Policy Debate On Putting Laser Ballistic Missile Defense System in Space

Answers 1. We need to cut funding on useless projects for funds. 2. 20 Billion Dollars 3. NASA in cooperation with the MDA 4. 1,000 5. 2 Years developmental time and 3 years to implement the plan. Road Map 1. Answer to my opponent's arguments 2. Advantages 1. Inherency a) My opponent offers no warrent as to why we are safe from EMP's and ICBM's but only shows that "The Commission expresses confidence in the Ground-Based Interceptors (GBIs) currently deployed in California and Alaska" Which will most likely leave the east coast open to all threats and shows no proof we are safe. b) My opponent says that the GBI's work with no problem but the card itself says that 2 out of 7 test fail. When dealing with nuclear disasters you must have 7 out of 7. You can not leave any chance with the survival of the human race. And that is what the con wants to do. Also this is 20 one use interceptors while my plan is 1,000 multi use low maintenance lasers. c) Freedictionary.com is not a credible source and all arguments from this source should be ignored. d) To answer to the weapons in space argument I say first this is not a weapon and is a defensive mechanism to stop weapons use. Also I present this evidence... Space is already used for weapons of war. Our plan purposes a way to protect us from such weapons. The Heritage Foundation, September 26, 2011 [http://www.33-minutes.com...] Space is being used today for defense purposes. The use of satellites contributes tremendously to successes on the battlefield. There seems to be a cry against the weaponization of space, but it is already being used for these purposes. Intercontinental ballistic missiles use space to deliver their warheads. The world has 20 countries with nuclear weapons technology. When these nuclear warheads are placed into ballistic missiles, they use space for the delivery. For the national security of the United States, it is necessary to explore, design, and develop many types of space-based defense systems to eliminate the threat of nuclear missiles. Space-based missile defense systems are one key element to providing a missile shield against a rogue nuclear missile attack. e) The Lockheed Martin Corp. evidence is invalid due to it being from 1997 and things have changed drastically since then 15 years later and there is a need and the potential. f) As for space debris issue... They Incorrectly Conflate The Kessler Syndrome Like A Japanese Anime – This Card Is From Kessler Kessler, Johnson, Liou, And Matney 10 – Donald J. Kessler, Nicholas L. Johnson, J.-C. Liou, Mark Matney, Retired NASA And Current NASA Personnel, February 10 2010, "The Kessler Syndrome: Implications To Future Space Operations," 33rd Annual AAS Guidance And Control Conference, Online: http://webpages.charter.net... The Kessler Syndrome includes exaggerated components. , once initiated, "…. billions of other pieces [would be generated] in a very short time [and] the Earth would be surrounded by debris …. completely cut off from space." In general, collisional cascading is a slow process, but very much depends on the population density and size of the objects in orbit. Current population densities would require decades to produce a significant change in the small debris environment, and much longer to approach a condition where the Earth might be "completely cut off from space". This card shows that this is a fake "fact" found in an anime and fixated. 2. Advantages Great to protect against arms race Stephen Peter Rosen 03 (PhD from Harvard University in 1979 and is currently the Beton Michael Kaneb Professor of National Security and Military Affairs in the Department of Government, Harvard University) Spring 2003 "An Empire, If you Can Keep It," The National Interest, , LN Academic, UK: Fisher Rather than wrestle with such difficult and unpleasant problems, the United States could give up the imperial mission, or pretensions 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 the United States alone. But those who are hostile to us might remain hostile, and be much less afraid of the United States after such a withdrawal. Current friends would feel less secure and, in the most probable post-imperial world, would revert to the logic of self-help in which all states do what they must to protect themselves. 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. Major regional arms races would also be very likely throughout Asia and the Middle East. This would not be a pleasant world 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 put the 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. Advantage: Space BMD's Capable of Shooting Down EMP No defense against EMP—need space BMD to protect us from collapse of America (would work well with an impact card that says US collapse = world collapse, I can't find one though) Timmerman ‘8 (Kenneth R. Timmerman, journalist, political writer, and writer on weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, 2008 July 29th, Newsmax, http://www.bomb-shelter.net... ) , we have no defense against such an attack. We need space-based missile defenses to protect against an EMP attack Kyl believes that the only way to eventually deter Iran from launching an EMP attack on the United States is to deploy robust missile defense systems, including space-based interceptors. The United States "needs a missile defense that is so strong, in all the different phases we need to defend against . . . that countries will decide it's not worth coming up against us," Kyl said. "That's one of the things that defeated the Soviet Union. That's one of the ways we can deal with these rogue states . . . and also the way that we can keep countries that are not enemies today, but are potential enemies, from developing capabilities to challenge us."