Lavrov said." the minister said.

http://www.globalsecurity. forward-looking consensus on defending against current and future threats.” DeSutter said in April 4 remarks at a Washington seminar sponsored by the National Defense University Foundation.NMD DA 28 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia AFF: NMD Good There is growing international cooperation on NMD – it solves against threats. DeSutter said that missile defense systems are “a reasonable insurance policy to purchase in today’s international security environment. Bureau of International Information Programs.” because they strengthen deterrence while also serving a contingency need should a hostile regime launch ballistic missiles -– possibly carrying nuclear. she said. “International Cooperation on Missile Defense Capabilities Growing”. [CXia] Growing international cooperation in building missile defense capabilities represents a new. At the same time. chemical or biological weapons –. assistant secretary of state for verification. “We can’t continue to use 20th-century tools to meet 21st-century challenges. 4-6-06. says Paula DeSutter.against the United States or its allies.org/space/library/news/2006/space-060404-usia01. missile defense is more than an insurance policy -– it is an essential component of America’s goal to support international nonproliferation efforts and build a “layered” defense against weapons of mass destruction . compliance and implementation.htm.

." Theresa Hitchens. "I doubt very much . Russia can’t challenge the US. director of the Center for Defense Information in Washington. LexisNexis. "With the US arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small. even with this new missile and its warheads. LexisNexis. Stimson Center. Political scientists Keir Lieber of Notre Dame University in Indiana and Daryl Press from the University of Pennsylvania detailed what they said was Russia's declining post-Cold War military clout last year in the journal Foreign Affairs. Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal has sharply deteriorated. “Russia can’t rival US in arms race: analysts”. [CXia] "Russia's nuclear forces will continue to shrink. AFP." they wrote. The Russian ministry of defense refused to reveal the characteristics of the new missile but said it was designed to replace the Soviet-era RS-18 and RS-20 rockets. “Russia can’t rival US in arms race: analysts”. the era of MAD (mutual assured destruction by nuclear weapons) is ending -. a specialist security think-tank in Washington. told AFP. 5-31-07." they added.. Russia's vulnerability will only increase over time. She was referring to Moscow's announcement on Tuesday that it had successfully tested a RS-24 rocket. Warnings are diplomatic. AFP." . "What nuclear forces Russia retains are hardly ready for use.NMD DA 29 DDI 08 KO Crystal Xia AFF: No US/Russia War Arms race over NMD is unlikely." she added." Krepon said." said Michael Krepon." "Unless they reverse course rapidly. a new multiple warhead ballistic missile designed to overcome air defense systems. co- founder of the Henry L. 5-31-07. "I think they would like to show the United States and the rest of the world that they are not impotent in the face of US missile defense.and the era of US nuclear primacy has begun.but analysts say a repeat of the Cold War bomb scramble is unlikely. "This test clarifies the message that Moscow has minimal assured destruction capabilities even with US military dominance and missile defenses. saying Russia was "posturing" on the "political issue" of missile defense. Russia is locked in a diplomatic battle over US plans to expand its missile defense shield into central Europe. that the Russians are going to rush ahead and build a whole bucket load of these kind of missiles. "Even as the United States' nuclear forces have grown stronger since the end of the Cold War. [CXia] Russia may have test-fired a new rocket and warned of an "arms race" due to US missile shield plans in Europe -.