
2/21


2

Death Star NC

Counterplan text- The United States should create a Spaced-Based Lasers anti-

nuclear missile defense system. States should continue to possess nuclear weapons.

(Arms Control Association. The Boeing Company. FederationofAmerican Scientists. GlobalSecurity.org. Missile Defense Agency.Space-Based Laser Team Defines Requirements for Experimental Missile Defense System. Space Daily, 4 April 2001.)

Each SBL would be located on a satelliteroughly 20 meters long and weighing about 17,500 kilograms . Theacquisition and tracking system, the eyes of each SBL, would detect the bright plume of aliquid-fueled missile as it rises above the clouds (in its boost phase). The tracker would then lock on to themissile, compute its position and velocity, and predict how far it would have to travel in the amount of time the laser beam takes to cover the

distance.Once locked on to the enemy missile, the SBL would then fire its megawatt-class high power beam. Within a three-meterlong cylinder, hydrogen and fluorine gas would react and produce HF molecules in an excited state.

An optical resonator would extract energy from the HF molecules and produce the actual beam. The

beam control system would then aim the laser at the enemy missile, correct any aberrations in the beam itself, and transfer it to the beamdirectora large mirror designed to focus the laser on the enemy missile. Once released, the high-powered beam

would rush into the vacuum of space at the speed of light, penetrate the earths

atmosphere, and destroy the missile just above the clouds. The entire process, from

detection to elimination, would take seconds. Each SBL would carry enough fuel for about one hundred shots.

Competition The CP is mutually exclusive because it mandates that states possess nuclearweapons while the AC necessitates disarmament. It also competes through net benefits.

Net benefits- NC

Solvency-

Spaced-based lasers can stop any launch of nuclear missiles; it is the ultimate deterrence

and its existence promotes more anti-missile defense systems.

Federation of American Scientists. Space Based Lasers [SBL]. FAS Space Policy Project.May 30, 2008 http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm

The SBL program could develop the technology to provide the U.S. with an advanced BMD

system for both theater and national missile defense. BMDO (ballistic missile defense organization) believes that

an SBL system has the potential to make othercontributions to U.S. security and world

securityas a whole,

such as inducing potential aggressors to abandon ballistic missile programsby rendering them useless. Failing that, BMDO believes that the creation of such a universal

defense system would provide the impetus for other nations to expand their security

agreements with the United States, bringing them under a U. S. sponsored missile defense

umbrella

And,nuclearmissilescan bedisabled withoutdetonatingthe warhead.


3/21


3

(William H. Possel, Lt Col July 1998 Occasional Paper No. 5. Center for Strategy andTechnolog.y Air War College. Air University Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama.http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/docs/occppr05.htm)

The key factor in designing a cost effective weapon architecture is determining the exact amount of laser energy required to destroy a missile. In

order for a laser weapon to destroy a ballistic missile, the missile skin must be heated, melted, or vaporized . For a laser to disable a

missile, it must concentrate its energy on certain parts of the missile and hold the beam steady for a long enoughtime to heat the material to the failure point. The effectiveness of the laser depends on the beam power, pulse duration, wavelength, air

pressure, missile material, missile velocity, and the thickness of the missile's skin. 38 Ifthe laser could specifically target theelectronic circuits, which are used for guidance control, it would render the missile incapable of staying on

course.39 These circuits are relatively easy to destroybut difficult to target precisely. Another kill mechanism is to melt asection of the material surrounding the missile's fuel tank and detonate the fuel. A third and more realisticapproach is to heat the

missile skin until internal forces cause a failure of the skin around the fuel tank. This type of failure producesa rupture of the missile given the enormous internal pressure in the fuel tank. It also requires the least amount

laser energy to destroy the missile.40

Finally,spaced-based weaponrycanstopanynuclearballistic missiles.

Federation of American Scientists 08,

(Federation of American Scientists. Space Based Lasers [SBL]. FAS Space Policy Project. May 30, 2008 http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm)

Current SBL planning is based on a 20 satellite constellation, operating at a 40 inclination,intended to provide the optimum TMD threat negation capability. At this degree ofdeployment, kill times per missile will range from 1 to 10 seconds, depending on the rangefrom the missile. Retargeting times are calculated at as low as 0.5 seconds for new targets

requiring small angle changes.It is estimated that a constellation consisting of only 12 satellites can negate 94% of all missilethreats in most theater threat scenarios. Thus a system consisting of 20 satellites is expected by BMDO to

provide nearly full threat negation.


4/21


4

The cost for a SBL system is low.

(Federation of American Scientists. Space Based Lasers [SBL]. FAS Space Policy Project. May 30, 2008

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm)

The Space-Based Laserisplannedto beaspacecraftweighing 17,500 kg, though this weight could grow to 19,000 kg.

The spacecraft would be 20 meters long with a diameter of over 4.5 meters. Asofmid-2001 the SBL IntegratedFlightExperiment wasscheduledforlaunchin2012,with an intercept test to be conducted in 2013. The SBL test facility is beingbuilt at NASA s Stennis Space Center in Mississippi . Theprojectpasseda Systems Requirements Review in March2001, witha System Definition Review plannedforfall2001. Acceleratingthescheduleofthe SBLprototypewould require funding increases over the initially estimated $2-3 billion cost ofthe test. Some estimates suggest thatafull20-satelliteconstellationcouldcost $40 billion,pluslaunchcosts.


5/21


5

Lasers are empirically proven to work on moving targets.

(Ewen Macaskill. US 'Star Wars' lasers bring down ballistic missile. The Guardian. Friday 12 February 10.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/12/star-wars-laser-ballistic-missile)

The USthis weekachieveda goal that has eluded it since Ronald Reagan's Star Wars programme byknocking out aballistic missile using a high-powered laser beammounted on a plane.The successful testwascarried outyesterday in California, the US Missile Defence Agency (MDA) said, making real what had previouslybeen confined to the realms of science fiction. The plane uses a combination of lasers to

lock on to the missile and track its trajectory, and then bring it down with a single shot

fired from the nose turret, all in less than 12 seconds. According to analysts, the breakthrough could have animpact on the North Korean and Iranian missile programmes, forcing them to develop faster missiles and adopt measures to counter the laser

beams.The MDA said today:"The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missiledefence, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of

hundreds of kilometres, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current

technologies."


6/21


6

Perm answers1. The permutation does not give any sort of reasoning as to why nuclear

weapons are bad, because lasers still solve for the arguments that my

opponent is making. As such, we can only look to my benefits of nuclear

weapons and the permutation gains no ground for the affirmative because my

opponent is unresponsive to actually how lasers solves for my opponents

arguments.

2. Space based lasers are not suitable for ground targets. Lasers target ballistic

missiles during the boost launch phase, which is between the missile taking off

and getting into stable flight. The missile, at this point in time, is under the

most stress and is extremely vulnerable. Lasers, when used on ground targets,

would require massive amounts of continous power on a target, and because

of this is militarily and economically unsuitable towards ground targets.

(Federation of American Scientists. Space Based Lasers [SBL]. FAS Space Policy Project. May 30, 2008 http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm)

However, for slower targets or alternative missions in which the lasers owner can choose the time andgeometry of engagement, this surplus target capacity could be put to use without compromising theconstellations capability against ballistic missile targets, which would presumably avoid launching at times of

peak lethality. For example, a laser whose wavelength has been chosen to penetrate low enough into theatmosphere could be used against airplanes or cruise missiles in flight or even against terrestrial targets,

such as above-ground fuel tanks, missiles still on their launchers or transporters, fuel trucks, and other

relatively thin-skinned or flammable targets.To the degree that such targets are vulnerable to the kind of

surface-heating damage that a laser can inflict, engaging them should require amounts of laser fuelsimilar to those for a missile target. Of course, any use of the excess kill rate capacity would still have to fitwithin the logistic limits of energy storage (electrical or chemical) and replenishment.

3. Only having the space-laser system as a defense against possible nuclear

missile launches is possible. Cross apply The Federation of American Scientists

08 saying that nations will go along with it as a nuclear deterrence. If used for

other purposes, the system will lead to, rather than unity, more conflict. If

used as in the permutation that my opponent is arguing, such as against

ground and conventional ballistic missiles, it will seem to other nations as a

personal way for the United States to control other nations, rather than a

missile defense. This would only lead to more conflict.


7/21


7

Answerstosolvency1. If a laser was to attack a nuclear weapon, it would be in its boost-phase,

which is when the system is designed to attack missiles and while its still

over the opposing nations territory. So, three things can happen

a. The laser system would disarm the missile in its boost phase without

detonating the warhead.

b. Nuclear missiles are usually unarmed when fired until it reaches its

target. Because of this, the nuclear device would be disabled and be

unarmed when it falls back to earth.

c. Even if the laser fails to safely disarm the nuclear weapon and it is

armed, the nuclear device would then be brought down over enemy

territory and fallout/chemical/biological impacts would rain down on

the opposing nations territory. This creates even more deterrence

and cross-apply Federation of American Scientists 08 saying that

lasers deter, because a nation wouldnt launch a nuclear device that

would be exploded over its own territory.

2. Ground-transported nuclear bombs are ineffective because:

a. Nuclear weapons transported by air and land means cannot reach

its target and can be stopped by conventional means. I.E. If a

nuclear bomb was to be transported by plane to the UnitedStates, it could be stopped by the Air force.

b. Nuclear weapons are too bulky and heavy to transport by land or

air based means. ICBM were created specifically to transport

massive nuclear weapons to its intended target without the other

nation having sufficient defensive capabilities.

3. Space lasers can be used on lower-flying missiles as well. Cross-apply

Federation of American scientists 01 and Lasers are empirically proven to workon moving targets.

(Ewen Macaskill. US 'Star Wars' lasers bring down ballistic missile. The Guardian. Friday 12 February 10.http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/feb/12/star-wars-laser-ballistic-missile)

The USthis weekachieveda goal that has eluded it since Ronald Reagan's Star Wars programme byknocking out aballistic missile using a high-powered laser beammounted on a plane.The successful testwascarried outyesterday in California, the US Missile Defence Agency (MDA) said, making real what had previously


8/21


8

been confined to the realms of science fiction. The plane uses a combination of lasers to

lock on to the missile and track its trajectory, and then bring it down with a single shot

fired from the nose turret, all in less than 12 seconds. According to analysts, the breakthrough could have animpact on the North Korean and Iranian missile programmes, forcing them to develop faster missiles and adopt measures to counter the laser

beams.The MDA said today:"The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missiledefence, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of

hundreds of kilometres, and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current

technologies."


9/21


9

Blockto ExtraTopicality

EXTRA-TOPICALITY GOOD

A) Counter-Interpretation: The neg may run an extra-topical plan as long as thesolvency advocate of the plan advocates both the extra-topical and topical action and aslong as neg fiat does not exceed aff fiat.B) Violation: I meet. My solvency advocate advocates my entire advocacy and theextra-topical plan does not exceed aff fiat [SPECIFIC WARRANT (ie. the affsays theUnited States will do this action, I also say the US will do an equally probable action)]

United States will develop weapons in space no matter what.

(Unclassified National Space Policy , Office of Science and Technology Policy, ExecutiveOffice of the US President, October 6, 2006

http://www.globalissues.org/article/69/militarization-and-weaponization-of-outer-space)

The United States considers space capabilitiesincluding the ground and space segments

and supporting linksvital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United

States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or

deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so;

take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and

deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions

that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control

agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct

research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national

interests;

C) Standards:

1) Reciprocity: The aff can run an infinite number of non-topical arguments thatsolve for the harms of the neg better than the plan. Thenegative must beabletorunextra-topicalargumentsinorderto maintainreciprocity,since the round would be skewed in favor of the affirmative if they were theonly one able to run arguments outside the scope of the resolution. I am notdenying the aff any CP ground because they can still advocate the non-topical section of the neg plan; if he can prove competition, that would provea disadvantage to doing the neg. I am not claiming some utopian plan likecure AIDS because my fiat matches the fiat of the negative. Reciprocalground is key to fairness, since allowing one side access to more argumentscreates an inherent inequity in the round.


10/21


10

2) Breadth: Allowing debaters to be extra topical letsustalkaboutthe mostimportantissues, even if they arent directly within the scope of the debate.For example, if lifting sanctions would be a prerequisite to rebuilding relationsbetween the U.S. and Cuba, it may be beneficial to allow a debater toadvocate that the U.S. rebuild relations with Cuba because of the political

relevance of this issue. This allows for debaters to gain a more usefuleducation in the round, since they can discuss the resolution as it relates toreal issues, rather than in the abstract.

3) Real-world Decision-making: Policymakers never make decisions in avacuum; they only reject a plan if there is no better alternative , as the planwould otherwise be the best possible option. Thus,advocatingalternativesthatincludeextra-topicalandtopicalactionreflectthepolicymakingmindset. This has the strongest link to education. Strait and Wallace write,

4) The ability to make decisions deriving from discussions, argumentation ordebate, is thekey still. It is the one thingevery single one of us will do every day of our livesbesides breathing. Decision-making transcends all boundariesbetween categories of learning like policy education and kritik education, it makes irrelevant considerations of whether we will eventually be policymakers, and it transcendsquestions of what substantive content a debate round should contain. The implication for this analysis is that thecritical thinking and argumentative skills offered by real-world decision-making arecomparatively greater than any educational disadvantage weighed against them. It is the skillswe learn, not the content of our arguments, that can best improve all of our lives. Whilepolicy comparison skills are going to be learned through debate in one way o r another, those skills are useless if they are not groundedin the kind of logic actually used to make decisions.1

1 L. Paul Strait (George Mason University) and Brett Wallace (George Washington University). TheScope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making. WFU Debaters Research Guide. 2007.[http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/2007/The%20Scope%20of%20Negative%20Fiat%20and%20the%20Logic%20of%20Decision%20Making.pdf]


11/21


11

Heg solves terrorismWalt02 professor of international affairs at Harvard (Stephen, American Primacy http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/review/2002/spring/art1-sp2.htm))

Perhaps the most obvious reason why states seek primacyand why the United States benefits from itscurrent positionis that international politics is a dangerous business. Being wealthier and stronger than

other states does not guarantee that a state will survive, of course, and it cannot insulate a state from alloutside pressures. But the strongest state is more likely to escape serious harm than weaker ones are,andit will be better equipped to resist the pressures that arise. Because the United States is so powerful, and because its society is so wealthy, it has ample resources to devote to whatever problems it may face inthe future. At the beginning of the Cold War, for example, its power enabled the United Stat es to help rebuild Europe and Japan, to assist them in developing stable democratic orders , and to subsidize theemergence of an open international economic order.7 The United States was also able to deploy powerful armed forces in Europe and Asia as effective deterrents to Soviet expansion. When the strategicimportance of the Persian Gulf increased in the late 1970s, the United States created its Rapid Deployment Force in order to deter threats to the Wests oil supplies; in 199091 it used these capabilities to liberate

Kuwait. Also, when the United States was attacked by the Al-Qaeda terrorist network in September 2001, it hadthe wherewithal to oust the networks Taliban hosts and to compel broad international support for itscampaign to eradicate Al-Qaeda itself. It would have been much harder to do any of these things if theUnited States had been weaker. Today, U.S. primacy helps deter potential challenges to Americaninterests in virtually every part of the world. Few countries or nonstate groups want to invite the focusedenmity of the United States (to use William Wohlforths apt phrase), and countries and groups that havedone so (such as Libya, Iraq, Serbia, or the Taliban) have paid a considerable price. As discussed below,U.S. dominance does provoke opposition in a number of places, but anti-American elements are forced torely on covert or indirect strategies (such as terrorist bombings) that do not seriously threaten Americas

dominant position. Were American power to decline significantly, however, groups opposed to U.S.interests would probably be emboldened and overt challenges would be more likely.

Heg solves prolifRosen03 Professor of National Security and Military Affairs at Harvard University (Stephen, An Empire,If you can keep it, The National Interest, Spring)

Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, orpretensions to it, now. This would essentially mean the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from the Middle East,Europe and mainland Asia. It may be that all other peoples, without significant exception, will then turn to their own affairs and leave theUnited States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the UnitedStates after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-


12/21


12

imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protectthemselves. This would imply the relatively rapid acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by Japan,South Korea, Taiwan, Iran, Iraq and perhaps Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Indonesia and others.Constraints on the acquisition of biological weapons would be even weaker than they are today. Majorregional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasantworld for Americans, or anyone else. It is difficult to guess what the costs of such a world would be to the United States. They would probably not putthe end of the United States in prospect, but they would not be small. If the logic of American empire is unappealing, it is not at all clear that the

alternatives are that much more attractive

Primacy is key to the global economy and helping Third World countriesThayer 07 Associate Professor at Missouri State University [Bradley American Empire: A Debate (pg43-44)]

Economic prosperity is also a product of the American Empire. It has created a Liberal InternationalEconomic Order (LIED)a network of worldwide free trade and commerce, respect for intellectual propertyrights, mobility of capital and labor marketsto promote economic growth. The stability and prosperitythat stems from this economic order is a global public good from which all states benefit, particularly statesin the Third World.The American Empire has created this network not out of altruism but because it


13/21


13

benefits the economic well-being of the United States. In 1998, the Secretary of Defense William

Cohen put this well when he acknowledged that "economists and soldiers share the same interest in

stability";soldiers create the conditions in which the American economy may thrive, and "we are able toshape the environment [of international politics] in ways that are advantageous to us and that arestabilizing to the areas where we are forward deployed, thereby helping to promote investment andprosperity...business follows the flag." Perhaps the greatest testament to the benefits of the American

Empire comes from Deepak Lal, a former Indian foreign service diplomat, researcher at the WorldBank, prolific author, and now a professor who started his career confident in the socialist ideology of

post-independence India that strongly condemned empire. He has abandoned the position of his

youth and is now one of the strongest proponents of the American Empire. Lal has traveled the worldand, in the course of his journeys, has witnessed great poverty and misery due to a lack of economicdevelopment. He realized that free markets were necessary for the development of poor countries,

and this led him to recognize that his faith in socialism was wrong. Just as a conservative famously issaid to be a liberal who has been mugged by reality, the hard "evidence and experience" that

stemmed from "working and traveling in most parts of the Third World during my professional

career" caused this profound change.' Lal submits that the only way to bring relief to the desperatelypoor countries of the Third World is through the American Empire. Empires provide order, and this order"has been essential for the working of the benign processes of globalization, which promote prosperity."62Globalization is the process of creating a common economic space, which leads to a growing integration of the

world economy through the increasingly free movement of goods, capital, and labor. It is the responsibility ofthe United States, Lal argues, to use the LIEO to promote the well-being of all economies, but particularlythose in the Third World, so that they too may enjoy economic prosperity.

Military power is the crucial factor for securing peaceDavid Talbot, Salon.com, January 3,2002

From the Gulf War on, the hawks have been on the right side in all the major debates about U.S. intervention inthe world's troubles. The application of American military power -- to drive back Saddam Hussein's invasion ofKuwait, stop Slobodan Milosevic's genocidal campaigns in the Balkans, and destroy the terrorist occupation ofAfghanistan -- has not just protected U.S. interests, it has demonstrably made the world saferand more civilized.Because of the U.S.-led allied victory in the Persian Gulf, Saddam -- the most blood-stained and dangerous dictator in power today -- was

blocked from completing a nuclear bomb, taking control of 60 percent of the world's oil resources and using his fearsome arsenal (includingbiological and chemical weapons) to consolidate Iraq's position as the Middle East's reigning force. Because of the U.S.-led air war against

Milosevic, the most ruthless "ethnic cleansing" program since the Holocaust was finally thwarted -- first in Bosnia and then in Kosovo -- and


14/21


14

the repulsive tyrant is now behind bars in the Hague. And in Afghanistan, the apocalyptic master plan of the al-Qaida terror network wasshattered by America's devastatingly accurate bombing campaign, along with the medieval theocracy that had thrown a cloak of darkness over

the country. These demonstrations of America's awesome firepower were clearly on the right side of history. In fact, the country's greatestforeign policy disasters during this period occurred because the U.S. government failed to assert its power: whenPresident George H. W. Bush aborted Operation Desert Storm before it could reach Baghdad and finish off Saddam (whosearmy had only two weeks of bullets left) and when he failed to draw a line against Milosevic's bloody plans for a greaterSerbia; and when President Bill Clinton looked the other way while a genocidal rampage took the lives of a million people in

Rwanda and when he failed to fully mobilize the country against terrorism after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and the later attackson American targets abroad -- a failure that extended through the first eight months of Bush II.

US leadership solves nuke war, democracy, free trade, and conflicts globallyKhalilzad95 Defense Analyst at RAND, (Zalmay, Losing the Moment? The United States and the World

After the Cold War The Washington Quarterly, RETHINKING GRAND STRATEGY; Vol. 18, No. 2; Pg.84)

Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise ofa global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-termguiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world inwhich the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global


15/21


15

environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets,

and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the

world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states,and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile globalrival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the

attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more

conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Nuclearweaponsinspace wouldcausea massivearmsrace.

(OuterSpaceMilitarization, weaponization,andthepreventionofanarmsrace. ReachingCriticalWill.Kache Productions. 2008.http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/paros/parosindex.html)

The weaponizationofspace willdestroystrategic balanceandstability,undermineinternationalandnationalsecurity,anddisruptexistingarmscontrolinstruments,inparticularthoserelatedto


16/21


16

nuclearweaponsand missiles.Theseeffects willinevitablyleadtoanew armsrace. Spaceweaponization wouldseriouslydisruptthearmscontrolanddisarmamentprocess.The United States'withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2001 and the development of US ground- and sea- based missile defenses have

already increased tensions with Russia and have led to increased missile proliferation .Thedeploymentofthesetechnologiesorthedevelopmentofspace-basedtechnologies willlikelycause Russia,as wellasthe United States (inresponseto Russia),to makesmallerandsmallerreductionsoftheirnucleararsenalsandtorejectthedevelopmentofnew treatiestoregulatenuclearweaponsandtheirdeliverysystems. China would likely build more warheads to maintain its nuclear deterrent, which could in turn encourageIndia and then Pakistan to follow suit.

Weaponization of space would ruin United States security.

(Theresa Hitchens, Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?, The Policy Implications of USPursuit of Space-Based Weapons, Center for Defence Information, April 18, 2002.http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm)


17/21


17

Unlike in Star Trek,the 'final frontier' has yet to become a battlefield. But if the current trends continue, that will

change not in the distance future of science fiction, but within the next several decades. Emerging Bush administration plans and policies are clearly aimed at making the United States the first nation to deploy space-based weapons.

There are several drivers behind this goal, including the very real concern about the

vulnerability of space assets that are increasingly important to how the U.S. military

operates, and the administration's decision to pursue missile defense. Unfortunately, the administration has donelittle thinking at least publicly about the potential for far-reaching military, political

and economic ramifications of a U.S. move to break the taboo against weaponizing space.There is reason for concern that doing so could actually undermine, rather than enhance,the national security of the United States, as well as global stability. Thus it behooves the administration,

as well as Congress, to undertake an in-depth and public policy review of the pros and cons of weaponizing space. Such a review

would look seriously at the threat, both short-term and long-term, as well as measures to

prevent, deter or counter any future threat using all the tools in the U.S. policy toolbox:

diplomatic, including arms control treaties; economic; and military, including defensive

measures short of offensive weapons. There is nothing to be gained, and potentially much

to be lost, by rushing such a momentous change in U.S. space policy

Weaponization of space will occur in status quo.

(Theresa Hitchens, Weapons in Space: Silver Bullet or Russian Roulette?, The Policy Implications of USPursuit of Space-Based Weapons, Center for Defence Information, April 18, 2002.http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/spaceweapons.cfm)


18/21


18

The Pentagon's just-revised missile defense plans include a much greater emphasis on the

potential for space-based system, in particular for shooting down enemy missiles in their boost phase as they begin to ascendthrough the atmosphere. Although it is unclear if these plans are a deliberate foot in the door to theweaponization of space, their implementation would have that effect. A decision to moveforward with space-based missile defense systems would end today's policy of restraint with

or without an overt move to rewrite the National Space Policy. The newly named MissileDefense Agency (formerly the Ballistic Missile Defense Agency) has proposed spending

$1.33 billion from 2003 to 2007 on developing "Space-Based Boost" in essence reviving

the Reagan-era concept of Brilliant Pebbles, a constellation of orbiting, kinetic kill vehiclesdesigned to knock out enemy ICBMs in their boost phase. "Concept assessment" is due to be completed inearly 2003, according to Pentagon fiscal year (FY) 2003 budget documents, with an aim to "support a product line decision not earlier than FY

2006."213 The development program is being designed to include at least limited experimentsin space.

Space race weaponization will ruin international relations.

(Michael Wallace, BallisticMissile Defense: The view from the cheap seats, WagingPeace.org(NuclearAge Peace Foundation)


19/21


19

"[T]he poorer and weaker nations and peoples of the world regard the entire BMD controversywith a mixture of disbelief and disgust. For the world's richest nation [USA] to spend suchenormous sums on unproven and provocative technologies while failing to pay the full amount oftheir dues to the UN, refusing to agree to total debt relief for the poorest nations, and denying fullaccess to American markets for such key Third World products as textiles and sugar, seems

utterly incomprehensible. To put this in specific perspective: it was estimated by a Greenpeaceactivist from the Cook Islands that the $100 million wasted on the failed July 7, 2000 test couldhave built and run a hospital and provided free university education for the entire population ofthe Cook Islands for many decades. Surely, American security would be better served byspending money on such worthy projects than by a futile attempt to create an unattainableFortress America."

Weaponization of space will be an economic failure.


20/21


20

Richard F. Kaufman et. al, The Full Costs of Ballistic Missile Defense, Center for Arms Control

and Non-Proliferation and Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, January 2003http://www.globalissues.org/article/68/star-wars-phantom-menace-or-new-hope)

Ballistic missile defense is technologically extremely challenging and efforts to solve the

technical challenges, including those of evolving countermeasures, are inevitably laden withuncertainty and, therefore, are expensive. The Bush administration's interest in building acomprehensive, or "layered," missile defense system could lead to extraordinary defense budgetcosts over the next twenty to thirty years. The projected costs of all the layers and components ofa layered missile defense are seldom in public view, and never all at one time. Moreover, theprojected future costs over the plausible life cycles of missile defense systems are rarelyexamined and poorly understood by key decision makers, at least outside the missile defenserealm itself. Presentations of the technical and cost issues needed for congressionalaccountability frequently conceal more than they reveal. Assessments of the likely cost of missiledefense architectures that are intelligible to the public as a whole hardly exist.

... Once longer term operations and support costs are added to acquisition costs to give a pictureof the total life cycle costs for each missile defense system in the overall system, we find that thelikely future cost of layered missile defense would be, on the Low Estimate side, between $785billion and $825 billion dollars at least, and on the High Estimate side, between $1.1 trillion and$1.2 trillion.

Lasers solve for asteroids.


21/21

Documents

Death Star Counter Plan Backfile