322 Ko NMD Da

DDI ’08 NMD DA
Jackie “Awesome” Wu & A-Bomb 1/115
NMD DA- Peer Reviewed and Censored
NMD DA- Peer Reviewed and Censored.........................................................................................................1

1NC POLISH SECURITY Shell..................................................................................................................4
1NC CZECH SHELL 1..................................................................................................................................6
1NC CZECH SHELL 2/3...............................................................................................................................7
1NC CZECH SHELL 3/3...............................................................................................................................8
1NC CZECH LOLCRABS Alternate SHELL 2/2......................................................................................10
1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL ........................................................................................................................11
1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL 2/2 .................................................................................................................13
1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL 2/2 B..............................................................................................................15
U: NOW IS KEY............................................................................................................................................16
Perception of unilat blocks NMD...................................................................................................................17
U: CZECH......................................................................................................................................................18
U: POLAND...................................................................................................................................................19
U: RUSSIA.....................................................................................................................................................21
U: GERMANY...............................................................................................................................................22
U: FRANCE....................................................................................................................................................23
LINK: SECURITY.........................................................................................................................................24
LINK: SECURITY.........................................................................................................................................26
LINK: SECURITY—POLAND ....................................................................................................................27
LINK: SECURITY—POLAND.....................................................................................................................29
LINK: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY—POLAND............................................................................................31
LINK: NUCLEAR PLANT LOLZ.................................................................................................................35
LINK: PROLIF...............................................................................................................................................36
LINK: PROLIF...............................................................................................................................................38
LINK: PROLIF...............................................................................................................................................40
LINK: PROLIF—POLAND...........................................................................................................................41
LINK: IRAQ...................................................................................................................................................42
LINK: IRAQ—POLAND/CZECH................................................................................................................43
AFF LINK: CTBT..........................................................................................................................................44
LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.................................................................................................45
LINK: CLIMATE...........................................................................................................................................46
LINK: CLIMATE...........................................................................................................................................48
LINK: CLIMATE...........................................................................................................................................49
LINK: CAP AND TRADE.............................................................................................................................50
LINK: MULTILATERAL ANYTHING.........................................................................................................51
LINK: MULTILATERAL ANYTHING.........................................................................................................52
LINK: AIR POWER / MILITARY—POLAND.............................................................................................54
LINK: AIR POWER / MILITARY—POLAND.............................................................................................55
LINK: AFGHANISTAN.................................................................................................................................56
INTERNAL: NMD TRADING......................................................................................................................57
INTERNAL: NMD TRADING—POLAND..................................................................................................59
INTERNAL: SUPPORT KEY........................................................................................................................60
INTERNAL: Poland key to European support...............................................................................................62
NMD BAD—ARMAMENT..........................................................................................................................63
NMD BAD: KILLS RUSSIAN RELATIONS...............................................................................................64
NMD BAD: KILLS RUSSIAN RELATIONS...............................................................................................65
NMD BAD: WAR WITH CHINA..................................................................................................................66
NMD BAD: NUCLEAR ARMS RACE.........................................................................................................67
1
A Jackie Wu and Anuj Bapodra Production:
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD—ARMS RACE, CHINA............................................................................................................68
Terminal Impacts: Russian retaliation............................................................................................................69
NMD invades Russian Sphere of Influence/ Disrupts Relations...................................................................71
U.S. Russian Relations Brink Card.................................................................................................................73
Impact Module: Joint Data Exchange Center/Accidental Launch.................................................................74
Impact- Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.......................................................................................76
Impact- Accidental Space Arms Race ............................................................................................................77
Impact- U.S. Russian Relations Key to Iran...................................................................................................79
Impact- Pre-Emptive Nuke Strike..................................................................................................................82
NUCLEAR PROLIF.......................................................................................................................................84
NMD GOOD—DETERRANCE....................................................................................................................86
NMD GOOD: PREVENT WAR.....................................................................................................................87
NMD GOOD: WEAPON PROLIF................................................................................................................88
NMD "GOOD"—WIN WARS.......................................................................................................................89
NMD Good Impacts- Deters Nuclear War....................................................................................................90
NMD Good Impact- Deters Proliferation......................................................................................................91
NMD Good Impact- Solves Terrorism..........................................................................................................93
NMD Good Impact- Iran...............................................................................................................................94
.......................................................................................................................................................................94
NMD Good Iran Impact Extension ...............................................................................................................96
NMD Good Impact– Russian Expansionism ................................................................................................98
NMD Good – Russian Expansionism Extension ........................................................................................100
NEG: CZECH/POLAND KEY....................................................................................................................101
NEG: A2 "NMD FAILS"..............................................................................................................................102
POLITICS—OBAMA K2 NMD..................................................................................................................103
2AC FRONTLINE 1/2.................................................................................................................................104
2AC FRONTLINE 2/2.................................................................................................................................105
AFF: OTHER NMD INEVITABLE.............................................................................................................106
AFF: DISAD'S NOT INTRINSIC ...............................................................................................................108
AFF: NON/U—CZECH...............................................................................................................................109
AFF: NO LINK—POLAND........................................................................................................................110
AFF: RUSSIAN IMPACT TURN.................................................................................................................111
SPACE AFF TURNS 1/2..............................................................................................................................112
SPACE AFF TURNS 2/2.............................................................................................................................112
IRAQ ADVANTAGE LINK TURN.............................................................................................................114
RANDOM EXTRANEOUS CARDS...........................................................................................................115
Notes:
Jackie’s Notes: THERE ARE FIVE F---ING SHELLS! FIVE!!! SHELLS!!!!!!!!

LOLCRAB SHELLS!!!!!!!!!!!
Security links are for Heg, Soft power, Military, Deterrance, Etc, or anything that could
be construed to increase Poland or whoever's security. The Air Power links to Poland are
really, really sweet; they literally say trading NMD for improved security in the same
sentence. Read them. They apply to military too.
Also, there are almost no terminal impacts in this file. I don't believe in terminal impacts.
Pull them from other files.
Lolcrabs, a new disad the day before disclosure?

--NMDz
2
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Anuj’s Notes: It’ll be in your best interest to watch out for Jackie Wu’s psychotic
behavior; apparently he likes eating LOLCRABs- yet another thing to be banned at the
Beijing Olympics along with dog meat.
The terminal impacts are so good you’ll want to read them all in the 2NC and 1NR
without doing any line-by-line. Research and let your cards do the talking.
-Anuj (A-Bomb)
3
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC POLISH SECURITY Shell
A. UNIQUE LINK :
U.S. talks over NMD now—increasing Polish security is key to acceptance
ChinaView, March 08 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/13/content_7780787.htm

[JWu]
A day after Tusk's meeting with Bush at the White House, Polish Defense Minister
Bogdan Klich said Tuesday that the deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in
Poland would depend on the country's security situation despite pledges by Washington
to upgrade its military.
The minister said the Polish government is assessing whether the promised U.S. military
aid can offset a possible security threat to Poland brought about by the deployment of the
missile shield.
Klich said if Poland's national security should be undermined as a result of the scheme,
the government will by no means ink a deal with the United States on the issue.
Out of security concerns, Poland has asked the U.S. to provide Patriot 3 or THAAD
missiles and listed 17 areas of its military that the U.S. could help modernize. Poland has
also asked for military aid worth several billion U.S. dollars.
Poland also wants to forge closer ties with the U.S., demanding a bilateral relationship
similar to the one between the U.S. and Britain.
The Polish government's desire for such a hard bargain with the United States is also a
response to the concerns of the Polish people.
4
DDI ’08 NMD DA
B. NMD CAUSES GLOBAL ARMS RACE, WEAPONS PROLIF, AND SPACE

WEPS
CAMILLE GRAND, Institut français des Relations internationales (IFRI), Paris. Lecturer, Institut
d’études politiques de Paris, and Ecole spéciale militaire, and Adviser for arms control and non-
proliferation at the French Ministry of Defense. 01 "NMD and arms control: a European view."
http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/NMD/grand.pdf [JWu]
Analysts opposing NMD and European leaders have written numerous

pieces, and made numerous statements demonstrating a genuine
concern that, if mishandled, NMD could or would jeopardize 30 years of
arms control efforts. French President Jacques Chirac stated that NMD
is “of a nature to retrigger a proliferation of weapons, notably nuclear
missiles.”3 German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed a similar
view when he said, “Neither economically, nor politically, can we afford
a new round of the arms race.”4 According to these views, the worst-
case arms control scenario is that NMD deployment by the US will be
followed by Russia’s withdrawal from major arms treaties and
verification regimes (the INF Treaty, the tactical nuclear regime of
1991, START), as well as its development of greater offensive and
defensive capabilities. China would also block further arms control
efforts and increase the expansion of its nuclear forces, followed by
India and Pakistan. Additionally, Russia and China could loosen their
already weak export controls and deliberately accelerate missile and
WMD technology proliferation. “States of concern” could engage in a
missile buildup to try to challenge the emerging NMD and local TMD
programs. This would lead to a renewed interest and potential arms
race among the major powers in more modern offensive capabilities
and counteroptions including space-based weapons. Many would
therefore share the view expressed at the 2000 NPT review conference
by Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh that NMD “could run counter
to efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”
5
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC CZECH SHELL 1
A. UNIQUENESS
CZECH REPUBLIC ON FENCE ABOUT NMD
AP 7-4-08 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/07/04/europe/EU-Poland-US-Missile-
Defense.php [JWU]
On Friday, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg said his government will sign a
deal with the U.S. next week on installing the radar in the Czech Republic.
His government said Washington is expected to be represented at the signing by U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during a visit to the country.
However, such a deal still requires the approval of the Czech parliament, and it remains
unclear whether the measure would pass. Missile defense is deeply unpopular among the
Czech public, and the vote is parliament is expected to be extremely close.
B. LINK:
Czech Republic is dependent on Russian oil and would love to transition to alternative
energy
Vladimir Volkov International Editorial Board member of WSWS 18 July 2008

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/miss-j18.shtml [JWU]
One more response by Russia was the decision to “punish” the Czech Republic economically. On
July 8, the supply of oil to the Czech Republic through the “Friendship” pipeline was cut by half.
Officially, the reduction was attributed to profound economic considerations, however the
Russian mass media unequivocally pointed to a direct linkage between this decision and the issue
of the radar system in the Czech Republic.
It is not the first time that the Russian regime has used an “economic weapon” to exert pressure on
its neighbors and partners. During the first days of 2005, gas supplies to Ukraine were halted for several days; similar
threats were made against Belarussia. In the spring of 2006, a ban was placed on the import into Russia of Moldavian
and Georgian wine, which painfully affected the economies of both republics. In the summer of 2006, Russia halted the
supply of oil to the Mazheikyaisky oil refinery in Lithuania. This occurred after Vilnius declared the Polish oil
company PKN Orlen, rather than Russian companies, the winner in competition for privatizing the refinery and
transferring stock shares. The present suspension of the export of Russian oil to the Czech Republic
has caused great concern in this country. The major Czech oil-refining company, Unipetrol AS,
promised that it would not allow a shortage of fuel oil or a rise in prices. Strategic reserves would
be used and more oil would be supplied through a pipeline from Germany. However, if the
Russian “blockade” continues, it might cause serious difficulties in supplying the Czech economy
with petroleum products.
6
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC CZECH SHELL 2/3
C. UNIQUE INTERNAL LINK—FURTHER NMD PROGRESS WILL BE PERCEIVED AS

HARMFUL TO SECURITY AND CAUSE RUSSIAN BACKLASH

The US and the Czech Republic signed an agreement July 8 in Prague for the deployment of
radar and anti-missile systems on the territory of this Eastern European country. The pact has
become one more step in sharpening geopolitical tensions between the United States and Russia.
It evoked a stormy response from Moscow.
Signed by American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs
Karel Schwarzenberg, the agreement is opposed by about 70 percent of Czech citizens. Its
defenders justify the agreement by pointing to the need to defend Europe from possible Iranian
missile attacks. However, the Russian side insists that the true target of creating an infrastructure
of anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe is not Iran, but Russia. If the plan is realized, then the
military and political positions of Russia would be weakened.
A statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published on the next day said that “the
Russian side in such a situation will take adequate measures to compensate for potential threats to
its national security.” This statement referred not to “diplomatic, but military-technological
methods.”
Speaking on July 15 in the Kremlin at a meeting with representatives of the diplomatic corps,
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said: “Placing elements of a global anti-missile system by
the US in Eastern Europe only deepens the situation, and we will be forced to react to this
adequately.”
He declared that Russia’s national security could not be maintained simply by the good word of
its partners, and he accused Washington of “gradually undermining... the strategic stability in
relations between our countries.”
D. KABLOOEY!!!!
Helen Caldicott, founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2002, “The New Nuclear Danger”, p.
7-12. [T-Jacob]
If launched from Russia, nuclear weapons would explode over American cities thirty minutes after takeoff.
(China's twenty missiles are liquidfueled, not solid-fueled. They take many hours to fuel and could not be used in a surprise
attack, but they would produce similar damage if launched. Other nuclear-armed nations, such as India and Pakistan, do not
have the missile technology to attack the U.S.) It is assumed that most cities with a population over 100,000 people are
targeted by Russia. During these thirty minutes, the U.S. early-warning infrared satellite detectors signal the
attack to the strategic air command in Colorado. They in turn notify the president, who has approximately
three minutes to decide whether or not to launch a counterattack. In the counterforce scenario the US. government
currently embraces, he does [the U.S.] launch[es], the missiles pass mid-space, and the whole operation is over within one hour.
Landing at 20 times the speed of sound, nuclear weapons explode over cities, with heat equal to that inside the center of the sun.
There is practically no warning, except the emergency broadcast system on radio or TV, which gives the public only minutes
to reach the nearest fallout shelter, assuming there is one. There is no time to collect children or immediate family members.
The bomb, or bombs-because most major cities will be hit with more than one explosion-will gouge out craters 200 feet deep
and 1000 feet in diameter if they explode at ground level. Most, however, are programmed to produce an air burst, which
increases the diameter of destruction, but creates a shallower crater. Half a mile from the epicenter all buildings will be
destroyed, and at 1.7 miles only reinforced concrete buildings will remain. At 2.7 miles bare skeletons of buildings still stand,
single-family residences have disappeared, 50 percent are dead and 40 percent severely injured.' Bricks and mortar are
converted to missiles traveling at hundreds of miles an hour. Bodies have been sucked out of buildings and converted to
7
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC CZECH SHELL 3/3
missiles themselves, flying through the air at loo miles per hour. Severe overpressures (pressure many times greater than
normal atmospheric have popcorned windows, producing millions of shards of flying glass, causing decapitations and
shocking lacerations. Overpressures have also entered the nose, mouth, and ears, inducing rupture of lungs and rupture of the
tympanic membranes or eardrums. Most people will suffer severe burns. In Hiroshima, which was devastated by a very small
bomb-13 kilotons compared to the current iooo kilotons-a child actually disappeared, vaporized, leaving his shadow on the
concrete pavement behind him. A mother was running, holding her baby, and both she and the baby were converted to a
charcoal statue. The heat will be so intense that dry objects-furniture, clothes, and dry wood-will spontaneously ignite.
Humans will become walking, flaming torches. Forty or fifty miles from the explosion people will instantly be blinded from
retinal burns if they glance at the flash. Huge firestorms will engulf thousands of square miles, fanned by winds
from the explosion that transiently exceed 1000 miles per hour. People in fallout shelters will be
asphyxiated as fire sucks oxygen from the shelters. (This happened in Hamburg after the Allied bombing in WWII
when temperatures within the shelters, caused by conventional bombs, reached 1472 degrees Fahrenheit.)" Most of the city
and its people will be converted to radioactive dust shot up in the mushroom cloud. The area of lethal fallout from this cloud
will depend upon the prevailing wind and weather conditions; it could cover thousands of square miles. Doses of 5000 rads (a
rad is a measure of radiation dose) or more experienced by people close to the explosion-if they are still aliv-will produce
acute encephalopathic syndrome. The cells of the brain will become so damaged that they would swell. Because the brain is
enclosed in a fixed bony space, there is no room for swelling, so the pressure inside the skull rises, inducing symptoms of
excitability, acute nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, severe headache, and seizures, followed by coma and death within twenty-four
hours. A lower dose of 1000 rads causes death from gastrointestinal symptoms. The lining cells of the gut die, as do the cells in
the bone marrow that fight infection and that cause blood clotting. Mouth ulcers, loss of appetite, severe colicky abdominal
pain, nausea, vomiting, and bloody diarrhea occur within seven to fourteen days. Death follows severe fluid loss, infection,
hemorrhage, and starvation. At 450 rads, 50 percent of the population dies. Hair drops out, vomiting and bloody diarrhea
occurs, accompanied by bleeding under the skin and from the gums. Death occurs from internal hemorrhage, generalized
septicemia, and infection. Severe trauma and injuries exacerbate the fallout symptoms, so patients die more readily from lower
doses of radiation. Infants, children, and old people are more sensitive to radiation than healthy adults. Within bombed areas,
fatalities will occur from a combination of trauma, burns, radiation sickness, and starvation. There will be virtually no medical
care, even for the relief of pain, because most physicians work within The United States owns 103 nuclear power plants, plus
many other dangerous radioactive facilities related to past activities of the cold war. A 1000- kiloton bomb (1 megaton)
landing on a standard iooo megawatt reactor and its cooling pools, which contain intensely radioactive spent nuclear fuel,
would permanently contaminate an .' area the size of western Germany3 The International Atomic Energy Agency now
considers these facilities to be attractive terrorist targets, ' post-September 11,2001. Millions of decaying
bodies-human and animal alike-will rot, infected with viruses and bacteria that will mutate in the
radioactive-environment to become more lethal. Trillions of insects, naturally ' resistant to radiation-flies,
fleas, cockroaches, and lice--will transmit disease from the dead to the living, to people whose immune
mechanisms have been severely compromised by the high levels of background radiation. Rodents will
multiply by the millions among the corpses and shattered sewerage systems. Epidemics of diseases now
controlled by immunization and good hygiene will reappear: such as measles, polio, typhoid, cholera,
whooping cough, diphtheria, smallpox, plague,tuberculosis, meningitis, malaria, and hepatitis. Anyone who
makes it to a fallout shelter and is not asphyxiated in it, will need to stay there for at least six months until
the radiation decayssufficiently so outside survival is possible. It has been postulated that perhaps older
people should be sent outside to scavenge for food because they will not live long enough to
developmalignancies from the fallout (cancer and leukemia have long incubation periods ranging from five
to sixty But any food that manages to grow will be toxic because plants concentrate radioactive elements.*/
Finally, we must examine the systemic global effects of a nuclear . , war. Firestorms will consume oil wells,
chemical facilities, cities, and forests, covering the earth with a blanket of thick, black, radioactive , I I ' smoke, reducing sunlight to
17 percent of normal. One year or more ' ) , will be required for light and temperature to return to normal per-"r haps supernormal
values, as sunlight would return to more than its , , usual intensity, enhanced in the ultraviolet spectrum by depletion of the
stratospheric ozone layer. Sub freezing temperatures could destroy the biological support system for civilization, resulting in massive
starvation, thirst, and hypothermia.5 To quote a 1985 SCOPE document published by the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, "the total loss of human agricultural and societal support systems would result in the loss of
almost all humans on Earth, essentially equally among combatant and noncombatant countries alike . . . this vulnerability is an
aspect not currentlya part of the understanding of nuclear war; not only are the major combatant countries in danger, but virtually the
entire human population is being held hostage to the large-scale use of nuclear weapons. . . .",! i The proposedSTART I11 treaty
between Russia and America, even if it were implemented, would still allow 3000 to 5000 hydrogen bombs to be maintained on
alert."he threshold for nuclear winter? One thousand loo-kiloton bombsblowing up loo cities7-a I c distinct possibility given current
capabilities and targeting plans. On January 25,1995, military technicians at radar stations in northern Russia detected signals from an
American missile that hadjust been launched off the coast of Norway carrying a US. scientific probe. Although the Russians had been
previously notified of this launch, the alert had been forgotten or ignored. Aware that US. submarines could launcha missile containing
eight deadly hydrogen bombs fifteen minutes from Moscow, Russian officials assumed that America had initiated a nuclear war. For
8
DDI ’08 NMD DA
the first time in history, the Russian computer containing nuclearlaunch codes was opened. President Boris Yeltsin, sitting at that
computer being advised on how to launch a nuclear war by his military officers, had only a threeminute interval to make a decision. At
the last moment, the US.missile veered off course. He realized that Russia was not under attack.' If Russia had launched its missiles,
the US. early-warning satellites would immediately have detected them, and radioed back to Cheyenne Mountain. This would have led
to the notification of the president, who also would have had three minutes to make his launch decision, and America's missiles would
then have been fired from their silos. We were thus within minutes of global annihilation that day. ,' Today, Russia's early-warning and
nuclear command systems are deteriorating. Russia's early-warning system fails to operate up to seven hours a day because only one-
third of its radars are functional, and two of the nine global geographical areas covered by its missilewarning satellites are not under
surveillance for missile detection.9 TO make matters worse, the equipment controlling nuclear weapons malfunctions frequently, and
critical electronic devices and computers sometimes switch to combat mode for no apparent reason. According to the CIA, seven times
during the fall of 1996 operations at some Russian nuclear weapons facilities were severely disrupted when robbers tried to "mine"
critical communications cables for their copper!'" This vulnerable Russian system could easily be stressed by an internal or
international political crisis, when the danger of accidental or indeed intentional nuclear war would become very real. And the U.S.
itself is not invulnerable to error. In August 1999, for example, when the National Imagery and Mapping Agency was installing a new
computer system to deal with potential Y2K problems, this operation triggered a computer malfunction which rendered the agency
"blind" for days; it took more than eight months for the defect to be fully repaired. As the New York Times reported, part of America's
nuclear early-warning system was rendered incompetent for almost a year." (At that time I was sitting at a meeting in the west wing of
the White House discussing potentially dangerous Y2K nuclear weapons glitches. Several Pentagon officials blithely reassured me
that everything would function normally during the roll-over. But in fact, their intelligence system had already been disabled.) Such
a situation has the potential for catastrophe. If America cannot observe what the Russians are doing with
their nuclear weapons-or vice versa-especially during a serious international crisis they are likely to err on
the side of "caution," which could mean that something as benign as the launch of a weather satellite could
actually trigger annihilation of the planet.This situation became even more significant after the September
11 attack.
9
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC CZECH LOLCRABS Alternate SHELL 2/2

C. RUSSIANS WOULD BOYCOTT CZECH BEER IF NMD PASSES—THIS DEVASTATES
THE CZECH ECONOMY
RIA News, (Russian Information and News Agenct) 7-23-08

en.rian.ru/russia/20080723/114771723.html [JWU]
MOSCOW, July 23 (RIA Novosti) - A Russian boycott on Czech beer in response to the
placement of a U.S. missile defense radar in the Czech Republic could deliver a serious
blow to the Czech economy, a Russian analyst said on Wednesday. The U.S. plans to
place a radar in the Czech Republic and 10 interceptor missiles in northern Poland as part
of a U.S. missile shield for Europe and North America against possible attacks from
"rogue states," including Iran. Russia strongly opposes the possible deployment of the
U.S. missile shield, viewing it as a threat to its national security. "If Russian consumers
refuse to drink Czech beer in protest at the deployment of a U.S. radar [in the Czech
Republic]...it would be a serious response, more serious than the suspension of oil
supplies or any protest note sent by the Russian Foreign Ministry," said Alexander
Pikayev, director of the department of Disarmament and Conflict Resolution at the
Institute of World Economy and International Relations.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Czech Foreign Minister Karel
Schwarzenberg signed an agreement in Prague on July 8 on the deployment of a missile-
tracking radar in the Czech Republic.
The Czech-U.S. treaty has yet to be ratified by the Czech parliament or signed by the
Czech president, however. The U.S. is planning to link the early warning radar in the
Czech Republic with an interceptor missile base in Poland, but negotiations with Warsaw
have stalled. The Czech Republic is world famous for its beer production and
consumption. Beer is ingrained in the Czech culture so much that the beer industry is
considered a part of the national heritage.
D. Mead, 1998 [Walter Russell Mead, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign
Relations, The Los Angeles Times, August 23, 1998] http://global.factiva.com/ha/default.aspx
Forget suicide car bombers and Afghan fanatics. It's the financial markets, not the terrorist training
camps that pose the biggest immediate threat to world peace. How can this be? Think about the
mother of all global meltdowns: the Great Depression that started in 1929. U.S. stocks began to
collapse in October, staged a rally, then the market headed south big time. At the bottom, the Dow
Jones industrial average had lost 90 percent of its value. Wages plummeted, thousands of banks and
brokerages went bankrupt, millions of people lost their jobs. There were similar horror stories
worldwide. But the biggest impact of the Depression on the United States -- and on world history --
wasn't money. It was blood: World War II, to be exact. The Depression brought Adolf Hitler to
power in Germany, undermined the ability of moderates to oppose Joseph Stalin's power in Russia,
and convinced the Japanese military that the country had no choice but to build an Asian empire,
even if that meant war with the United States and Britain. That's the thing about depressions. They
aren't just bad for your 401(k). Let the world economy crash far enough, and the rules change. We
stop playing "The Price Is Right" and start up a new round of "Saving Private Ryan."
10
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL
A. UNIQUE INTERNAL LINK
EUROPE OPPOSES NMD NOW, AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION KEY TO
PASSAGE
PBS 2K "MISSILE DEFENSE POLITICS" pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/nmd_8-

24.html [JWU]
And overseas, there has been a growing drumbeat of opposition. Many foreign leaders argue that
a U.S. missile defense system would provoke an arms race and challenge historic understandings
built on deterrence and international treaties. French President Jacques Chirac said building the
system would "retrigger a proliferation of weapons, notably nuclear missiles." German
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said, "Everything that goes in the direction of proliferation is a bad
direction. I'm skeptical." And the chief of foreign policy for the European Union, the former head
of NATO, Javier Solana, said recently, "If the decision on deployment is taken without agreement
with Russia and without help from European leaders, it will be very badly taken." They, along
with the Russians and Chinese, worry that an American missile defense system would give the
U.S. global military dominance. But if it's to be built, allied concurrence is essential, because
radars will have to be stationed in Greenland and Great Britain, as Secretary of Defense William
Cohen explained recently.
WILLIAM COHEN: In order to have a technologically effective system, we need to have the
support of our allies. If we don't have the support of our allies with respect to forward-deployed
x-band radars, you will not have an effective technologically reliable system.
B. EUROPE ASKING U.S. TO CHANGE GAS EMISSION POLICIES

WASHINGTON TIMES 5-26-08 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/26/us-pressed-
for-emissions-cuts-by-20/[JWu]
KOBE, Japan (AP) — European and developing countries urged the United States and
Japan yesterday to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 — a step
they say is needed to defuse a coming ecological disaster caused by global warming. The
calls at a meeting of environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized
nations in Japan coincided with rising concern that momentum is draining from U.N.-led
efforts to force a new climate-change agreement by a December 2009 deadline.
11
DDI ’08 NMD DA
C. NMD POLICY IS QUID PRO QUO

David Malone is president of the International Peace Academy in New York. AND Ramesh
Thakur is vice rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo. 3-11-01
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20010311a2.html [JWU]
There can be little doubt that the Bush administration does not incline naturally toward
multilateral diplomacy and a treaty-based international security system. Nevertheless, it will not
wish to alienate close allies on more than one or two issues at a time and may soon find itself
engaged in give-and-take with them. Its top priority appears to be the further development and
eventual deployment of a national missile defense system, a U.S. idea that has long unsettled not
only Russia and China, but also key European allies and Canada. It could well decide, among
other measures, that ratification of the CTBT had become useful to reassure allies and foes alike.
Regardless of their views on NMD, U.S. allies and foes now need to consider their own
strategies. Indefinitely stamping their feet on an issue that may be nonnegotiable in essence but
negotiable in specifics and at the margins, would be self-defeating. NMD is not something the
allies, Moscow or Beijing can stop. However, they could well influence the context within which
NMD will be developed, its ultimate scope and its detailed aims. Their eventual consent can also
be exchanged against concessions from Washington on related or different issues.
12
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL 2/2

C. PISSES OFF RUSSIA
The US and the Czech Republic signed an agreement July 8 in Prague for the deployment of
radar and anti-missile systems on the territory of this Eastern European country. The pact has
become one more step in sharpening geopolitical tensions between the United States and Russia.
It evoked a stormy response from Moscow.
Signed by American Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Czech Minister of Foreign Affairs
Karel Schwarzenberg, the agreement is opposed by about 70 percent of Czech citizens. Its
defenders justify the agreement by pointing to the need to defend Europe from possible Iranian
missile attacks. However, the Russian side insists that the true target of creating an infrastructure
of anti-missile defense in Eastern Europe is not Iran, but Russia. If the plan is realized, then the
military and political positions of Russia would be weakened.
A statement by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs published on the next day said that “the
Russian side in such a situation will take adequate measures to compensate for potential threats to
its national security.” This statement referred not to “diplomatic, but military-technological
methods.”
Speaking on July 15 in the Kremlin at a meeting with representatives of the diplomatic corps,
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said: “Placing elements of a global anti-missile system by
the US in Eastern Europe only deepens the situation, and we will be forced to react to this
adequately.”
He declared that Russia’s national security could not be maintained simply by the good word of
its partners, and he accused Washington of “gradually undermining... the strategic stability in
relations between our countries.”
D. IMPACT: US-Russian relations key to preventing nuclear terror
David Kramer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs,
July 12, 2006, “The Future Obit of US Russian Relations”, Speech: US State Depart . David, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs, “The Future Orbit of US Russian Relations”, Speech:
US State Department, July 2. [T-Jacob]
Our cooperation will include the physical protection of nuclear materials, suppressing illicit trafficking of
those materials, responding and mitigating the consequences of any acts of nuclear terrorism, and
cooperating on the development of the technical means to combat nuclear terrorism, denying safe haven to
terrorists, and strengthening our national legal frameworks to ensure the prosecution of such terrorists and
their supporters. This initiative serves U.S. national security interests. We have invited partner nations to
meet in the fall to elaborate on and endorse a statement of principles for this initiative. It's one we hope to
expand.
13
DDI ’08 NMD DA
2. EXTINCTION
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, Egyptian Political Analyst, August, 26, 2004, Al-Ahram
Newspaper, http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm | SWON. [T-Jacob]
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would
further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are
now living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up
at the expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and
ethnic conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the
awareness that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive. But the still more
critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world war, from which no
one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when one side triumphs over
another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear pollution infects the
whole planet, we will all be losers.
14
DDI ’08 NMD DA
1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL 2/2 B
C. NMD sparks global nuclear arm races

Noam Chomsky, professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 7-18-08,
“National Missile Defense System”, The American Prospect,
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/20000718.htm, [CXia]
I would prefer to respond to a slight reformulation of the question. The most hopeful
prospect for the NMD [National Missile Defense], I think, is that the tests fail; and very
clearly, because in the domain of nuclear strategy, appearance is likely to be interpreted as
reality, for familiar reasons. If a system is developed that seems feasible, China will
respond by strengthening its deterrent, which will impel India to do the same, and
Pakistan, and . . . According to press reports, a new National Intelligence Estimate predicts
that NMD deployment will trigger buildup of nuclear-armed missiles by China, India,
and Pakistan, with a further spread into the Middle East. Russia will assume that such a
system can be quickly upgraded and will therefore also regard it as a first-strike threat.
As many have observed, Russia's "only rational response to the NMD system would be to
maintain, and strengthen, the existing Russian nuclear force" (Michael Byers),
undermining hopes for nuclear disarmament. The president of the Stimson Center, Michael
Krepon, comments that the difference between Russian and U.S. stockpiles is so great that
"the Russians are looking at a U.S. breakout level" and will be likely to react accordingly.
U.S. 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, a
proposal that is "pretty bizarre," one expert commented, because "we know their warning
system is full of holes" (John Steinbruner). At the UN [United Nations] conference on the
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) in May, 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.
D. Nuclear war
Steven Lee, Professor, Ethics, Hobart and Smith College, Morality, Prudence, and Nuclear
Weapons, 1993, p. 299
First, nuclear war could result from the behavior of other states, especially those that had
formerly seen themselves as receiving protection from the nation's opponent under the
nuclear umbrella. Some of theses states might well seek to acquire nuclear weapons, or to
enlarge their arsenals if they were already nuclear powers, in order to provide better
protection of their own against the opponent. Were such armament to occur, the
uncertainties on all sides may make major nuclear war more likely that it was prior to the
nation's unilateral nuclear disarmament
15
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U: NOW IS KEY
NOW IS KEY FOR NMD TALKS
DW news 3/18/08 GERMAN NEWS SOURCE, "US hopeful about progress on US Missile
defense plans", http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3199539,00.html [JWU]
Russia has for the first time signaled willingness to soften its opposition to controversial US plans
for a missile defense shield in central Europe as top US officials met with Putin's successor in
Moscow.
On the second day of talks with top Russian officials in Moscow, US Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates spoke of an upbeat mood during their
meeting with President Vladimir Putin and his protege, president-elect Dmitry Medvedev, on
Monday.
"We had a positive spirit yesterday.... We look forward to further work today, to having greater
details so that perhaps we can strengthen our partnership and overcome some of our differences,"
Rice said.
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia was "satisfied with the way our relations are
developing" and that there was a will to minimise discord."
Gates predicted the two sides could conclude a deal on disputed US missile defence plans before
Bush leaves office in January 2009.
NO EUROPEAN NMDS NOW

FOX NEWS 12-7-07 http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,315742,00.html [JWU]
The Associated Press quotes a top Czech official saying it is now harder to do his job explaining
the need for a U.S. missile defense system, which U.S. officials say is needed to ward off attack
from Iran.
"Czech newspapers are full of headlines saying there is no longer a need for missile defense. ... It
is hard for complex arguments to win against simple headlines," said Tomas Klvana, according to
the AP.
The administration has dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others to try to allay
European allies over the meaning of the report — chiefly Russia, which already his highly
suspicious of the U.S. missile program, and other top allies France, Germany and the U.K.
NOW IS KEY—IF WE DON'T ACT NOW, PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN WILL MIRE NMD
AFP 6-19-08
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/US_taps_Lithuania_as_alternative_to_Poland_for_missile_shie
ld_plan_999.html [JWU]
Waszczykowski believes they are a "tool of pressure" to speed-up the negotiations with
Poland, which have dragged on for 13 months so far, in order to strike a deal before US
President George W. Bush leaves office early next year.
"The United States know time is an issue," Waszczykowski said, adding policy decisions
will effectively be frozen as the US presidential campaign comes into full swing this fall.
16
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Perception of unilat blocks NMD
Perception of unilateralism is blocking European support for NMD
Lukasz Kulesa, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, April 12, 2007,
“Missile Defense Dossier: The Polish Perspective,” online:
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_e
ng.pdf [Bapodra]
The strategic consequences of the controversy over the European MD deployment may
turn out to be much more serious. Unfortunately, many politicians and commentators
across Europe saw the US proposal as an excellent opportunity to repeat their criticism of
the US foreign policy in general and the current administration in particular. In the eyes
of the critics, here is yet another (after Iraq) example of American unilateralism,
compromising the global security. Another group of the opponents of the MD deployment
in Europe point at Poland and the Czech Republic as countries which are somehow not
European enough, willing to betray the unity of the continent for the promise of closer
relations with Washington. Russia is skillfully providing additional arguments to all those
MD critics, threatening to take ‘necessary actions’ in response (like the withdrawal form
the INF treaty or putting the bases on the target list of its strategic forces) but, at the same
time, expressing regret at the lack of the US willingness to adopt a ‘multilateral
approach’.
17
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U: CZECH
UNIQUE INTERNAL LINK:

CZECH PARLIAMENT ON FENCE--PASSAGE ENSURES NMD
RADIO PRAGUE 7-9-08 http://www.radio.cz/en/news/105975 [JWU]
The Czech-US missile defense treaty still needs to be approved by Parliament and a vote on it is
expected late this year or early next year. The issue has divided the Czech political scene and
support for it in the lower house is far from certain. Public opinion is also against the radar base
with 68 percent of Czechs opposing the deal. Close to two thousand people took to the streets of
Prague on Tuesday to protest against the treaty.
President Klaus says he would sign radar treaty with no hesitation whatsoever
President Vaclav Klaus has said he would sign the Czech-American radar agreement with “no
hesitation whatsoever”, if it were approved by Parliament. At a brief press conference in Prague
the president said that he regarded the radar as a unifying element in the country’s partnership
with the United States. Asked to comment on Russia’s angry response to the missile defense
project Mr. Klaus said that Prague and Washington had to keep trying to convince Moscow that
placing elements of the missile defense system in two post-communist countries posed no threat
to Russia.
CZECH NMD TREATY HAS BEEN STARTED, BUT FACES OPPOSITION
NEW YORK TIMES 7-9-08

nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/europe/09shield.html?em&ex=1215748800&en=f870cb9afdaab674&ei=5087%0A
[JWU]
The accord with the Czech Republic is not without its problems.
The deal signed on Tuesday does not ensure that the radar system will be built immediately or
that the next American administration will stick to the project.
Negotiations are still taking place on a second treaty, to deal with the legal status of American
troops to be deployed at the planned radar base. Both treaties require ratification by Czech
legislators, many of whom are skeptical about the project, while the public is largely opposed.
18
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U: POLAND
POLAND ON FENCE ABOUT NMD

INTERNATIONAL HERALD tribune 11-23-07
iht.com/articles/2007/11/23/opinion/edpoland.php [JWU]
Poland's new government is taking a skeptical second look at the Bush administration's proposal
to station 10 interceptor missiles in Poland as part of a European-based missile-defense system.
Warsaw's new defense minister, Bogdan Klich, said in an interview with a Polish paper this week
that his government must "weigh the benefits and costs of this project for Poland." The Poles
aren't the only ones with doubts. A thousand Czechs marched through Prague demanding a
referendum on whether the system's radar should be built in the Czech Republic, as Washington
wants.
NMD DIALOGUE WITH POLAND AREN'T SUCCESSFUL NOW
Russian Information and News Service, 8-1-08 http://en.rian.ru/world/20080801/115480478.html

[JWu]
"This is one of the most important issues during the talks with Americans. Poland cannot
bear financial responsibility for the use of the [U.S. missile defense] system elements,
because the decision to launch an interceptor will not be made by us," he said.
Poland's prime minister said on July 4 his country was not satisfied with the terms offered
by the U.S. for the deployment of a missile defense base on its soil, but was ready for
further dialogue.
Tusk said then: "We need firm guarantees from Washington that the deployment of a
missile defense base will enhance Poland's security," but that on this issue "we did not
achieve a result that would be satisfactory to Poland."
19
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U.S. soft power has eroded, causing Poland to block NMD
“Missile Defense Dossier: The Polish Perspective,” online:
ng.pdf [Bapodra]
The discussion on the Missile Defence in Poland has confirmed a major shift in the
attitudes of the public opinion vis-à-vis the United States. It is safe to assume that if the
offer to host an MD base had been made in 2002-2003, it would have faced opposition
only from a small fraction of the society and some radical political forces. Since then, a
number of factors have contributed to the erosion of the American ‘soft power’ over the
Polish public. The intervention in Iraq has turned into a prolonged and bloody
confrontation, with Poland contributing troops (2,500 at the peak) and suffering
casualties without, in the widely shared opinion, receiving proper ‘compensation’ from
the United States, be it the abolishment of visas, new equipment for the military, or the
reconstruction-related contracts. The recent arrival of the first F-16 fighters, bought from
the US in 2003, was marred with the media reports showing that the much-hyped offset
arrangement with Lockheed Martin brought to Poland much less investments and modern
technologies than expected. At the same time, the ‘Europeanization’ of the society
accelerated, with the strengthening of the European identity upon the entry to the EU, the
influx of money from the structural funds and the Common Agricultural Policy, and the
increased possibilities to study or work in other European countries. All of these
contributed to a much more critical attitude towards the US initiative on Missile Defence.
According to an opinion poll from February 2007, 55% respondents were against the
establishment of the US anti-missile base in Poland, and only 28% supported the idea.
[Many of the Poland links also serve as uniqueness. Pull from there.]
20
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U: RUSSIA
US-RUSSIA RELATIONS ON BRINK—RUSSIA WON'T COOPERATE ON NMDS
LUKE HARDING The Guardian staff writer, Moscow correspondent, 4-11-07

guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/11/usa.topstories3 [JWu]
Defence experts say there is little doubt that the real target of the shield is Russia. "The
geography of the deployment doesn't give any doubt the main targets are Russian and Chinese
nuclear forces," General Vladimir Belous, Russia's leading expert on anti-ballistic weaponry, told
the Guardian. "The US bases represent a real threat to our strategic nuclear forces."
The threat of a new arms race comes at a time when relations between Russia and the US are at
their worst for a decade. In February Mr Putin accused the Bush administration during a speech in
Munich of seeking a "world of one master, one sovereign". On Friday Russia's duma, or lower
house or parliament, warned that the US's plans could ignite a second cold war. "Such decisions,
which are useless in terms of preventing potential or imaginary threats from countries of the
middle and far-east, are already bringing about a new split in Europe and unleashing another arms
race," the declaration - passed unanimously by Russian MPs - said.
The same day Russia ruled out cooperating with the US over the shield. "Despite certain signals
received in recent days from the US side ... I see no political foundation for it," said Sergei
Ryabkov, a foreign ministry spokesman. Moscow now had little choice but to take the bases "into
account in our strategic planning", he said.
RUSSIA IS ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMDS
Earlier on Monday, Putin said there was a real chance to make progress on stalled talks with the
US over Washington's controversial plans to install a missile defense system on European soil.
Putin said he saw an opportunity to move relations with the US forward after he received what he
called a "serious document" from US President George Bush.
"I recently had an opportunity to speak to the US president and I received his letter," Putin
said. "It is a serious document which we have carefully analyzed. If we manage to agree on its
main provisions, we will be able to say that our dialogue is progressing successfully."
Dimitry Medvedev, who won a landslide election earlier this month and is to succeed Putin as
president, sounded a conciliatory note after his first talks with Gates and Rice.
"There are issue where we still have differences in positions," Medvedev said. "But we also have
a common will and commitment to move ahead."
21
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U: GERMANY
GERMANY IS ON THE FENCE FOR NMDS
WADE BOESE rsrch director of Arms Control Association APRIL 2001

armscontrol.org/act/2001_04/internatlnmd [JWu]
Visiting Washington a week later on March 29, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder expressed
interest in Germany playing a future part in U.S. missile defenses if they were deployed.
"Certainly, when it comes to the involvement and also participation in terms of industrial policy,
certainly we'll be interested," Schroeder answered when asked by a reporter whether Germany
would be willing to participate in a system.
However, Schroeder noted there were many issues that needed to be looked into, such as whether
a missile defense will work, who will be covered, and how it will impact global disarmament and
relations with Russia and China. Bush described himself as "grateful" that Schroeder was
interested in the U.S. point of view, and the chancellor, who has been a leading European voice
expressing reservations about U.S. missile defense plans, said he was "very pleased" that the
president was open to discussion about the questions he had posed.
GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMD—PERSUASION WILL

CAUSE THEM TO ACCEPT

Two months into its term, the Bush administration's continued efforts to build foreign acceptance
of, if not support for, U.S. deployment of a national missile defense (NMD) appear to be paying
some small dividends. In mid-March, a top Chinese official, while still vehemently objecting to
U.S. plans, welcomed talks with Washington on the issue. Meanwhile, Germany has edged away
from its past opposition to NMD, and France has publicly quieted its criticism, although neither
country has embraced the idea.
Unlike the Clinton administration, which largely neglected Asia on U.S. NMD plans and upset
U.S. allies by focusing first on winning Russian acquiescence while taking their support for
granted, the Bush administration from the outset has promised to consult fully with all interested
countries. At the same time, Bush officials have emphasized they will not be dissuaded from their
objective and have expressed confidence in their ability to persuade others to eventually accept a
U.S. defense.
22
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U: FRANCE
FRANCE IS ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMDS

Quite vocal about its missile defense concerns last year, France has quieted its public protests
following the Bush administration's promise to hold consultations with allies. A French official
explained that France still has the same concerns it expressed in the past about the "potential
negative effects" of missile defense but that it will raise those issues in private. Like Berlin, Paris
seems to be reserving judgment on U.S. plans until it has had an opportunity to discuss them with
Washington.
GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMD—PERSUASION WILL

CAUSE THEM TO ACCEPT

Two months into its term, the Bush administration's continued efforts to build foreign acceptance
of, if not support for, U.S. deployment of a national missile defense (NMD) appear to be paying
some small dividends. In mid-March, a top Chinese official, while still vehemently objecting to
U.S. plans, welcomed talks with Washington on the issue. Meanwhile, Germany has edged away
from its past opposition to NMD, and France has publicly quieted its criticism, although neither
country has embraced the idea.
Unlike the Clinton administration, which largely neglected Asia on U.S. NMD plans and upset
U.S. allies by focusing first on winning Russian acquiescence while taking their support for
granted, the Bush administration from the outset has promised to consult fully with all interested
countries. At the same time, Bush officials have emphasized they will not be dissuaded from their
objective and have expressed confidence in their ability to persuade others to eventually accept a
U.S. defense.
23
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: SECURITY
SECURITY AND PROLIFERATION ISSUES GET EUROPE ON BOARD FOR NMD
Theresa Hitchens is Research Director of BASIC. and Stuart Samuels is a Consultant to

BASIC. 2k "NMD: Allied fears in focus" http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP32.htm
May 2k No 32 [JWu]
Finally, the lack of U.S. attention to European views also is troubling to many in Europe. There is
a feeling among many allied governments, according to one NATO official, that the United States
has not given Europeans enough time, nor enough information, to consider the ramifications of
NMD. For example, some allies, led by Canada, have argued that the U.S. instead should leave
the NMD issue to be discussed as part of NATO’s ongoing review of its wider role in future
multinational arms control and non-proliferation efforts. That review is unlikely to finish until year-
end at the earliest.
When NATO foreign ministers gather in Italy, NMD will be on the agenda along with the Balkans
and EU plans to create a so-called European Security and Defense Policy that includes a future
military crisis management role for the European Union based on indigenous intervention
capabilities. On all these issues there now exists a clear transatlantic divide.
Some in Europe worry that NMD itself will harm the effort to craft a more robust common
European security policy, especially the effort to build a new crisis management capability. If
European governments are forced by a U.S. NMD decision to consider a role in the network, or
even a European counterpart, that could serve to drain scarce resources away from building
crisis competencies. At a time when European defense budgets are under pressure, spending
money on expensive, high-tech NMD technologies to counter what is seen as a rather remote
threat likely would prove difficult.
INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND WEAPON CONTROL EFFORTS KEY TO

GAINING NMD ACCEPTANCE
Under certain conditions a limited NMD deployment could, hopefully,

have only a limited impact on arms control and international stability,
and therefore become more acceptable for the Europeans: • A strong
reaffirmation by the new US administration of its commitment to
negotiated arms control, for instance through a effort to resume talks
at the CD on the basis of the package currently on the table or a CTBT
ratification; • A genuine effort on the part of the US and Russian
governments to secure a deal on the ABM treaty, preserving the basic
principle of the treaty (limitations on defenses) while authorizing a limited NMD
deployment; this should be combined with efforts to reduce both countries still large nuclear
arsenals; • Whatever form it takes, the deal should be stable (i.e. not facilitating future major
amendments) and transparent, in order to reassure Russia and other interested countries; • A
24
DDI ’08 NMD DA
US diplomatic effort to engage the Chinese into a debate on the security relationship between
both countries, and to meet some of their security concerns (talks on outer-space); in return
China can be expected to lift its opposition to multilateral progress in Geneva; • Choosing
an architecture with the less destabilizing effects: increased role for TMD
related technology and boost-phase intercept, limited capability (unthreatening to the Russian
and the Chinese), no space-based weapons; the role assigned to outerspace capabilities is
• A broader international debate on the role
likely to be crucial in this respect;
of non-proliferation, arms control, deterrence and defenses in the new
international security framework, avoiding both rhetoric (the Reagan
way) and immobility (the Clinton way).
25
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: SECURITY
EUROPE WANTS TO COOPERATE WITH THE U.S. OVER SECURITY ISSUES
NEWSWEEK 3-20-08 http://www.newsweek.com/id/124417 [JWU]
To assess the strength of the transatlantic relationship, I attended the Brussels Forum, an all-star
confab orchestrated by the German Marshall Fund (GMF). The conference made it clear that
relations between America and Europe have recovered significantly from the trough of 2002-
2003. This accords with public opinion. A just-released British Council poll found that strong
majorities in America and Europe want a closer partnership. Both the United States and the
European Union have been humbled in recent years by missteps in the application of hard power
and soft power, as Constanze Stelzenmüller pointed out in a GMF briefing paper. The rise of new
state threats (Russia, Iran) and nonstate threats (see above) have led the transatlantic
neighborhood to recognize that they have more common than divergent interests.
26
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: SECURITY—POLAND
SECURITY ISSUES ARE PREVENTING NMD IN POLAND
Carl Ek, Specialist in International Relations, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade
Division. Report to Congress by Congressional Research Service, 08 "Poland’s New
Government: Background and Issues for the United States"
(http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RS22811.pdf)[JWu]
Early in 2007, the Bush Administration began formal negotiations with Poland and the
Czech Republic over a plan to establish missile defense facilities on their territory to
protect against missiles from countries such as Iran; the plan would entail placing radar in
the Czech Republic and interceptor launchers in Poland. Some Poles believe their country
would risk being targeted by rogue state missiles and terrorist attacks because of the
presence of the U.S. interceptors on their soil. In addition, many Poles are concerned over
Russia’s vehement objections to the proposal. Former Polish Defense Minister Radek
Sikorski reportedly pressed for a special security guarantee from the United States, as
well as for Patriot missiles to shield Poland against short- and medium-range missiles.14
INCREASING POLISH SECURITY PASSES NMD
Defense.php [JWU]
Tusk stressed that Poland is open to a more generous U.S. deal. "We are ready at any time
to accept changes, corrections, proposals from the U.S. side that take into consideration
our demands on strengthening Poland's security," Tusk said. "That can be tomorrow, in a
week, in a month." "I'm ready to close these negotiations under the one condition — an
obvious one from my point of view — that the Polish side receives a real security
guarantee in the event of the implementation of this project."
27
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LONG TERM SECURITY IS THE ONLY FACTOR PREVENTING POLISH ACCEPTANCE

OF NMD
Defense.php [JWU]
The installation of the missile shield in Poland increases above all the security of the
United States. That's important for us, for the whole world," Tusk said. "However, the
fact that the installation would be built on Polish territory also increases certain risks and
threats for Poland." So far, "in the key issue of increasing Poland's security, we didn't
achieve a result that would be satisfactory to Poland," Tusk said. "We are waiting for an
answer and declaration from the U.S. side on this key demand." Poland has demanded
the additional security guarantee of a short-range Patriot missile battery on its soil.
Tusk said the latest U.S. offer fell short because it proposed placing a Patriot missile
battery in Poland only temporarily, rather than permanently, as Warsaw has demanded.
"Air defense elements that would specifically defend Polish territory are absolutely key
for Poland," he said. "A temporary visit by such weapons, guaranteed only for one year,
naturally does not increase our sense of security."
28
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: SECURITY—POLAND
POLAND WANTS MILITARY SECURITY
Adrian J. Erlinger is a visiting Fulbright Research Scholar at the University of Warsaw's Centre
for East European Studies.7-11-08
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=2417[JWU]
For months, it appeared that Poland would easily accept U.S. plans. Undoubtedly, Poland is a
strong U.S. ally and a vital contributor to transatlantic security, contributing a sizable contingency
in Afghanistan and a vocal lobby for future eastward expansion of NATO. However, seeking
millions of dollars in military aid, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk rebuffed the latest U.S.
offer on July 4.
HELPING POLISH SECURITY ALLOWS NMD IN POLAND

Besides radar in the Czech Republic, deploying elements of an American anti-missile system in
Eastern Europe
includes placing tens of anti-missile rockets on the territory of Poland. However, talks between
the US and Warsaw were halted after the Polish government proposed a number of conditions,
chief among them being a request for $20 billion in aid for modernizing the Polish army and air
defense.
In the opinion of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the deployment of elements of an anti-
missile system enhances the security of the US, but not that of Poland. “Key in the question of
Polish negotiations with the United States has been and remains a real increase in Poland’s
security through political guarantees, but also through definite military guarantees,” he stated.
29
DDI ’08 NMD DA
POLAND NEEDS MILITARY SECURITY ASSURANCE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE NMD
U.S. talks over NMD now—increasing Polish security is key to acceptance
Defense.php [JWU]
WARSAW, Poland: Poland's prime minister said Friday that the latest U.S. offer to
persuade his country to accept a missile defense facility is unsatisfactory, but stressed that
he expects negotiations to continue. Donald Tusk said that any deal must increase
Poland's security. He said his government believes that the latest offer, made earlier this
week, does not fulfill that requirement.
However, Tusk made clear that Warsaw's decision was not a final rejection of the U.S.
plan to place 10 missile defense interceptors in Poland as part of a shield against a
possible Iranian attack.
"I wouldn't talk about the end, suspension, or interruption," he said at a news conference.
"Negotiations, in my opinion, are continuing." In the U.S., White House spokesman Scott
Stanzel also said that "discussions will continue with the Poles on missile defense and
other issues."
30
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY—POLAND
DIVERSIFYING AWAY FROM OIL IS POLAND'S PRIORITY
REUTERS 11-23-07 http://uk.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idUKL2310384120071123 [JWU]
WARSAW, Nov 23 (Reuters) - Poland's new Prime Minister Donald Tusk said on Friday
he planned to continue his precedessors' energy diversification efforts but held open the
option of adjusting them.
The ousted conservatives made diversification a priority because they worried Poland's
former imperial and communist master, Russia, could use its dominant position as an
energy suppler to rebuild its political influence over central Europe.
Poland gets 95 percent of its crude and 48 percent of its natural gas from Russia.
"We judge the previous government's accomplishments in the area of supply
diversification highly, but reserve ourselves the right to make corrections," Tusk said in
his first address to parliament. Recent diversification projects include state-controlled gas
distributor PGNiG's PGNI.WA plans to build a liquefied natural gas terminal on the
Baltic coast and a pipeline to Denmark to give Poland access to Norwegian gas.
POLAND LOOKING TO DIVERSITY ENERGY AWAY FROM FOSSIL FUELS
Piotr Naimski Secretary of State at the Ministry of Economy, Republic of Poland, at Columbia
University. 9-27-07 "Energy diversification strategy for Poland”
sipa.columbia.edu/ece/academics/regional/conf/Piotr_Naimski_at_Columbia%20University0709
17_.pdf [JWu]
One of the most important challenges facing the Polish government after the recent period
of reforms and economic transformation is to change the structure of energy supplies. The
current one has a very negative influence on Poland’s energy security. Another challenge is
the carrying out of the plan to create north-south infrastructure of energy supplies. This would
help to balance the existing east-west infrastructure inherited from the era of the Soviet
Union. With this in mind, we are currently working on diversification projects that I shall
present here. The position of the Polish government concerning the policy for oil and natural
gas industry has been framed in two official documents, both of which give the highest
priority to the energy security issues3.
31
DDI ’08 NMD DA
POLAND LOOKING TO DIVERSIFY ENERGY FROM OIL
INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE 06 iht.com/articles/2006/10/26/business/polgas.php

[JWU]
WARSAW: The conservative government in Poland plans to invest well over €1 billion in the
energy sector in an attempt to modernize its infrastructure, and perhaps more crucially, reduce its
dependence on Russia, its main supplier of oil and gas. The plans reflect growing fears in Poland
that the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, will use his country's energy clout as a political
hammer, something he was judged to have done in January when Gazprom, the giant state-owned energy monopoly,
cut its gas deliveries to Ukraine in a dispute over gas prices. Ukraine agreed last week to a 36 percent
increase in the cost of natural gas supplied by Russia next year. Warsaw is also concerned that a
Russian-German pipeline project in development will result in a loss of gas supplies to Poland.
"We want to diversify because we fear that Russia will use the export of its gas as a political
tool," Piotr Naimski, secretary of state in charge of energy security in Poland's Economy
Ministry, said in an interview Thursday.
POLAND IS LOOKING TO DIVERSITY ITS ENERGY SUPPLY AWAY FROM RUSSIA
While the United States fears a nuclear-armed Iran, Poland is weighing this risk against its own
national security agenda -- to reduce its overwhelming dependence on Russian energy imports.
Considering that total Polish demand for gas is expected to double to 24.4 billion cubic meters by
mid-decade, the Polish government is reluctant to increase volumes of Russian gas. After a
Russian-Ukrainian price dispute in January 2006 reduced Polish gas imports by 9 percent for
several days, diversifying away from Russian gas sources looks more prudent.
32
DDI ’08 NMD DA
POLAND IS LOOKING TO FILL ITS GAS DEMAND
To make matters more complicated, Polish Petroleum and Gas Mining (PGNiG), 85 percent of
which is owned by the Polish state, is looking to Tehran as a source of energy. On June 30, the
Polish daily Rzeczpospolita reported that PGNiG was "close" to securing a contract to extract
liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Iran's Lavan gas field.
The deal is part of ongoing negotiations between PGNiG and the Iranian Offshore Oil Company
after a framework agreement was signed in February. While a PGNiG spokesman denied that his
company was ready to commit to a specific level of investment, Iranian media reported that the
Polish side was "ready to invest $1 billion" to secure gas deposits estimated at 140 billion meters
and purchase up to 7.3 billion cubic meters of sweet dry gas or LNG annually. In the meantime,
PGNiG is grasping to find supply contracts for its proposed €450 million LNG terminal at
Swinoujscie on the Baltic Sea. The terminal is central to PGNiG's plans to initially deliver 2.5
billion cubic meters annually to satisfy Poland's future gas demand, reduce Russia's energy
monopoly and decrease Poland's dependence on its aging carbon-belching coal plants. PGNiG
needs to secure an LNG contract in order to make the planned regasification terminal
economically feasible.
33
DDI ’08 NMD DA
POLAND WANTS COOPERATION ON ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND NEW

TECHNOLOGY
Piotr Naimski Secretary of State at the Ministry of Economy, Republic of Poland, at

Columbia University. 9-27-07 "Energy diversification strategy for Poland”
17_.pdf [JWu]
Diversification understood as an ability to provide energy from new sources, can reach far
beyond the search for new directions for oil and gas supplies. Those who will possess new,
ground-breaking technologies will gain an immediate advantage. Poland is ready and willing
to cooperate in the field of R&D, so that diversification does not need to be limited only to
current energy sources and we are open to ventures through which we could develop new
ideas (Hydrogen, ITER, etc.) or improve the technologies used today (Clean Coal
Technology, IGCC, better nuclear reactors, etc.). I believe that the discussion about new
energy sources must be set in the framework that reaches onto unexplored grounds. In the
future, different technological factors will inevitably come to the fore. It is therefore crucial
that we invest in R&D and commit to cooperation in this field. As part of that effort, it might
at some point be worth considering whether achieving energy security – energy security
defined narrowly as undisrupted access to hydrocarbons – is not an example of the “old way
of thinking” or a dead-end road altogether. Must new energy sources be hydrocarbons-related
and where is the place for a new vision of energy? Discussion of those matters would
certainly be an inspiration.
34
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: NUCLEAR PLANT LOLZ
POLAND LOOKING TO COOPERATE ON BUILDING NUCLEAR PLANTS
Piotr Naimski Secretary of State at the Ministry of Economy, Republic of Poland, at Columbia
University. 9-27-07 "Energy diversification strategy for Poland”
17_.pdf [JWu]
To begin with, Poland is most interested in participating, as a partner to the Baltic States,
in a joint venture aimed at building a new power block of the Ignalina nuclear power plant in
Lithuania, which is supposed to replace the old Russian one. Poland’s willingness to
cooperate and initiate its own projects in this field is grounded on the conviction that the
threat of a serious nuclear power plant breakdown nowadays seems to be minimal.
Furthermore, the construction of water-cooled reactors in fact precludes the possibility of an
explosion and the consequent release of radioactive chemicals into the environment.
Recurrence of the Chernobyl disaster is nowadays impossible, especially with the state-of-theart
modern reactors that we envisage to be used in any of the nuclear power plant project, in
which Poland will be involved. Moreover, it is worth bringing to attention the fact, that the
lack of our own nuclear power plant does not guarantee freedom from possible nuclear threat,
as eleven nuclear power plants operate in the neighboring countries.18 As Poland has yet to
have an open public debate on nuclear energy for the country, it is not clear how the public
opinion will respond to the plans being developed. I believe that our government should
initiate the public debate soon and I trust that there will be a wide support for the idea.
35
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: PROLIF
UNIQUE LINK:
CONCERNS OVER PROLIF ARE BLOCKING NMD TREATY NOW
Nicola Butler, senior analyst for the Acronym Institute, 2k, "Missile defence divergence: Britain
debates nmd" Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue no 48, july 2k
The British Houses of Parliament went into recess at the end of July leaving key questions
unanswered concerning the Government's stance on US plans for National Missile Defence
(NMD). Ministers, anxious to avoid offending a key ally, have been sticking closely to the line
that "it is for the United States to decide whether or not to proceed with deployment", but
backbench Members of Parliament (MPs) from all sides of the House of Commons are expressing
increasing concern, both about the possible impact of NMD on international stability and security,
and about the Government's unwillingness to adopt a more outspoken stance.
As MPs headed back to their constituencies, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee issued a report
recommending that, "the Government articulate the very strong concerns that have been
expressed about NMD within the UK. We are not convinced that the US plans to deploy NMD
represent an appropriate response to the proliferation problems faced by the international
community. We recommend that the Government encourage the USA to seek other ways of
reducing the threats it perceives."1
Against a background of accusations that the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and the Foreign Office
(FCO) are divided over NMD, Prime Minister Tony Blair told the Commons in July that the UK's
aim was to try "to ensure that the fear that the United States has - perfectly legitimately and
justifiably - is taken account of in a way that does not put at risk the substantial progress that has
been made on nuclear disarmament over the past few years".2 Whilst endorsing this approach, the
Foreign Affairs Committee called for "the Government, as one of the five nuclear weapon states
and as a close ally of the US, to make an early public statement on its analysis of NMD's likely
impact on strategic stability and its assessment of whether this would be in the overall security
interests of this country."3
36
DDI ’08 NMD DA
SECURITY AND PROLIFERATION ISSUES GET EUROPE ON BOARD FOR

NMD
Theresa Hitchens is Research Director of BASIC. and Stuart Samuels is a

Consultant to BASIC. 2k "NMD: Allied fears in focus"
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP32.htm May 2k No 32 [JWu]
Finally, the lack of U.S. attention to European views also is troubling to many in
Europe. There is a feeling among many allied governments, according to one
NATO official, that the United States has not given Europeans enough time, nor
enough information, to consider the ramifications of NMD. For example, some
allies, led by Canada, have argued that the U.S. instead should leave the NMD
issue to be discussed as part of NATO’s ongoing review of its wider role in future
multinational arms control and non-proliferation efforts. That review is unlikely to
finish until year-end at the earliest.
When NATO foreign ministers gather in Italy, NMD will be on the agenda along
with the Balkans and EU plans to create a so-called European Security and
Defense Policy that includes a future military crisis management role for the
European Union based on indigenous intervention capabilities. On all these
issues there now exists a clear transatlantic divide.
Some in Europe worry that NMD itself will harm the effort to craft a more robust
common European security policy, especially the effort to build a new crisis
management capability. If European governments are forced by a U.S. NMD
decision to consider a role in the network, or even a European counterpart, that
could serve to drain scarce resources away from building crisis competencies. At
a time when European defense budgets are under pressure, spending money on
expensive, high-tech NMD technologies to counter what is seen as a rather
remote threat likely would prove difficult.
37
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: PROLIF
U.S. NON-PROLIF EFFORTS KEY TO GET EUROPE ON BOARD EUROPE FOR

NMD
The Europeans have not suggested a unique alternative to BMD

deployments as a
response to missile proliferation, but they would certainly feel more at
ease with an
NMD that fits into a broader non-proliferation and arms control agenda.
They are also
ready to join the United States in diplomatic moves than could limit the
spread of
missiles in regions of concern (such as on the Korean Peninsula and in
the Middle
East), and they are hopeful that domestic political evolutions in these
countries and
diplomatic efforts could reduce the need for NMD. In the longer term,
some
governments even have already signaled their readiness to be involved
in a broader
missile defense covering US allies in Europe.
38
DDI ’08 NMD DA
CURBING NUCLEAR PROLIF / HEG / SOFT POWER LINK

MULTILATERAL ENGAGEMENT KEY TO GETTING EUROPE ON BOARD FOR
NMD
The recent report by the British House of Commons also urged “the
Government to
impress upon U.S. administration that it cannot necessarily assume
unqualified UK co
operation with U.S. plans to deploy NMD in the event of unilateral U.S.
abrogation of
the ABM Treaty.” Coming from the parliament of the closest U.S. ally in
Europe and a
country that hosts two key facilities for the NMD architecture
(Fylindales and
Menwith Hill); this position is worth noticing.5 Greenland’s Prime
minister has warned
that Greenland would refuse to upgrade the Thule radar facility “if it
resulted in
increased tension and world destabilization.”6 The final decision
belongs to Denmark,
but Copenhagen has said that local views would be taken into account.
In other words, Europe would probably not oppose the deployment of
missiles defenses
and amendments to the ABM Treaty as long as the inner logic of treaty
(limitations on
defenses) and the treaty itself are preserved, and as long as
amendments take place in
an U.S.-Russian negotiated process. In order that the future of arms
control may be
preserved, Europeans do not want to see multilateral approaches to
security abandoned
in favor of unilateral defenses.
39
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: PROLIF
FIGHTING PROLIF AND ARMS REDUCTION IS KEY TO GETTING EUROPEAN

NMD SUPPORT
Moreover, a U.S. shift away from arms control provides an easy

justification for those
who are reluctant to join—or to comply with—non-proliferation and
disarmament
norms. In terms of a U.S.-European cooperative fight against the
proliferation of
weapons of mass destruction, the U.S. shift could lead either to a
counterproductive
division of labor or to a conceptual decoupling, whereby the United
States pursues
military and defense options while Europe insists on diplomatic and
arms control tools.
But from the perspective of European countries deeply committed to
arms reductions
and non-proliferation, the underlying point is that NMD could damage
the ABM
Treaty, thereby threatening the entire framework of arms control. The
ABM Treaty is,
rightly or wrongly, perceived as an essential element of international
security and, in
the European view, it should therefore be handled with care. This
explains Europe’s
clear preference for a negotiated amendment process that will avoid
chain reactions in
Russia and elsewhere and its desire to combine BMD-related efforts
with a renewed
interest in arms control and non-proliferation regimes.
40
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: PROLIF—POLAND
SOLVING PROLIF CAUSES POLISH COOPERATION
Poland and the United States have historically close relations. Under successive
governments since 9/11, Warsaw has been a reliable supporter and ally in the global war
on terrorism and, as noted earlier, has contributed troops to the U.S.-led coalitions in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. Poland also has cooperated with the United States on “such
issues as democratization, nuclear proliferation, human rights, regional cooperation ...
and
UN reform.”12 During Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s September 2006 visit to
Washington, D.C., Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the two countries as
“the best of friends.” One month later, however, Tusk accused Kaczynski of servility
toward the United States. Immediately after the elections, Tusk said he hoped for “better
cooperation with the United States in which Poland will be a true partner.”13 Tusk
highlighted two areas in particular: the Iraq conflict (see above) and missile defense.
41
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: IRAQ
CURRENT IRAQ ENGAGEMENTS ARE A PROBLEM IN NMD TALKS
Vanessa Gera, correspondent in the Warsaw bureau of The Associated Press, has covered central Europe
for seven years. 7-3-08
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iikN80AfzdsEw0Ck4_2K6jjEEG2wD91MH3NO1[JWU]
"Many problems in the bilateral relationship became apparent during the missile defense
talks," said Maria Wagrowska, a security expert with the Warsaw-based Center for
International Relations. "And they are not only political — they are also psychological."
She and other analysts agree that if the U.S. had tried to get a deal before the Iraq war, it
would have been much easier.
Today, Polish politicians feel burned by the Bush administration, largely because
Warsaw's staunch military support for the U.S. war in Iraq failed to win substantial
contracts for Polish companies in Iraq's reconstruction, as many here had expected.
INCREASED ENGAGEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST REVITALIZES

TRANSNATIONAL COOPERATION
Lily Feldman, AICGS Sr Fellow in Residence, PhD pol sci, 10-28-2004,

http://www.aicgs.org/analysis/c/feldmanc2.aspx [JWU]
In the past few years, several Washington think tanks, including AICGS, have issued reports
emphasizing the importance of cooperation on the Middle East as a way to heal or reenergize the
transatlantic relationship. Following the June 2004 G-8 summit's commitment to a "Partnership
for Progress and a Common Future with the Region of the Broader Middle East and North
Africa," a recent publication of the Atlantic Council went so far as to lend this region primary,
agenda-setting status: "Since the end of the Cold War, events in the broader Middle East have
increasingly become the principal determinants of the state of the transatlantic relationship." In
the same vein, the important September 2004 Berlin "Ambassadors' Conference," bringing
together German heads of mission from around the world, chose the Middle East as its main
focus.
Whether we accept the Middle East as the fulcrum of transatlantic relations or view it as too
fragile to bear the weight of U.S.-European ties is largely irrelevant, for governments and elites
will continue to consider it primary and events on the ground will continue to command response.
What we can do is to point up the similarities and differences on the Middle East among Bush,
Kerry and Germany (within the context of the European Union), as a way of anticipating the
trajectory of transatlantic relations after the November 2nd election. A critical feature of the
central components of the Greater Middle East conundrum - Iran and nuclear weapons; the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the War in Iraq -- is their inextricable linkage, demanding attention,
vision, and action on all three fronts at once.
42
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: IRAQ—POLAND/CZECH
POLAND AND CZECH REPUBLIC ARE STRONG SUPPORTERS OF IRAQ

ENGAGEMENT
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, 3-17-07

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/miss-m17.shtml [JWu]
Poland and the Czech Republic are close allies of the US and belong to the “coalition of the
willing,” which supported the US in its invasion and occupation of Iraq. At present, Poland has
900 soldiers stationed in Iraq, and the Czech Republic 100. Both nations are currently increasing
their commitment in Afghanistan in order to relieve US troops in the country. Poland has recently
sent an additional 1,000 troops, and the Czech Republic is currently preparing to supply
helicopters and weapons for the occupation troops.
CHANGING IRAQ POLICIES KEY TO GAINING CZECH SUPPORT FOR NMDS
NEW YORK TIMES 7-9-08

nytimes.com/2008/07/09/world/europe/09shield.html?em&ex=1215748800&en=f870cb9afdaab674&ei=5087%0A
[JWU]
Mr. Topolanek’s coalition government does not have enough seats to assure support for the plans
and may need opposition votes. Legislators from the Green Party, the government’s junior
coalition partner, have indicated they may block the proposals, and opposition parties have
demanded a national referendum. About two-thirds of Czechs oppose the radar deployment,
according to opinion polls.
“Ratification will be difficult,” said Jiri Schneider, program director at the Prague Security
Studies Institute. “The missile defense plan has sparked a national debate about how exposed we
want to be on the international stage.”
Czech political analysts said that, for the older generation, the missile defense plans had tapped
into a deep suspicion of security alliances that stretched back across the past century.
For the younger generation, opposition to the missile plan has become a way to express
discontent with American policies, including the war in Iraq.
43
DDI ’08 NMD DA
AFF LINK: CTBT
COUNTRIES WILL TRADE NMD FOR CTBT
David Malone is president of the International Peace Academy in New York. AND Ramesh
Thakur is vice rector of the United Nations University in Tokyo. 3-11-01
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20010311a2.html [JWU]
The new administration in Washington has taken office firmly committed to the concept of a
national missile defense system, arguing that future U.S. security needs take precedence over
arms-control agreements rooted in Cold War history. Its views on the Comprehensive Test Ban
Treaty, an agreement signed in the late 1990s with the goal of confining nuclear testing to history,
are less clear-cut. If friends and allies concede on NMD in principle, they might well be able to
shape the final form of NMD and persuade Washington to accept the CTBT in return.
44
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SECURITY, GLOBAL WARMING, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LINKS

___________________ IS KEY TO EUROPEAN ACCEPTANCE OF NMD
Peoples Daily, 5-18-01

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200105/18/eng20010518_70286.html)[JWu]
The European Parliament Thursday called on the United States to consult with every
nation in the world over its plan to deploy the national anti-missile defense shield
(NMD).
"The Parliament is worried over the US propositions related to a missile defense system
that might become the origin of a new round of arms race and thus brings threat instead
of assurance to world security," said the European Union's legislative body in a resolution
on EU-U.S. transatlantic dialogue.
The deputies also called on the United States to honor its engagements to the Kyoto
Protocol on global climate changes, saying they hope the Americans will "give up their
isolationist position toward global challenges."
The resolution added that it is necessary to deepen trans- Atlantic political dialogue and
the United States and the EU should work together to defend common positions in the
fields of security, environmental protection, competition and anti-trust legislation.
45
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: CLIMATE
EUROPE WANTS U.S. TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
Donella H. Meadows is an adjunct professor of environmental studies at Dartmouth College, NO

DATE http://www.sustainer.org/dhm_archive/index.php?display_article=vn718climateed [JWu]
Several European governments have detailed plans for cutting their economies' 1990
fossil fuel use (hence emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide) by 15 or 20
percent by the year 2005.
Meanwhile the U.S. president has generously offered to get U.S. emissions back down to
their 1990 level -- twice as high per capita as the European level -- by the year 2008 or
2010 or maybe 2012.
Members of the European press don't ask me whether global warming is real. They take
seriously the consensus of the 2400 scientists who participate in the ongoing global
forum called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They ask "what can be
done?" and "why is the United States such a laggard on this issue?"
EUROPE ASKING U.S. TO CHANGE GAS EMISSION POLICIES
WASHINGTON TIMES 5-26-08

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/26/us-pressed-for-emissions-cuts-by-
20/[JWu]
KOBE, Japan (AP) — European and developing countries urged the United States and
Japan yesterday to commit to deep cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 — a step
they say is needed to defuse a coming ecological disaster caused by global warming. The
calls at a meeting of environment ministers from the Group of Eight industrialized
nations in Japan coincided with rising concern that momentum is draining from U.N.-led
efforts to force a new climate-change agreement by a December 2009 deadline.
46
DDI ’08 NMD DA
EUROPE WANTS U.S. LEADERSHIP ON CLIMATE ISSUES
TIME 6-4-07 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628024,00.html [JWU]
Underlying the increasingly testy exchange are fundamental differences over how the
climate crisis is to be addressed. The biggest worry in Europe is that the Bush
Administration approach of stressing technology and voluntary targets will weaken the
global effort under U.N. auspices to set mandatory targets. "America increasingly wants
to use new technologies and in this way test how much carbon dioxide emissions can be
decreased," Angela Merkel told the newsmagazine Der Spiegel. "We Europeans find it
more compelling to agree on goals on an international level, and direct our efforts
accordingly." She added: "I encourage [President Bush] to be courageous and lead the
way with concrete climate protection goals." Sigmar Gabriel, the German Environment
Minister, added: "What we need now is a worldwide climate change regime. We need
clear aims and we have to be able to check if the contracting partners stick to the goals."
47
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: CLIMATE
EUROPE WANTS U.S. TO CUT GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PEOPLES DAILY 4-1-01

http://english.people.com.cn/english/200104/04/eng20010404_66797.html [JWU]
A high-level delegation from Europe has met members of the Bush administration in Washington
to discuss the United States abandoning the Kyoto treaty on global warming, BBC reports
Wednesday. This is the first time that senior environment officials from Europe and America have
met face-to-face since the White House announced last week that it was pulling out of the Kyoto
process. After the meeting, the delegation said that the dministration had restated its opposition to
the treaty without offering any alternatives to lower greenhouse gas emissions.
EUROPE WANTS U.S. TO REDUCE GREENHOUSE EMISSIONS
TIME 6-4-07 http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1628024,00.html [JWU]
When it comes to addressing climate change, the U.S. and Europe are like two cars racing
toward each other in a game of chicken, according to Hans Joachim Schnellhuber, an
adviser on climate issues to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. That may be overstating
the case. But there's little chance that this week's G8 summit at the German seaside resort
of Heiligendamm will resolve fundamental differences between the Bush Administration
and E.U. countries led by Germany over how to combat global warming. The targets
require taking steps to ensure that average temperatures on the planet increase by no more
than 2 degrees celsius by the end of the century, and to slash greenhouse gas emissions to
50% of the 1990 level before 2050. But when the German draft was circulated two weeks
ago in Washington, U.S. negotiators declared, in a document leaked shortly afterwards,
that the German draft "crossed multiple 'red lines'" and that "there is only so far we can
go, given our fundamental opposition to the German position." Then, on May 31,
President George W. Bush announced his own climate change initiative, which calls on
the leaders of the 15 leading producers of the heat-trapping gases to develop long term
voluntary emission-reduction goals. The proposal, notably short on specifics, raised
concern in Europe that Bush was trying to make an end-run around the existing United
Nations process for addressing climate change, which includes the Kyoto agreement. The
German environment minister warned of a possible "trojan horse" designed to sidestep an
agreement in Heiligendamm and "torpedo the international climate protection process."
48
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: CLIMATE
EUROPE WANTS THE U.S. TO CUT EMISSIONS
NEW SCIENTIST, 90 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517040.700-european-

nations-want-action-now-on-global-warming-.html [JWU]
The European countries want the industrialised nations, as a first step, to hold steady their
emissions of carbon dioxide by the year 2000. Such a move would not decrease concentrations of
carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, in the atmosphere. Jack Jenkins, coordinator of the
IPCC's science group, said that stabilising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at
current levels requires a 70 per cent reduction in global emissions in the short term. To reduce
concentrations to preindustrial levels would require even steeper cuts. Last week's meeting
provided an opportunity for countries to present their favoured policy options to an international
audience. While the European countries lobbied to speed negotiations, the developing countries made it
clear they would not agree to a convention limiting emissions of greenhouse gases until the developed countries state
explicitly how they would help to sustain economic development in countries of the Third World. They reiterated their
view that the developed world is responsible for climate change and that the developing world should not suffer as a
result. Godwin Obasi, head of the World Meteorological Organisation, also appealed for funds to help developing
countries to buy equipment to monitor emissions of greenhouse gases. The GAO's criticism of the US's lack of
national policy on global warming came in a report to a congressional committee. The GAO says
that officials from international environmental organisations feel uncertain about the authority
of the US's representatives at meetings. It complains that the Bush administration has not
appointed any agency to act as 'the administration's voice on global climate change'.
LINK—EUROPE PUSHING FOR U.S. TO REDUCE EMISSIONS
AP 7-8-08 http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080708/ap_on_re_as/g8_climate_change [JWU]
The decision on climate change split some of the differences between Bush and other G-8
members.
Japan and European members have been pressing for setting a long-term goal of a 50
percent reduction in global greenhouse emissions by 2050. Other members, including the
U.S., Russia and Canada, have been less enthusiastic about such a target. Bush has long
said that China and India and other big, growing economies must share in the pain in
reaching such a goal.
The Europeans have pushed harder for rich countries to reinvigorate talks by making
unilateral commitments. Germany, for instance, has pledged to cut emissions by 20
percent by 2020, and by 30 percent if other countries join the effort.
49
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: CAP AND TRADE
EUROPE LIKES CAP AND TRADE
International herald tribune 6-4-07

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/04/business/carbon.php [JWu]
Europe is moving toward far reaching changes to its emissions-trading system that could
force large-scale polluters to pay for most, or even all, permits to produce climate-
changing gases, European officials said Monday.
Although the European carbon-trading arrangement is the world's most functional, the
countries that administer it acknowledged in a meeting this weekend in Essen, Germany,
that the system was shadowed by some major flaws, including a government-credit
allocation plan that allows companies to profit by lobbying for additional pollution
permits.
According to a statement issued by the German presidency, European Union governments
plan to ask the European Commission to propose modifying the current framework,
known as "cap and trade," by including auction and benchmarking components that
would reduce corporate influence over pollution permits after 2012, when a crucial
period of the present system expires.
"Though it has been a success, we have undergone a steep learning curve and we have
seen some windfall profits being made by power companies," said Barbara Helfferich, a
spokeswoman for the European Environment Commissioner, Stavros Dimas.
50
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: MULTILATERAL ANYTHING
MULTILATERAL ACTIONS KEY TO GETTING EUROPE ON BOARD FOR

NMD
Both opponents and proponents of NMD oppose trends in the United States towards unilateralism
in international affairs. The Missile Proliferation Study Group believes that "European opposition
to… a decision [by the US to withdraw from the ABM Treaty] could damage the [NATO] alliance
and lead either to US isolationism or unilateralism."37 Most MPs, however, see NMD itself as
symptomatic of a new and highly dangerous form of unilateralism. Menzies Campbell highlights
Senate rejection of the CTBT, unwillingness to endorse the International Criminal Court,
procrastination over the land mines ban and determination to press ahead with NMD regardless of
the ABM Treaty as "disturbing and destabilizing features of a determination on the part of the
Americans to go it alone". Malcolm Savidge shares this concern that "there is the danger of a new
unilateralism in the United States, which could completely undermine nuclear disarmament".38
CURBING NUCLEAR PROLIF / HEG / SOFT POWER LINK

MULTILATERAL ENGAGEMENT KEY TO GETTING EUROPE ON BOARD FOR
NMD
The recent report by the British House of Commons also urged “the
Government to
impress upon U.S. administration that it cannot necessarily assume
unqualified UK co
operation with U.S. plans to deploy NMD in the event of unilateral U.S.
abrogation of
the ABM Treaty.” Coming from the parliament of the closest U.S. ally in
Europe and a
country that hosts two key facilities for the NMD architecture
(Fylindales and
Menwith Hill); this position is worth noticing.5 Greenland’s Prime
minister has warned
that Greenland would refuse to upgrade the Thule radar facility “if it
resulted in
increased tension and world destabilization.”6 The final decision
belongs to Denmark,
but Copenhagen has said that local views would be taken into account.
51
DDI ’08 NMD DA
In other words, Europe would probably not oppose the deployment of
missiles defenses
and amendments to the ABM Treaty as long as the inner logic of treaty
(limitations on
defenses) and the treaty itself are preserved, and as long as
amendments take place in
an U.S.-Russian negotiated process. In order that the future of arms
control may be
preserved, Europeans do not want to see multilateral approaches to
security abandoned
in favor of unilateral defenses.
LINK: MULTILATERAL ANYTHING
LINK: MULTILATERAL COOPERATION KEY TO GETTING EUROPEAN NMD

SUPPORT
CAMILLE GRAND, Institut français des Relations internationales (IFRI), Paris.

Lecturer, Institut d’études politiques de Paris, and Ecole spéciale militaire, and Adviser
for arms control and non-proliferation at the French Ministry of Defense. 01 "NMD and
arms control: a European view." http://www.mi.infn.it/~landnet/NMD/grand.pdf [JWu]
Just as in the United States, a wide variety of views have been

expressed in Europe
concerning the impact of the proposed U.S. national missile defense
(NMD) on arms
control. Most Europeans are genuinely concerned that the country that
invented arms
control and non-proliferation is showing a mounting distrust, if not
outright
contempt, for bilateral and multilateral regimes and treaties. Coming
after the U.S.
Senate’s rejection of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the
determined pursuit of
national missile defense is another signal of a growing U.S. preference
for unilateral
responses to global issues. At a time when major arms control
negotiations are facing a
stalemate (the Biological Weapons Convention protocol and the fissile
material cutoff
treaty to name two examples about which Europeans care very much),
this trend
worries many U.S. friends and allies.
52
DDI ’08 NMD DA
53
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: AIR POWER / MILITARY—POLAND

UNIQUE LINK:
POLAND AND U.S. ARE DISCUSSING NMDS NOW—KEY ISSUE IS
PROVIDING AIR SECURITY
WARSAW BUSINESS JOURNAL, 7-21-08 http://www.wbj.pl/article-41943-missile-

defense-shield-talks-yield-progress.html?typ=wbj [JWu]
Poland and the US are closer in their efforts in negotiating a deal to place anti-missile
defense on Polish soil, said Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski after his meeting
with US Assistant Undersecretary of State Dan Fried.
"This was a positive discussion, which brought the two sides closer together regarding
the anti-missile defense," said Sikorski after the meeting. However, he did not reveal any
details of the talk.
Piotr Paszkowski, spokesman to Sikorski said that further talks will take place in Warsaw
on Wednesday.
Fried arrived in Warsaw to attend the funeral of Bronisław Geremek, but before the
ceremony, the two politicians sat down and talked about issues crucial to Polish-
American relations.
The Bush administration wants to install 10 interceptor missiles in Poland as part of its
anti-missile defense plan that aims to protect the US and its European allies from possible
attacks by rogue states.
In return for the project, Poland has asked the US for large investments that are meant to
upgrade its air force. The CzechRepublic has signed an accord with the US to place a
tracking radar on its soil, as part of the plan.
POLAND ASKING FOR AIR SUPPORT, IN EXCHANGE FOR NMD
NYTIMES 7-9-08
http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/world/07/09/0709missiledefense.ht
ml [JWU]
Rice is on a European tour that includes Bulgaria and Georgia but not Poland. The United
States hopes to base 10 interceptor missiles in Poland, but Warsaw and Washington have
failed to reach agreement on the terms.
Poland's government has taken a tough negotiating stance. In return for hosting the
interceptors, Poland has asked the United States to modernize Polish air defenses so that
the country can defend itself against incoming short- and medium-range missiles.
54
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: AIR POWER / MILITARY—POLAND
AIR POWER EXPANSION ALLOWS POLAND TO RATIFY NMD
ALJAZEERA 2-2-08
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/02/2008525135912344656.html [JWu]
Sikorski did not outline the terms of the deal, but in a joint appearance with Condoleezza
Rice, the US secretary of state, the two officials suggested that the US would help with
Polish air defenses, which Poland has asked for in the deal.
Rice said: "We understand that there is a desire for defense modernisation in Poland, and
particularly for air defense modernization in Poland.
"This is something that we support because it will make our ally, Poland, more capable, it
will make Poland, as the foreign minister has said, more able to operate with us."
Sikorski said that negotiators would continue to work on the details of an agreement that
would allow the US to install 10 interceptors as part of a long range European missile
defense system.
He said: "We are not at the end of the road as regards negotiations. We are in the middle
of the road. We have an agreement in principle."
HELPING POLISH SECURITY ALLOWS NMD IN POLAND

Besides radar in the Czech Republic, deploying elements of an American anti-missile system in
Eastern Europe includes placing tens of anti-missile rockets on the territory of Poland. However,
talks between the US and Warsaw were halted after the Polish government proposed a number of
conditions, chief among them being a request for $20 billion in aid for modernizing the Polish
army and air defense.
In the opinion of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the deployment of elements of an anti-
missile system enhances the security of the US, but not that of Poland. “Key in the question of
Polish negotiations with the United States has been and remains a real increase in Poland’s
security through political guarantees, but also through definite military guarantees,” he stated.
55
DDI ’08 NMD DA
LINK: AFGHANISTAN
Story: they read cards saying x is key to solving Afghanistan, meaning Polish troops
aren't needed. Poland pulls out troops and which the public likes, bolstering support
for the NMD.
Over the past three years, Poland has contributed a significant number of troops to
the U.S.-led operation in Iraq. Observers note that the deployment is providing the Polish
military with invaluable experience, not the least of which includes commanding a
multinational division. However, Poland’s presence in Iraq remains unpopular at home
— a recent poll showed 85% opposition to the deployment. To date, 21 Polish soldiers
have died in Iraq. During the fall election campaign, candidate Tusk pledged to pull out
Polish troops if elected; Jaroslaw Kaczynski countered that Poles were not “deserters or
cowards.” On December 18, 2007, the new government requested that Poland’s 900-
troop presence in Iraq be extended until October 2008, at which time the soldiers would
be withdrawn. Poland also has 1200 soldiers in Afghanistan — the new government
proposes an additional 400 be dispatched there, although polls show clear public
disapproval of the mission.7
56
DDI ’08 NMD DA
INTERNAL: NMD TRADING
DEMANDS FOR NMD WOULD BE QUID PRO QUO
RADIO PRAGUE 5-25-08 http://www.radio.cz/en/article/79280 [JWU]
That's the military-technical side of it. On a political level, we've just seen the Czechs
dealt a very embarrassing blow after the US Senate voted to effectively exempt Poles
from visas, but not Czechs - despite months of lobbying by Czech Foreign Minister Cyril Svoboda. How
much appetite is there in the Foreign Ministry to even contemplate allowing the US to build missile bases in this
country? What's in it for the Czechs?
"That's effectively a very sensitive part of any US request. Should they decide to ask
formally the Czech Republic for permission to establish a US missile defence base on
Czech territory, they would have to immediately bring something in exchange, so to speak.
And the most likely issue would then by either a visa-free regime, or a much more flexible and almost visa-free regime,
because that's the only issue that bothers the Czech public. And that could be seen as a beneficial trade
off."
57
DDI ’08 NMD DA
INTERNAL LINK: TAKING INTO ACCOUNT EUROPEAN DEMANDS KEY TO NMD

ACCEPTANCE
James Nagelberg, Law Clerk at U.S. Department of Justice, Foreign Affairs Officer at U.S.
Department of State, National Security Analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation 2k "pushing
the wedge: nmd and US alliances" http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/2000pushingwedge.htm
[JWu]
The change in threat perception has caused a shift in American policy that at times has
excluded European interests. "In defense policy, you tend to avoid areas of stability, so
America isn’t worried about Europe as much as Asia. In other words, no threats equals
no attention," said Valasek. In fact, the Asian drift in Washington has been a gradual one.
According to Stanley R. Sloan, a private consultant and retired senior specialist with the
Congressional Research Service, "In [President Bill] Clinton’s first year of office, the
administration attempted to use a tilt in policy toward Asia to gain leverage in diplomatic
dealings with Europe. That turned out to be a bad strategy that upset our allies." After
realizing the flaws in this strategy, policy-makers began to change how they deal with the
European allies. "The administration is finally having consultations with the European
allies now, but they’re falling short of accomplishing the administration’s goals," said Dr.
Sean Kay, a Politics and Government professor at Ohio Wesleyan University. A large
part of the failure in American diplomatic efforts in Europe on NMD has been the
seemingly deaf ear of the administration and Congress. The tunnel vision created by a
threat analysis aimed at Asia has allowed European views to go disregarded. "We’ve
certainly overlooked the European position on NMD because we’re so focused on
threats from Iran, Iraq and Korea," said Valasek. Sloan added that, "Too many members
of Congress are dismissive to European attitudes. In terms of strategy, what the
Europeans think should play a larger role in decision-making for Congress and the
administration." The dismissive response from U.S. leaders over NMD and an array of
other issues has contributed to European feelings of neglect. "Had we prioritized
conversations with our allies a year ago, we might not be having this open debate on
NMD right now. The administration was handing down decisions without making a true
dialogue of it," said Kay. Leaders from virtually all of America’s European and NATO
allies have expressed their frustration in dealing with the United States on NMD.
"Unilateral efforts to build defenses against the dangers [of missile attacks] are unlikely
to provide lasting security and might quite possibly increase insecurity," said Canadian
Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy.[4] Following the release of a negative report on the
U.S. NMD proposal by the Foreign Affairs Committee in the U.K. House of Commons,
Committee Chairman Donald Anderson said, "We should make crystal clear to the U.S.
that it cannot take our cooperation for granted."[5]
58
DDI ’08 NMD DA
INTERNAL: NMD TRADING—POLAND
*****QUID PRO QUO NEGOTATIONS ARE KEY TO NMD
Vanessa Gera, correspondent in the Warsaw bureau of The Associated Press, has covered central Europe
for seven years. 7-3-08
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iikN80AfzdsEw0Ck4_2K6jjEEG2wD91MH3NO1[JWU]
As a result, Warsaw has decided that if it is going to link its fate to another major
American military project, it's going to get what it wants beforehand — and in writing.
"Poland took an idealistic approach when it decided to support the U.S. in Iraq,"
Wagrowska said. "Now there is a much more reasonable, commercial approach because
of the disappointment that we didn't earn anything in Iraq."
As part of a missile defense deal, Poland has asked for billions of dollars worth of
military investment from the U.S. to upgrade its air defenses, including Patriot ground-to-
air missiles. What Poland will get is not known.
The government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk has been driving a hard bargain in part
because the Polish public strongly opposes the proposed base. For its own survival, the
government must show voters that it is not Washington's lapdog, and that it is
securing some tangible benefits in exchange. "Poland doesn't have very much money
and I think that we deserve something from the Americans if only because of our
participation in the Iraq war," said Danuta Zegarska, 54, a stay-at-home mother relaxing
in a Warsaw park on Thursday.
Tusk has acknowledged that his government "is not acting like a naive enthusiast, but like
a hard negotiator."
POLAND WILL RATIFY THE NMD IN EXCHANGE FOR U.S. CONCESSIONS
Agata Wadowska received her MA at University of Lodz in Poland in international relations,

specializing in Middle Eastern and Arab studies as well as in Polish contemporary history. 9-4-07
http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=10887
Commenting on the result, Deputy Foreign Minister Paweł Kowal said the poll was
"interesting" but added, "I wouldn't care about it too much." He also expressed strong
opposition to organizing a referendum on the issue.
For most Polish supporters of the defense shield, the issue is a political question rather
than a military one. Although they may not share the US threat perception with regard to
Iran, they are willing to go along with the country's plans in order to obtain other benefits
from Washington. Hope that visa requirements to travel to the US will be lifted is one of
these sought-after benefits.
59
DDI ’08 NMD DA
INTERNAL: SUPPORT KEY
EUROPEAN SUPPORT OF U.S. POLICIES KEY TO NMD
British American Security Information Council , 5 (based on most recent date),

http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NMD/main.htm[JWu]
Support from European governments and the public is vital for the Bush administration's
successful development of a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. The need for agreement
among the allies is a practical consideration, since the United States must use radars at sites in
Greenland and the United Kingdom to make the system operational.
However, agreement with allies is complicated by expansive plans to deploy a system to protect
the United States from ballistic missile attack. U.S. President George W. Bush and his
administration plan deployment of land-, sea-, and space-based interceptors as soon as
technically possible. Bush's decision to abandon the ABM Treaty, which restricts development of
missile defenses, casts a long shadow over the future of multilateral arms control and
international law, threatening good relations with its European allies and unity within NATO.
EUROPEAN SUPPORT KEY TO NMD
Tomas Valasek, Senior Analyst, Center for Defense Information, 6-8-2k

(www.cdi.org/weekly/2000/issue23.html )[JWu]
But for Europe, the choices are less clear. Senior politicians in Germany, Italy, and France
did speak out against NMD. But their main criticism is that it will weaken U.S. --
European strategic links by fostering a siege mentality in the United States. Implicitly, the
European NATO allies make it clear they want to remain under the United States'
protective umbrella. This makes it unlikely that they will wholeheartedly embrace
Russian proposals and disregard the possible rift with Washington. Russia's dreams of
teaming up with Europe to counterbalance the United States are likely to remain just that.
As the war in Chechnya demonstrated, the EU's values and interests lie much closer to
those of the United States than to Russia's.
Regardless of Russia's overtures, Washington can ill-afford to ignore Europe' s
reservations. The EU's outright opposition to U.S. deployment of an NMD system -- a
possibility, although not yet a reality, as the EU has not formulated a joint position on
NMD -- would put in doubt the future of NATO. But there is another very practical
consideration: NMD, especially in its later stages, simply won't work without cooperation
from Europe.
60
DDI ’08 NMD DA
EUROPEAN FAVOR KEY TO NMDs
Theresa Hitchens is Research Director of BASIC. and Stuart Samuels is a Consultant

to BASIC. 2k "NMD: Allied fears in focus"
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP32.htm May 2k No 32 [JWu]
It would be interesting to consider what the U.S. reaction would be if the tables were
turned. Imagine that the European Union were to push ahead with its own version of an
assertive and independent security and defense policy, backed by an independent military
force without any tie to NATO — while waving off legitimate U.S. security concerns as
unwarranted. The response from Washington likely would be pyrotechnic.
61
DDI ’08 NMD DA
INTERNAL: Poland key to European support
Poland is a key player for U.S. to access NMD
“Missile Defense Dossier: The Polish Perspective,”
ng.pdf [Bapodra]
The attitude of the public opinion has to be taken into account by the political class. The
title of a recent article published in The Washington Post by the former Defence Minister
Radek Sikorski puts it neatly: ‘Don’t Take Poland for Granted’. Even though the
referendum on the issue is unlikely, any future agreement with the United States will
need to be approved by the Parliament. Many politicians have already voiced their
concerns about the MD deployment, with the junior coalition partner League of Polish
Families and oppositional Alliance of Democratic Left going openly against it (the
second lambasting the government for lack of credible information on the issue). Other
main players, including the largest opposition party, the Civic Platform, decided to wait
with the final judgment, noting that they could support the agreement only if Poland’s
position would be substantially strengthened as a result. Both the President and the Prime
Minister also stipulated that they would only accept an outcome of the negotiations which
would ‘increase the level of security’ of Poland. Needless to say, the intentional
vagueness of such statements is supposed to give the Polish negotiators room for
maneuver in the talks with the United States.
62
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD—ARMAMENT
NMD CAUSES NUCLEAR PROLIF AND ARMAMENT

BASIC. 2k "NMD: Allied fears in focus" http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP32.htm
May 2k No 32 [JWu]
Furthermore, the more effective any NMD system is, the more difficult it will be to make
further reductions in the numbers of nuclear warheads around the world. Many European
Non-Nuclear Weapon States are keenly supportive of nuclear disarmament, and see NMD as an
obstacle to that goal.
"What if, for instance, some countries come to the conclusion that an arsenal of less than 1,000
nuclear warheads could someday become ineffective because of advanced NMD systems?" asks
Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic Security (BITS). "They
could thus conclude that treaties limiting their arsenals to 1,000 or fewer warheads would not be
in their national interest. This, in turn, could result in Nuclear Weapon States deciding it was not
in their interest to fulfill their obligations to eventually eliminate nuclear weapons according to
Article VI of the NPT."
In fact, Nassauer explained, there already has been a debate within the NPT context about
whether Nuclear Weapon States should agree not to increase their nuclear posture in the future.
However, China can no longer be expected to sign such an agreement, since the planned U.S.
NMD system would be able to counter China’s entire strategic arsenal.
The British and French militaries, with their small nuclear arsenals, also might feel themselves in
a very uncomfortable position. Grant, in the April-May issue of the Centre for European Reform
Bulletin, noted that "if NMD prompted Russia and China to improve their ABM systems, the British
and French deterrents could be devalued."
NMD WILL KILL RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND CAUSE ARMAMENT
Peoples Daily 5-24-2k http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/2000/000524-prc-

pd1.htm [JWu]
First, they worry that this practice of the United States would worsen US-Russian relations and
hamper the process of US-Russian nuclear disarmament. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
reached between the United States and the former Soviet Union in 1972 stipulates that both sides
should not develop and deploy missile defense system. The present practice of the United States
has obviously violated this treaty. If the United States insists on deployment or unilaterally
withdraws from this treaty, it is bound to force Russia to develop and deploy the "missile defense
system". This, on the one hand, will cause Britain, France and other European countries to lose
"nuclear deterrent capability", rendering their nuclear weapons into useless "toys"; on the other
hand, it will cause renewed tension in the US-Russian and European-Russian relations. In
addition, it will adversely affect the US-Russian third-stage negotiation on cutting down on
strategic weapons. The Russian military has indicated that if the United States withdraws from or
does not abide by the disarmament accord already reached between both sides, Russia will
withdraw from all disarmament negotiations and disarmament agreements. Although such an
expression of attitude contains the "factor of threat", its negative effect on US-Russian nuclear
disarmament is evident.
63
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD: KILLS RUSSIAN RELATIONS

NMD WILL KILL RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND CAUSE ARMAMENT

pd1.htm [JWu]
First, they worry that this practice of the United States would worsen US-Russian relations and
hamper the process of US-Russian nuclear disarmament. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
reached between the United States and the former Soviet Union in 1972 stipulates that both sides
should not develop and deploy missile defense system. The present practice of the United States
has obviously violated this treaty. If the United States insists on deployment or unilaterally
withdraws from this treaty, it is bound to force Russia to develop and deploy the "missile defense
system". This, on the one hand, will cause Britain, France and other European countries to lose
"nuclear deterrent capability", rendering their nuclear weapons into useless "toys"; on the other
hand, it will cause renewed tension in the US-Russian and European-Russian relations. In
addition, it will adversely affect the US-Russian third-stage negotiation on cutting down on
strategic weapons. The Russian military has indicated that if the United States withdraws from or
does not abide by the disarmament accord already reached between both sides, Russia will
withdraw from all disarmament negotiations and disarmament agreements. Although such an
expression of attitude contains the "factor of threat", its negative effect on US-Russian nuclear
disarmament is evident.
NMDS WOULD PISS OFF RUSSIA

In an interview with the Guardian, the Kremlin's chief spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said Moscow
felt betrayed by the Pentagon's move. "We were extremely concerned and disappointed. We were
never informed in advance about these plans. It brings tremendous change to the strategic balance
in Europe, and to the world's strategic stability."
He added: "We feel ourselves deceived. Potentially we will have to create alternatives to this but
with low cost and higher efficiency." Any response would be within "existing technologies", he
said. As well as military counter-measures, Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, also wanted
"dialogue" and "negotiations", he added.
NMD DESTROY U.S. RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND E.U.

Russia has continued to voice its opposition to U.S. plans, and on March 6, Swedish Foreign
Minister Anna Lindh, a critic of missile defenses, noted after a meeting with Powell that she had
not changed her position. Lindh also said that the European Union presidency, which Sweden
currently occupies, does not want to see the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty threatened.
64
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD: KILLS RUSSIAN RELATIONS
NMD KILLS RUSSIAN RELATIONS
ALEX LANTIER, 5-22-08 "Russia, China denounce US missile shield at summit meeting"
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/may2008/chin-m24.shtml [JWU]
The US’ planned nuclear missile shield is a complex set of airbases and defenses, which aims to
locate and shoot down nuclear missiles fired at the US or its allies in Europe. It is in early design
stages and not thought currently to be effective as a defense. However, potential adversaries of
the US must keep in mind the possibility that it might one day become effective; moreover, with
the US planning to station many of the shield’s defensive bases in Eastern European countries
near Russia (e.g., Poland, the Czech Republic), the missile shield has become a major source of
tensions in US-Russia relations.
65
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD: WAR WITH CHINA
CHINA FEARS NMD AS A BREACH TO ITS SECURITY—WILL CAUSE ARMS RACE

While declaring that China does not want a confrontation with the United States over missile
defenses, the ambassador warned that China will "not allow its legitimate means of self-defense
to be weakened" and that Beijing wants to preserve "existing mutual deterrence" between China
and the United States. Currently, China, which possesses roughly 20 ICBMs capable of reaching
the United States, fears a U.S. national missile defense, no matter how limited, could negate its
small arsenal, making China vulnerable to a U.S. first strike or eliminating its ability to deter the
United States from intervening militarily in Asia, particularly with regard to Taiwan.
Like the Clinton administration did, Bush officials have declared that the system will not be
directed at China, but at other states, such as North Korea and Iran, that are pursuing long-range
ballistic missiles. Sha rejected this assurance, saying the United States has "over-exaggerated"
such threats. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said that only those who would threaten
the United States or its friends and allies should be concerned about a U.S. defense.
Sha repeated long-standing Chinese charges that a U.S. missile defense could start another arms
race, including one extending into outer space, and could possibly spur increased missile
proliferation. Sha said that for those reasons China, which is already known to be modernizing its
strategic forces, hoped Washington would abandon its plans. He added that China "should have
reason to be confident that we can deal with it" if there is a U.S. deployment.
NMDS CAUSE INTERNATIONAL BACKLASH, NUCLEAR ARMS RACE, AND CHINA

AGRESSION
PBS 2K "MISSILE DEFENSE POLITICS" http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-

dec00/nmd_8-24.html [JWU]
JEFFREY KAYE: Critics say a U.S. defensive shield might encourage hostile nations to acquire
even more long-range weapons to try to overwhelm U.S. missile defenses. Their fears were
reinforced by a classified national intelligence estimate. According to newspaper reports, the
estimate says China will probably expand its nuclear arsenal from 20 to 200 warheads in response
to the U.S. deploying a missile shield. John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists opposes
a missile defense system because of the potential, in his view, of an arms race.
JOHN PIKE: The Chinese are looking at the plan. They are saying to themselves, "we have about
20 long-range missiles that can get to America. The Clinton administration plans to build a
system that can intercept about 20 missiles. We are the only country that has just exactly the
number that this system is designed to counter. This thing looks like it's aimed at us." Other
countries gauge their standing in the world by what countries like China and Russia are doing,
and if these countries are not building down their arsenal or they're building up their arsenal,
other countries are going to follow suit.
66
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD: NUCLEAR ARMS RACE
NMD CAUSES NUCLEAR ARMS RACE WITH RUSSIA

Russia is preparing its own military response to the US's controversial plans to build a new
missile defence system in eastern Europe, according to Kremlin officials, in a move likely to
increase fears of a cold war-style arms race.
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, a move Russia says
will change "the world's strategic stability".
The Kremlin has not publicly spelt out its plans. But defence experts said its response is likely to
include upgrading its nuclear missile arsenal so that it is harder to shoot down, putting more
missiles on mobile launchers, and moving its fleet of nuclear submarines to the north pole, where
they are virtually undetectable.
Russia could also bring the new US silos within the range of its Iskander missiles launched
potentially from the nearby Russian enclave of Kaliningrad, they add.
NMD WILL CAUSE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE WITH RUSSIA
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL 2-8-07

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/feb2007/miss-f08.shtml [JWu]
However, neither Iran, which has not carried out a nuclear detonation test, nor North
Korea, whose nuclear weapons capability is very crude, are credible targets for such a
vast and complicated defensive system. The primary intention of the US shield is to
disable the attack capabilities of those rival countries that actually have missile delivery
systems capable of striking the United States or seriously threatening its major forward
bases—i.e., Russia and China. Commenting on the announcement by the Czech
government that it was hosting the US radar base, Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei
Ivanov said, “Russia is not worried. Its strategic nuclear forces can assure in any
circumstance its safety. Since neither Tehran nor Pyongyang possess intercontinental
missiles capable of threatening the USA, from whom is this new missile shield supposed
to protect the West? All it actually amounts to is that Prague and Warsaw want to
demonstrate their loyalty to Washington.” Despite the bravado of the Russian government
regarding its military capabilities, the Kremlin is acutely aware of the threat posed to it by
the accelerating nuclear arms race being pushed by the US. General Yuri Baluyevsky,
Russian chief of general staff, described the deployment of parts of the missile shield into
Europe as an “unfriendly move, to put it mildly.”
“Its interception range will cover a significant portion of the European part of Russia, and
its integration with US information resources will further strengthen the anti-Russian
potential of this facility. We would be forced to search for countermeasures which would
be asymmetrical and clearly much cheaper,” the general said.
67
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD BAD—ARMS RACE, CHINA
NMDS CAUSE INTERNATIONAL BACKLASH, NUCLEAR ARMS RACE, AND CHINA

AGGRESSION

JEFFREY KAYE: Critics say a U.S. defensive shield might encourage hostile nations to acquire
even more long-range weapons to try to overwhelm U.S. missile defenses. Their fears were
reinforced by a classified national intelligence estimate. According to newspaper reports, the
estimate says China will probably expand its nuclear arsenal from 20 to 200 warheads in response
to the U.S. deploying a missile shield. John Pike of the Federation of American Scientists opposes
a missile defense system because of the potential, in his view, of an arms race.
JOHN PIKE: The Chinese are looking at the plan. They are saying to themselves, "we have about
20 long-range missiles that can get to America. The Clinton administration plans to build a
system that can intercept about 20 missiles. We are the only country that has just exactly the
number that this system is designed to counter. This thing looks like it's aimed at us." Other
countries gauge their standing in the world by what countries like China and Russia are doing,
and if these countries are not building down their arsenal or they're building up their arsenal,
other countries are going to follow suit.
68
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Terminal Impacts: Russian retaliation
Deploying Bush’s Missile Defense in Europe means U.S.-Russian accidental nuclear

war and extinction
Mike Whitney, frequent contributor to the Centre for Research on Globalization, December 20, 2007,
“Putin Agonistes: Missile Defense will not be Deployed,” CRG, online:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7659 [Bapodra]
Bush's Missile Defense system has restarted the nuclear arms race. Welcome to the
new Cold War. Finally, Russia Chief of Staff, General Yuri Balyevsky warned:
“A possible launch of a US interceptor missile from Central Europe may provoke a
counterattack from intercontinental ballistic missiles....If we suppose that Iran wants to
strike the United States , then interceptor missiles which would be launched from
Poland will fly towards Russia and the shape and flight trajectory are very similar to
ICBMs” (Novosti Russian News Agency)
Balyevsky's scenario of an “accidental” World War 3 is more likely than ever now that
Bush is pressing ahead with his plans for Missile Defense. Russia's automated missile
warning systems can be triggered automatically when foreign missiles enter Russian
air space. Its a dangerous game and potentially fatal every living thing on the planet.
To great extent, the American people have no idea of the reckless policy that is being
carried out in their name. The gravity of the proposed Missile Defense system has
been virtually ignored by the media and Russia's protests have been dismissed as
trivial. But hostilities are steadily growing, military forces and weaponry are being put
into place, and the stage is set for a major conflagration. This is every bit as serious as
the Cuban Missile Crisis, only this time Russia cannot afford to stand down.
69
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Deployment of the European missile defense causes Russian retaliation with nuclear
weapons
London Times, June 4, 2007 (Seriously… it’s a newspaper [Bapodra])

President Putin has warned the US that its deployment of a new anti-missile network across Eastern
Europe would prompt Russia to point its own missiles at European targets and could trigger nuclear
war. In an exclusive interview with The Times, the Russian leader says: “It is obvious that if part of the
strategic nuclear potential of the US is located in Europe and will be threatening us, we will have to
respond.
“This system of missile defence on one side and the absence of this system on the other ... increases the
possibility of unleashing a nuclear conflict.”
Russia has been alarmed at America’s plans to install a network of defences in Eastern Europe to shoot
down incoming missiles it fears that Iran might launch.
Mr Putin expressed scepticism of this motive, arguing that “There are no such missiles – Iran does not
have missiles with the range”. The US was insisting, he said, that the defence system was to be
“installed for the protection from something that does not exist. Is it not sort of funny? It would be
funny if it were not so sad.”
He speculated that the US’s real motive was to provoke Russia’s retaliation and so “to avoid further
closeness of Russia and Europe”.
Mr Putin’s tough warning comes days before the start of the G8 meeting of the world’s most powerful
industrialised economies.
His uncompromising stand on America’s missile defence, Kosovo, Iran and climate change was partly
blamed for the failure of last month’s summit between Russia and the European Union.
Mr Putin had warm words for the “cordial reception” that Tony Blair had given him, and for Gordon
Brown, “a high-class specialist”. But he offered little room for compromise on Britain’s request for the
extradition of Andrei Lugovoy, the former intelligence officer, wanted on charges of the murder of
dissident former agent Alexander Litvinenko by radioactive poisoning in London.
“No matter from what angle we look at this problem, it’s all stupid, stupid nonsense”, he said of
Britain’s extradition request. “I will not see any single positive component. It’s complete nonsense.”
Russian authorities were investigating the case and if enough evidence were found, the case would
“certainly be sent to court”, he said. In theory, he added, “there are possible circumstances” in which
Russia would comply with the extradition “but it would require an amendment to the Constitution.”
But Britain had not provided justification for such a dramatic move, he said. If heads of British law
enforcement agencies “did not know that the constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to
foreign states then their competence is questionable” and “they should work for parliament or
newspapers” because the request was at heart “only a political public relations step”.
He also gave no quarter on the cases of Shell and BP, the British oil giants, who have recently seen the
terms of their investments in Russia rewritten because of alleged breaches of their licences.
Mr Putin insisted that he wants “cooperation not confrontation”, repeatedly blaming the US for its
intransigence. But of all the potential clashes at the G8 meeting, which begins on Wednesday in
Germany, it is his warnings on Russian retaliation to the US missile defence plans that are likely to
cause the greatest friction.
He called on “our American friends to rethink their decision” and warned that ”We cannot be
responsible for our reciprocal steps because it is not us who are initiating an arms race in Europe”.
He added: “We will need to establish such systems which would be able to penetrate the [US] missile
defence systems... What kind of means will be used to hit the targets that our military believe are
potential threats – ballistic missiles, or cruise missiles, or some kind of new weapons system – this is a
purely technical issue?
70
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD invades Russian Sphere of Influence/ Disrupts

Relations
Deploying NMD in Europe causes an unprecedented crash in U.S.-Russia relations
Philip Coyle, Senior Adviser to the World Security Institute, and Victoria Swanson, Professor in the
graduate International Relations program at St. Mary's University and analyst at the Center for Defense
Information, Spring 2008, “Missile Defense Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defenses in
Europe Will Not Work,” Ethics & International Affairs, Vol. 12, No. 1 [Bapodra]
Moreover, the proposed missiles exacerbate U.S.-Russian relations to the point of

creating a volatile situation that did not previously exist. In October 2007, Russian
President Vladimir Putin drew the analogy between the current situation and the 1962
Cuban missile crisis, when the Soviet Union based missiles in Cuba that could easily
reach the United States. "The situation is quite similar technologically for us," said
Putin. "We have withdrawn the remains of bases from Vietnam and Cuba, but such
threats are being created near our borders."7
Just as forty-six years ago America saw Russian missiles in Cuba as an alarming
threat, Russia clearly feels that the proposed U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the
Czech Republic are too close for comfort. True, the Soviet missiles in Cuba were
offensive, and the planned U.S. interceptors in Poland are to be defensive.
Nevertheless, the U.S. proposal is in direct violation of the joint declaration issued in
conjunction with the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty—also known as the
Moscow Treaty—signed by Presidents Bush and Putin on May 24, 2002.8 The joint
declaration calls for joint research and development on missile defense technologies
and U.S.-Russian cooperation on missile defense for Europe. The Bush proposal to
establish U.S. missile defenses in Europe was neither joint nor cooperative, and was
initiated unilaterally almost before the ink had dried on the joint declaration.
71
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD in Poland undermines Russia’s sphere of influence and draws the US into
taking sides against Russia
Eastern European Review, 12-11, 2007, “Poland, Iran, Russia, and the Polish Missile Shield Base,”
online: http://www.masterpage.com.pl/outlook/200712/iranpolandrussia.html, [Bapodra]
History has shown that Poland cannot depend on Europe to defend it. And given the
current military might of the countries in Europe, future defense ability might be
plausibly questioned. Germany - The Soft Underbelly of Europe
But a base in Poland is a US asset that will be defended by the US against any
aggressor. It fixes Poland position as not under the Russian sphere of influence. That is
if the US Congress agrees to build it.
So Tusk has to balance many evils before him. Is it better to have a foreign military
base that is not wanted by his countrymen or take his chances with a rogue missile
and/or a resurgent Russia? What are his risks and rewards?
Tusk is in a difficult position. He will surely make a decision that he thinks best for
Poland. And whatever that decision is, there will be unhappy people and long term
consequences for Poland.
Its not just about Poland. Its about Poland, Europe, Iran and Russia with the US
waiting for a decision and having to make a decision of its own.
72
DDI ’08 NMD DA
U.S. Russian Relations Brink Card

New Russian military deployments and ICBM developments are aimed specifically
at the U.S.
Russia seems to be going through a new period of nationalistic assertiveness, one

expression of which is the display of military accomplishments. For example, Russia
has announced the successful development of new ICBMs, warned that its nuclear
weapons might have to be aimed at Europe, put its strategic bombers back in the air on
training flights, and announced that Russia has suspended its participation in the treaty
restricting deployments of conventional forces in Europe. Some might say that these
displays are more to impress Russian voters than to impress America, as well as to
secure Putin's future should he decide to run for president again after sitting out for a
term, as can be done under Russian law. Undoubtedly, Putin would not mind if he
impressed Russian voters, but we would argue that these developments are primarily
aimed at the United States.
73
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Impact Module: Joint Data Exchange Center/Accidental

Launch
A. NMD in Europe causes Russia to pull out of the Joint Data Exchange Center
Other bilateral agreements between the United States and Russia, such as the Joint
Data Exchange Center (JDEC), could also suffer due to relations distressed by a U.S.
missile defense site in Europe. This was to be a spin-off of the successful Y2K center
created at the turn of the century to ensure that there would not be any unexpected
misunderstandings due to Y2K glitches. From Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado,
both Russian and U.S. officials monitored missile launches globally. The JDEC was to
continue this effort at cooperation with the aim of creating "an uninterrupted exchange
of information on launches of ballistic missiles and space launch vehicles from the
early warning systems of the United States of America and the Russian Federation."28
However, it has been stunted in talks almost from its June 2000 inception, largely due
to concerns about liability and tax issues, and the program currently is in limbo. If
missile defense negatively affects relations, it will not help the JDEC progress.
B. JDEC key to prevent accidental launch
Pavel Podvig, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, February 2005,
“Reducing the risk of accidental launch: Time for a new approach?,” online:
http://russianforces.org/podvig/eng/publications/forces/20050204ponars.shtml [Bapodra]
Other projects that were discussed in the context of reducing risk of an accidental
launch suggested providing Russia with independent early-warning information,
which was supposed to complement the data received by the Russian system. The
most advanced of these proposals called for establishment of a Joint Data Exchange
Center (JDEC), which would provide both sides with access to their counterpart?s
early-warning information. The logic of the project was that in a case of conflicting
information from early-warning satellites and radars, the United States and Russia
could demonstrate to each other that no attack is underway. Cooperation like this
would probably have helped to determine what happened during the January 1995
incident, but it is not certain if it would be of any help in a serious crisis, when each
side would have reasons to doubt information provided by its counterpart.
74
DDI ’08 NMD DA
C. Accidental launch causes global escalation and nuclear war, killing billions
PR Newswire, 4-29-98 [Bapodra]
An 'accidental' nuclear attack would create a public health disaster of an

unprecedented scale, according to more than 70 articles and speeches on the subject,
cited by the authors and written by leading nuclear war experts, public health
officials, international peace organizations, and legislators. Furthermore, retired
General Lee Butler, Commander from 1991-1994 of all U.S. Strategic Forces under
former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Colin Powell, has warned that
from his experience in many "war games" it is plausible that such an attack could
provoke a nuclear counterattack that could trigger full-scale nuclear war with
billions of casualties worldwide. The authors describe the immediate effects of an "
accidental" launch from a single Russian submarine that would kill at least six to
eight million people in firestorms in eight major U.S. cities. With hospitals destroyed
and medical personnel killed, and with major communications and transportation
networks disrupted, the delivery of emergency care would be all but impossible,
according to Forrow and his colleagues.
75
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Impact- Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty

A. NMD in Europe would cause Russia to pull out of the INF treaty and deploy
tactical nuclear weapons, leading the U.S. to follow suit
Also linked to the proposed U.S. missile defenses are Russia's vague threats over the
past several years to pull out of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty. This treaty banned a whole range of ballistic missiles (those with ranges of 500
to 5,500 kilometers, as well as ground-launched cruise missiles), and has held up even
after the Soviet Union dissolved into its separate republics. Again, this is an idea that
has been floated by Russian officials for the past several years, but also again, they
seem to be latching on to the U.S. missile defense system in Europe as their primary
motivating factor. The initial reason for the INF Treaty was that intermediate-range
missiles were considered highly destabilizing, as their short flight times meant they
could wreak devastation very quickly and made a retaliatory response almost
automatic. Because of the specific dangers inherent in intermediate-range ballistic
missiles, there has even been talk about internationalizing the INF Treaty and trying to
get other countries in unstable parts of the world to sign it as a way of creating
confidence-building measures. However, if Russia pulls out of the INF, it would be
almost impossible to convince other countries to sign onto the treaty, and the U.S.
incentive to continue to follow its provisions would be vastly reduced.
B. The result is escalation to full-scale nuclear war
Jan Lodal, Former Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, National Security Council, The Price of
Dominance: The New Weapons of Mass Destruction and Their Challenge to American Leadership, 2001,
p. 23 [Bapodra]
Many of the 12,000 US and 20,000 Soviet tactical nuclear weapons were more
powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. A tactical nuclear war would have
killed tens or perhaps hundreds of millions, even without escalating to an all-out
strategic nuclear exchange. But such a war probably would have escalated. Tactical
nuclear weapons would not have led to a decisive outcome on the battlefield, but their
use would have broken the taboo against nuclear weapons. At some point, one side
would begin to lose the tactical nuclear war. With a large strategic nuclear force in
reserve, the losing side would have a strong incentive to escalate the war and use
strategic forces in an attempt to regain the military initiative.
76
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Impact- Accidental Space Arms Race
A. NMD in Europe sparks a U.S.-Russian race to weaponize space
A crack in relations between the United States and Russia could have longterm
consequences for emerging national security issues, such as space weaponization.
Until China's ASAT test in January 2007 there had been only two countries that had
tested space weapons: the United States and the Soviet Union. During the Cold War,
the two adversaries tested ASATs fifty-three times.29 Right now the official U.S.
policy is to eschew weaponizing space, but the new U.S. national space policy
released in October 2006 culminated several years of policy papers by the U.S. Air
Force and indicated that it was becoming much more open to the idea.30 Furthermore,
the U.S. military has seized upon China's ASAT test as all the more reason for the
weaponization of space. USA-193, the NRO satellite that was shot down by the United
States in February 2008, had been launched in December 2006 and almost
immediately was unresponsive to ground control and began to deorbit outside the
Pentagon's control. Pentagon officials claimed that the satellite was shot down out of
health concerns, in order to prevent its hydrazine-filled fuel tank from crashing into a
populated area (although these concerns appear to have been exaggerated). They have
further alleged that it was a one-time event involving modifications to the software
and mode of the three SM-3 missiles that were pulled aside for the mission (only one
was used), and that the software and the other two SM-3 missiles were immediately
changed back to their missile defense mode. However, one cannot be certain which
version of the SM-3 has been deployed from then on: is it the sort used for ballistic
missile defense or is it the antisatellite kind such as was used to shoot down USA-193?
Russia and the United States are major space players, and both have much to lose if
the new international norm were to target satellites or to allow for the free creation of
space debris that could damage or destroy expensive space assets. There is a
movement to create some sort of space "rules of the road," which would not be a treaty
but rather codes of conduct by which all space-faring nations could abide. If the
United States and Russia have a rift in their relationship due to missile defense, this
cooperative effort will not succeed. China, as a growing space power, would have to
be included in these talks, and if the United States and Russia were not able to work
together, we could see a repeat of the Cold War dynamic whereby one country would
try to pit other countries against each other.
77
DDI ’08 NMD DA
B. Accidental Nuclear war results due to false early satellite alarms
Marko Beljac, Professor at the University of Melbourne, 4-1, 2008, “Arms Race in Space,” Foreign
Policy In Focus, online: http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/5113 [Bapodra]
Though the latest Russian and Chinese space arms control proposal is flawed, because
of the clumsy definition of what constitutes a “space weapon,” this doesn’t mean that
space arms control is not possible in principle. A global space arms control regime
would protect U.S., Russian, Chinese, and even Australian space assets. An arms race
in space will eventually lead other states to catch up with the United States and
thereby placing Washington's commercial satellites at risk.
Space weaponization may well have cataclysmic consequences given the link between
space weapons and nuclear weapons strategy. This is because Russia, and the United
States, to a certain extent rely on satellites for early warning of nuclear attack. As other
space nations with nuclear weapons develop their space capacity it is expected that
they will follow suit.
The deployment of space weapons means that the first shot in a nuclear war would be
fired against these early warning satellites. Currently strategic planners in Moscow
have about 10 minutes between warning of an attack and the decision to launch
nuclear weapons in response before they impact. Weapons in space would lower this
in certain scenarios down to seconds. This would also apply for weapons placed in
space that would be considered to be defensive such as say a space based BMD
interceptor or a “counter-ASAT” weapon.
On occasion, ground warning radars falsely show that a nuclear attack has been
launched. In the 1990s a false alarm went all the way up to President Boris Yeltsin and
was terminated after approximately eight minutes. We are still here, noted analysts
believe, because warning satellites would have given Moscow real time information
showing the alarm to be false. Should such a false alarm coincide with an accident
involving an early warning satellite when space weapons are known to exist, an
accidental nuclear exchange could result. The risk would increase if the false alarm
occurred during a crisis.
Space weapons could lead to itchy fingers on nuclear triggers. They would therefore
significantly increase the importance nuclear weapon states place upon nuclear
deterrence.
78
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Impact- U.S. Russian Relations Key to Iran
A. European NMD kills cooperation with Russia over Iran, which is key to solve
prolif
There are two serious nuclear proliferation issues facing the world today that require a
united response, something that is unlikely if hostilities are increased between the
United States and Russia as a result of the U.S. missile defense plans. The first is Iran's
nuclear program. While the November 2007 NIE acknowledged that as far as the U.S.
intelligence community knew, Iran had stopped work on its nuclear weapons program
in 2003, it still indicated that Iran's nuclear intentions are unknown. Furthermore, no
one doubts that Iran continues to enrich uranium, possibly to the point where it will
become weapons-grade fissile material. Iran is a signatory to the NPT, so in theory it
admits there are limits to what it can do with its nuclear materials (although Iranian
officials defiantly aver that they are free to do what they wish). This is all to say that
the international community can still work together to lessen the threat of an Iranian
nuclear weapons program. In fact, the NIE states that Iran's nuclear weapons work
"probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure."23 Russia in
particular has a strong relationship with Iran and has been one of the holdouts against
strengthening international sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, Russia still indicates
that it is holding fast to the option of finishing a nuclear power plant in Bushehr,
Iran.24 Clearly, Russia is a key component to any solution to the Iranian nuclear
question. Given how much Iran factors in the justification for extending the U.S.
missile defense system to Europe, this cannot be ignored.
79
DDI ’08 NMD DA
B. Iranian proliferation sets off an arms race in the Middle East, culminating in
nuclear war
Norman Podhoretz, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, June 2007, Commentary, online:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882, [Bapodra]
But there is, it has been reported, another consideration that is driving Bush.
According to a recent news story in the New York Times, for example, Bush has taken
to heart what “[o]fficials from 21 governments in and around the Middle East warned
at a meeting of Arab leaders in March”—namely, “that Iran’s drive for atomic
technology could result in the beginning of ‘a grave and destructive nuclear arms race
in the region.’” Which is to say that he fears that local resistance to Iran’s bid for
hegemony in the greater Middle East through the acquisition of nuclear weapons could
have even more dangerous consequences than a passive capitulation to that bid by the
Arab countries. For resistance would spell the doom of all efforts to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons, and it would vastly increase the chances of their use.
80
DDI ’08 NMD DA
C. Nuclear war in the Middle East means extinction
Ian Hoffman, The San Francisco Chronicle, December 12, 2006, online:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_4824262 [Bapodra]
Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday

that even a small regional nuclear war could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in
a black smoky shadow and usher in the manmade equivalent of the Little Ice Age.
"Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more
so than global warming," said Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock.
By dropping imaginary Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities,
now swelled to tens of millions in population, University of Colorado researcher O.
Brian Toon and colleagues found they could generate 100 times the fatalities and 100
times the climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of explosive power as all-out nuclear war
between the United States and former Soviet Union.
For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the
notion of smoke from incinerated cities blotting out the sun for years and starving
most of the Earth's people. It's not even nuclear autumn, but rather an instant nuclear
chill over most of the planet, accompanied by massive ozone loss and warming at the
poles.
That's what scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war
broke out in a hot spot such as the Middle East, the North Korean peninsula or, the
most modeled case, in Southeast Asia. Unlike in the Cold War, when the United States
and Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear, military and strategic industrial sites,
young nuclear-armed nations have fewer weapons and might go for maximum effect
by using them on cities, as the United States did in 1945.
"We're at a perilous crossroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear weapons worldwide
combined with global migration into dense megacities form what he called "perhaps
the greatest danger to the stability of society since the dawn of humanity."
81
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Impact- Pre-Emptive Nuke Strike
A. Missile defense in Europe would provide cover for the U.S. to launch preemptive
wars
Lukasz Kulesa, analyst at the Polish Institute of International Affairs, April 12, 2007, “Missile Defense
Dossier: The Polish Perspective,” online:
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_eng.pdf [Bapodra]
The public debate which followed that announcement revealed divergent opinions on
the issue within the Polish strategic community – analysts and foreign policy experts.
The critics pointed to the dangers of aligning Poland’s security policy too closely with
the United States in such a way. Development of the missile defence system was
portrayed as a sign of the US willingness to secure strategic domination against
present and future opponents. It was argued that the system’s characteristics might be
defensive, but its presence would encourage the United States to try offensive
strategies, possibly involving the use of force, in the confrontations with states armed
with ballistic missiles and WMD capabilities. Since the MD facilities is a logical target
for an enemy’s first strike, Poland would find itself in grave danger on account of the
US deployment. Bilateral arrangements on the Missile Defence would also, according
to the critics, put into question Poland’s credentials as a member of NATO and the
European Union, not to mention the unavoidable deterioration of the relations with
Russia. It was argued that any benefits obtained from the Americans could not
compensate for the overall worsening of the security of Poland.
82
DDI ’08 NMD DA
B. The result is preemptive nuclear strikes that escalate to global nuclear war
Michel Chossudovsky, frequent contributor to the Centre for Research on Globalization, February 17,
2006, “The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War,” online:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060217&articleId=1988 [Bapodra]
The Bush administration's new nuclear doctrine contains specific "guidelines" which
allow for "preemptive" nuclear strikes against "rogue enemies" which "possess" or are
"developing" weapons of mass destruction (WMD). (2001 Nuclear Posture Review
(NPR) and Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DJNO)).
The preemptive nuclear doctrine (DJNO), which applies to Iran and North Korea calls
for "offensive and defensive integration". It explicitly allows the preemptive use of
thermonuclear weapons in conventional war theaters.
In the showdown with Tehran over its alleged nuclear weapons program, these
Pentagon "guidelines" would allow, subject to presidential approval, for the launching
of punitive bombings using "mini-nukes" or tactical thermonuclear weapons.
While the "guidelines" do not exclude other (more deadly) categories of nukes in the
US and/or Israeli nuclear arsenal, Pentagon "scenarios" in the Middle East are
currently limited to the use of tactical nuclear weapons including the B61-11 bunker
buster bomb. This particular version of the bunker buster is a thermonuclear bomb, a
so-called Nuclear Earth Penetrator or NEP. It is a Weapon of Mass Destruction in the
real sense of the word. Its utilization by the US or Israel in the Middle East war theater
would trigger a nuclear holocaust.
83
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NUCLEAR PROLIF
NMD CAUSES NUCLEAR PROLIF

pd1.htm [JWu]
Third, they worry that the "Non-proliferation treaty of nuclear weapon" will generate negative
effect. A total of 187 countries participate in the treaty, its basic contents are: apart from the five nuclear countries,
other nations are not allowed to possess nuclear weapons. In 1995 when the treaty was postponed indefinitely, the five
nuclear powers undertook the obligation of stopping nuclear tests, continuing nuclear disarmament and ultimately
destroying all nuclear weapons. US Congress refused to ratify the treaty on stopping nuclear tests, thus letting down the
non-nuclear countries; at the UN disarmament conference, with the exception of China, other four nuclear powers
opposed setting up a committee for destroying all nuclear weapons, thus once again disappointing the non-nuclear
countries; at the same time, India and Pakistan openly conducted tests of nuclear weapons, setting a bad precedent.
Under such circumstances, if US deployment of the "missile defense system" leads to stagnation
in US-Russian nuclear disarmament, this would possibly spur some countries to develop and test
nuclear weapons and thus rendering the non-proliferation treaty into a mere scrap of paper.
NMD CAUSES PROLIF
The joint statement by Hu and Medvedev said: “Both sides believe that creating a global missile
defense system, including deploying such systems in certain regions of the world, or plans for
such cooperation, do not help support strategic balance and stability, and harm international
efforts to control arms and the non-proliferation process.”
84
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD HURT PROLIF AND DISARMAMENT

BASIC. 2k "NMD: Allied fears in focus" http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Papers/BP32.htm May 2k
No 32 [JWu]
Furthermore, the more effective any NMD system is, the more difficult it will be to make
further reductions in the numbers of nuclear warheads around the world. Many European
Non-Nuclear Weapon States are keenly supportive of nuclear disarmament, and see NMD as an
obstacle to that goal. "What if, for instance, some countries come to the conclusion that an arsenal
of less than 1,000 nuclear warheads could someday become ineffective because of advanced
NMD systems?" asks Otfried Nassauer, director of the Berlin Information-centre for Transatlantic
Security (BITS). "They could thus conclude that treaties limiting their arsenals to 1,000 or fewer
warheads would not be in their national interest. This, in turn, could result in Nuclear Weapon States
deciding it was not in their interest to fulfill their obligations to eventually eliminate nuclear weapons according to
Article VI of the NPT." In fact, Nassauer explained, there already has been a debate within the NPT context about
whether Nuclear Weapon States should agree not to increase their nuclear posture in the future. However, China can
no longer be expected to sign such an agreement, since the planned U.S. NMD system would be
able to counter China’s entire strategic arsenal. The British and French militaries, with their small
nuclear arsenals, also might feel themselves in a very uncomfortable position. Grant, in the April-
May issue of the Centre for European Reform Bulletin, noted that "if NMD prompted Russia and
China to improve their ABM systems, the British and French deterrents could be devalued."
Proliferation leads to extinction.

Victor Utgoff, Deputy Director of Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division of Institute
for Defense Analysis, Summer 02, “Proliferation, Missile Defence and American
Ambitions”, Survival, p.87-90. [Bapodra]
The war between Iran and Iraq during the 1980s led to the use of chemical weapons on both sides and
exchanges of missiles against each other’s cities. And more recently, violence in the Middle East
escalated in a few months from rocks and small arms to heavy weapons on one side, and from police
actions to air strikes and armoured attacks on the other. Escalation of violence is also basic human
nature. Once the violence starts, retaliatory exchanges of violent acts can escalate to levels unimagined
by the participants before hand. Intense and blinding anger is a common response to fear or humiliation
or abuse. And such anger can lead us to impose on our opponents whatever levels of violence are
readily accessible. In sum, widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with
nuclear weapons, and that such shoot-outs will have a substantial probability of escalating to the
maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped, we
are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not
all, nations wearing nuclear ‘six-shooters’ on their hips, the world may even be a more polite place than
it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies of dead cities or even
whole nations.
85
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD GOOD—DETERRANCE
NUCLEAR WEAPONS NO LONGER DETER—NMD IS KEY TO DETERRING FUTURE

WARS
In contrast, a number of NMD advocates argue that a missile shield is needed because nuclear
weapons are no longer credible as a deterrent to "rogue states". Curiously, some of the strongest
advocates of nuclear deterrence now say that Trident "does not constitute a credible threat in a
range of possible scenarios." Although still arguing forcefully for Trident to be retained
indefinitely, a report from the conservative Missile Proliferation Study Group states that it would
be "a great mistake" to regard Trident "as a deterrent for all seasons." Dismissing the deterrence
strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction as a "Cold War dogma of assured vulnerability", the
group rejected "misplaced faith" in the ABM Treaty. Welcoming the report's publication, former
Conservative Prime Minister Lady Thatcher said: "We must do all we can to encourage and assist
the urgent creation of a global ballistic missile defence system by the United States." 33
NMDS KEY TO U.S. DEFENSE—DETERS CONFLICT

JEFFREY KAYE: Cohen and other missile defense advocates say that despite foreign opposition,
the system is crucial for U.S. defense. They argue that North Korean missiles could be ready to be
launched against the U.S. by 2005. And they say if work isn't started soon, the system won't be
operational by then, and the U.S. will be vulnerable. They also worry about the capability of Iran
and Iraq to threaten the United States with long-range missiles. Beyond self-defense, U.S.
military planners have another purpose for a missile defense system. With it, the United States
military would be able to act overseas without facing the threat of a missile attack on its own soil,
according to U.S. Defense Department Undersecretary Jacques Gansler.
JACQUES GANSLER, Undersecretary of Defense: By having this defense system, the United
States is more likely to come to the aid of our allies in third world conflicts, regional conflicts,
because they will not be able to deter us from entering by threatening to launch a missile against
us. If we have a defense capability, then we can say, "well, we can still go into that region and
help you, in a conflict that you might have in your local region." If we didn't have a defense
capability, they may be able to deter us enough from coming in.
86
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD GOOD: PREVENT WAR
NMD KEY TO PREVENT SINO-INDIAN WAR
ASIA TIMES 7-22-08 "A DEAL BREAKER FOR INDIA"

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JG22Df01.html [JWU]
Ideologically speaking, they are convinced that India is a "natural ally" of the US. They envisage
that the deal makes the India-US "strategic partnership" virtually irreversible. That is, the deal
forms an integral part of a wholesome agenda. For the Indian strategic community, the deal
finally opens up the door to US military technology, especially the fascinating US missile defense
system, which promises the only means whereby India could hope to neutralize China's strategic
capability. Indian strategists visualize that even as Delhi begins to cope with the immense
challenge of coming to terms with China's phenomenal rise, it needs US support and protection.
MISSILE DEFENSE KEY TO PREVENT WORLD WAR III
Weekly standard, 8-7-6

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=12514&R=13AEAD1E2
[JWU]
The need for an antimissile shield was underscored this summer not only by North Korea's
missile tests and Iran's race to build nuclear weapons, but by the potential emergence of a
worldwide threat. North Korea is believed to have a small nuclear arsenal and is an exporter of
weapons. Iran, the world's leading sponsor of terrorists, is developing long-range missiles as well
as nukes. If it produces a nuclear weapon, other Middle Eastern nations are likely to follow.
Pakistan, an Islamic country with a fragile pro-West government, plans to build more nuclear
weapons. And the United States would have no defense in the unlikely event that China or
Russia, onetime enemies, unleashed a missile attack.
87
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD GOOD: WEAPON PROLIF
NMD WILL MAKE NUCLEAR WEAPONS OBSOLETE—THIS CURBS WEAPONS

PROLIF
Some problems — such as WMD and missile proliferation in the Middle-

East, South
Asia, and North-East Asia; China’s strategic modernization and
opposition to arms
control; Russia’s temptation to increase reliance on its nuclear
capabilities — are
already on the table. They insist rightfully, that it would be unfair to
blame the
current deadlock on multilateral arms control negotiations on NMD
only.
Moreover, supporters of NMD argue that NMD will allow further cuts in
nuclear
arsenals. Many suggest that as part of the US-Russia deal on the ABM
Treaty; the
reductions of strategic arsenals could take leap forward, down to 1500
or less
warheads. Even if it is on the basis of unilateral statements, this would
meet an old
Russian objective.
Some proponents of deep cuts even argue that deep cuts are only
possible with missile
defenses, since these contribute to the marginalization of nuclear
weapons.
Last but not least, proponents of missiles defenses suggest that BMD
offer a major
contribution to the fight against WMD and missile proliferation, as they
contribute to
convince “states of concern” that proliferation is useless.
88
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD "GOOD"—WIN WARS
U.S. WOULD WIN WARS AGAINST RUSSIA AND CHINA UNSCATHED
Some of the reasons underlying Russia’s and China’s concern were indicated by a March 2006
analysis in an influential US policy journal, Foreign Affairs. In an article titled “The Rise of US
Nuclear Primacy,” Keir Lieber and Daryl Press noted that—due to the deterioration of Russian
nuclear weaponry after the fall of the USSR, and the relatively primitive character of China’s
nuclear weapons—US military planners now believed that they could launch and win a nuclear
war against both powers, by using a portion of the US nuclear arsenal to destroy all of their
nuclear weapons, with enough US nuclear weapons left over to force Russia and China to
surrender.
In this insane and horrible world of mass slaughter envisaged by top US strategists, the US
nuclear missile shield might play a significant role.
Lieber and Press wrote: “The sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly
deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one—as an adjunct to
a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear
attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal
—if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might
well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would
have so few warheads and decoys left.”
89
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good Impacts- Deters Nuclear War
NMD is critical to deter countless nations from nuclear attacks on the U.S. and allies
Investor’s Business Daily, 11-7, 2007 (Newspaper [Bapodra])
Is it possible that Democrats are still skeptical that a missile shield will actually work?
If so, evidence that it will has reached the point that it can no longer be denied.
Or is their lack of support simply due to a reflexive opposition to the military and
toward symbols of what they perceive to be projections of U.S. power?
Either way, their actions could leave us vulnerable to nuclear attack from a rogue
nation such as Iran (see editorial at left) or North Korea, which is supposedly backing
down on its nuclear weapons program but will remain a threat as long as its
communist regime stays in place.
The risk doesn't end, however, with those two legs of the Axis of Evil, both of which
are on the State Department's list of terrorist states.
Nuclear-armed Pakistan is now an ally, yet it could become an enemy depending on
how its internal turmoil is resolved. Both al-Qaida and the Taliban have powerful
bases in the region. What if the Musharraf government one day falls and one of those
terrorist groups suddenly has the keys to a nuclear arsenal? It's just as plausible that
the threat could come from any of the Mideast nations that want to keep up with Iran's
nuclear program. With Egypt making its announcement last week, there are now 13
countries in the region that have in the last year said they want nuclear power.
They can claim, as Iran has, that they want it merely for energy. But the step from
nuclear power to nuclear weapons is not that far. Given the volatility of the region, it
would be wise to make sure that all precautions — and that includes a missile defense
— are taken.
Even Russia, with its extensive nuclear weaponry, could be a threat. President
Vladimir Putin has raised objections to America's allying with former Soviet satellites
to place U.S. missile defense components in their countries. This, warns Putin in
language reminiscent of the Cold War, will turn Europe into a "powder keg." For his
part, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has declared: "The arms race is starting
again." Are congressional Democrats prepared to leave us only partly protected in a
world where nuclear arms might soon begin to spread like a Southern California
wildfire? Some have looked at the Democrats' actions and said, emphatically, yes.
"Their aim," Heritage Foundation defense analyst Baker Spring said earlier this year,
"is to force the U.S. to adopt a position that prohibits it from developing — much less
deploying — missile defense interceptors in space under any circumstance and for all
time."
90
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good Impact- Deters Proliferation

A. European NMD is key to deter ballistic missile and WMD prolif
Peter Brookes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, is a senior fellow for National Security
Affairs at the Heritage Foundation, 11-8, 2007, online:
http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E2E0BCA0-8DDF-484C-B974-22FE89CF0715,
accessed November 8, 2007 [Bapodra]
If anything, the opposite is true. Defensive weapons systems such as missile defense
have a stabilizing effect on the security environment, as opposed to offensive
weapons, which research has shown can be destabilizing. As a defensive capability,
U.S. missile defense plans for Europe will act as a deterrent to rogue nations and non-
state actors from acquiring ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
There will be less motivation for ballistic missile capability if Europe has the ability to
defend against it. To make America and its allies deliberately vulnerable to attack is
not only nonsensical, it is likely to incur further proliferation. As President Bush
stated, "Missile defense is a vital tool for our security, it's a vital tool for deterrence
and it's a vital tool for counterproliferation."[8]
91
DDI ’08 NMD DA
B. Proliferation risks nuclear terrorism and nuclear war
Joseph Cirincione, director of Nuclear Policy at the Center for American Progress, November 12, 2007,
“Cassandra’s Conundrum,” The National Interest, online:
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=15998, [Bapodra]
Let me be clear: Nuclear proliferation is a real danger. George Bush and John Kerry
were correct when they agreed in a 2004 debate that it is the number one threat to
America. The threat comes in four flavors. Most serious is nuclear terrorism. As
terrible as another 9/11 attack would be, a nuclear 9/11 would destroy an entire city,
kill hundreds of thousands, wreck the economy and change the political life of the
nation, perhaps permanently. Our number one priority must be to make sure any
further terrorist attack is non-nuclear.
Second is the danger from existing arsenals. There are still 26,000 nuclear weapons in
the world, enough to destroy the planet several times over. Even a small regional war
in South Asia using one hundred weapons would trigger a nuclear winter that could
devastate food crops around the world. Accidental or unauthorized use is a real risk.
Consider the September flight of a B-52 with six nuclear weapons that the crew didn’t
know they had. If the most sophisticated command-and-control mechanism in the
world fails to stop the unauthorized possession of the equivalent of sixty Hiroshimas,
what is going on in other nations? Third is the risk of new nuclear nations. I agree with
Mueller that the danger here is not that Iran or North Korea would use a nuclear bomb
against America or their neighbors. Deterrence is alive and well; they know what
would happen next. Nor is it that these states would intentionally give a weapon they
worked so hard to make to a terrorist group they could not control. Rather it is the risk
of what could happen in the neighborhood: a nuclear reaction chain where states feel
they must match each other’s nuclear capability. Just such a reaction is underway
already in the Middle East, as over a dozen Muslim nations suddenly declared interest
in starting nuclear-power programs. This is not about energy; it is a nuclear hedge
against Iran. It could lead to a Middle East with not one nuclear-weapons state, Israel,
but four or five. That is a recipe for nuclear war.
92
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good Impact- Solves Terrorism
A. NMD in Europe is key to deter and prevent nuclear terror strikes on the U.S. and
allies
Joe Pitts, U.S. Representative (R-PA), 11-2, 2007, online:

http://www.truthnews.net/world/2007100430.htm, [Bapodra]
The strange irony is that in the first decade of the 21st century the United States and its allies may be
more vulnerable to the threat of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles today than we were during the
Cold War. Though there were certainly serious times of raised tensions, the dry logic of mutually
assured destruction kept the major actors in the Cold War from ever actually using nuclear armed
ballistic missiles. Today, rogue nations and non-state terror organizations operate outside the realm of
mutually assured destruction. A terrorist organization has no territory or population it must protect.
Pariah nations that chronically operate outside the realm of the international community, like North
Korea, Iran, and Iraq, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, may not follow the same rational logic that
prevented the U.S. and the Soviet Union from launching nuclear missiles.
The United States continues to work on non-proliferation measures to keep nuclear weapons from
falling into the hands of countries or groups that might use them against the United States and its allies.
However, the global nuclear arms sales network of A.Q. Khan, of Pakistan, was evidence that nuclear
weapons can and have been proliferated into the hands of enemies of the United States.
It would take just one nuclear warhead to destroy an entire city. The toll in human lives would be
massive and catastrophic. It is an issue that we should not take lightly. It is a threat that we must
address. The U.S. Department of Defense began deploying long-range missile interceptors in Alaska
and California in 2004. These interceptors would protect the United States from a long-range missile
threat from rogue nations in Asia, such as a launch from North Korea. The United States has ground-
mobile and sea-based systems as well that would combat short-range ballistic missiles.
What is currently missing from a global ballistic missile defense is a system that would protect our
strategic interests and allies in Europe. The threat from a potentially nuclear armed Iran cannot be
ignored. I believe we should continue working toward a diplomatic resolution with Iran over the issue
of nuclear weapons. However, we cannot assume such a resolution will take place, and need to move
forward in tandem with a plan to provide defense against a nuclear armed.
B. A nuclear attack on the U.S. would ignite WWIII, annihilating civilization
Mohamed Sid-Ahmed, internationally renowned reporter and columnist in Al Ahram,

2004,“Extinction!” Al-Ahram Weekly, online: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/705/op5.htm
What would be the consequences of a nuclear attack by terrorists? Even if it fails, it would
further exacerbate the negative features of the new and frightening world in which we are now
living. Societies would close in on themselves, police measures would be stepped up at the
expense of human rights, tensions between civilisations and religions would rise and ethnic
conflicts would proliferate. It would also speed up the arms race and develop the awareness
that a different type of world order is imperative if humankind is to survive.
But the still more critical scenario is if the attack succeeds. This could lead to a third world
war, from which no one will emerge victorious. Unlike a conventional war which ends when
one side triumphs over another, this war will be without winners and losers. When nuclear
pollution infects the whole planet, we will all be losers.
93
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good Impact- Iran
A. NMD solves Iranian prolif – it’s the most effective way of deterring nuclear
development
Charlie Szrom, research assistant in foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise
Institute,
12-21, 2007, The Weekly Standard, online:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Check.asp%3FidArticle%3D14496%26r%3Dnzhfp&cid=1125250328,
[Bapodra]
THE NEW NATIONAL Intelligence Estimate has led many to call for a new policy towards Iran. Sen.
Hillary Clinton "vehemently disagree[s]" that "nothing in American policy has to change." Russian
foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said the report confirmed the Russian view that "there is no military
element in [Iran's] nuclear program."
Doesn't all this mean we should drop support for missile defense?
No. The threat has not changed significantly and missile defense remains one of the few options still
available to lessen the power of potential Iranian nukes. The program can also turn positive
relationships with Central European states into long-term, mutually-dependent alliances.
Iran tested a new missile, called the 'Ashura,' as recently as late last month. This 2000-kilometer-range
weapon could potentially reach U.S bases in the Middle East and parts of Eastern Europe, including
such U.S. allies as Romania, Georgia, or Ukraine. The announcement may just be bluster, but the
unveiling alone shows that Iran has no intention of backing down militarily.
A careful reading of the NIE makes an even stronger case for a continued menace. The report admits
that Iran continues to enrich uranium, that Iran "probably would be technically capable of producing
enough highly-enriched uranium (HEU) for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame," and
that it "will be difficult" to convince the Iranian leadership to abandon eventual development of a
nuclear capability.
The basic facts remain the same; perhaps the only revelation is that Iran, if anything, has made a tactical
decision to delay warhead production so it can buy enough time for the more difficult task of enriching
uranium. After the marathon of amassing sufficient fuel, Tehran just has to sprint through the relatively
simple process of developing warheads.
Our missile defense partners recognize the enduring danger. The Czech foreign ministry stated that,
"'According to the report, Iran will probably be capable of producing a sufficient quantity of nuclear
material for the production of a nuclear bomb between 2010 and 2015. This corresponds with the
previous estimates. By this date the European pillar of anti-missile defense should be in place.'"
The threat still exists. How can we continue to pressure Iran?
The report dashed hopes for any broad UN sanctions against Iran, as Russia and China, reluctant
beforehand to impose serious punitive measures on Iran, now have a ready excuse. Military strikes now
also seem highly unlikely, given the lack of urgency precipitated by the NIE.
Those opposed to an Iranian nuclear program might still enact smart sanctions--targeting, for example,
the participation of Iranian regime elements in the international financial system--in coordination with a
few hardy European allies. One such ally, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, said through a
spokesman that "the report confirms we were right to be worried about Iran seeking to develop nuclear
weapons."
But such action will not be enough. The United States needs a response that will directly address the
physical threat of Iranian nukes. Missile defense development avoids the problem of UN-based
obstruction by Russia or China, and it remains one of the few remaining pressure points we can use
against Iran.
B. Iranian proliferation sets off an arms race in the Middle East, culminating in
94
DDI ’08 NMD DA
nuclear war
Norman Podhoretz, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, June 2007, Commentary, online:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.html?id=10882, [Bapodra]
But there is, it has been reported, another consideration that is driving Bush.
According to a recent news story in the New York Times, for example, Bush has taken
to heart what “[o]fficials from 21 governments in and around the Middle East warned
at a meeting of Arab leaders in March”—namely, “that Iran’s drive for atomic
technology could result in the beginning of ‘a grave and destructive nuclear arms race
in the region.’” Which is to say that he fears that local resistance to Iran’s bid for
hegemony in the greater Middle East through the acquisition of nuclear weapons could
have even more dangerous consequences than a passive capitulation to that bid by the
Arab countries. For resistance would spell the doom of all efforts to stop the spread of
nuclear weapons, and it would vastly increase the chances of their use.
C. Nuclear war in the Middle East means extinction
Ian Hoffman, The San Francisco Chronicle, December 12, 2006, online:
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/localnews/ci_4824262[Bapodra]
Researchers at the American Geophysical Union's annual meeting warned Monday that even a small
regional nuclear war could burn enough cities to shroud the globe in a black smoky shadow and usher
in the manmade equivalent of the Little Ice Age.
"Nuclear weapons represent the greatest single human threat to the planet, much more so than global
warming," said Rutgers University atmospheric scientist Alan Robock.
By dropping imaginary Hiroshima-sized bombs into some of the world's biggest cities, now swelled to
tens of millions in population, University of Colorado researcher O. Brian Toon and colleagues found
they could generate 100 times the fatalities and 100 times the climate-chilling smoke per kiloton of
explosive power as all-out nuclear war between the United States and former Soviet Union.
For most modern nuclear-war scenarios, the global impact isn't nuclear winter, the notion of smoke
from incinerated cities blotting out the sun for years and starving most of the Earth's people. It's not
even nuclear autumn, but rather an instant nuclear chill over most of the planet, accompanied by
massive ozone loss and warming at the poles.
That's what scientists' computer simulations suggest would happen if nuclear war broke out in a hot spot
such as the Middle East, the North Korean peninsula or, the most modeled case, in Southeast Asia.
Unlike in the Cold War, when the United States and Russia mostly targeted each other's nuclear,
military and strategic industrial sites, young nuclear-armed nations have fewer weapons and might go
for maximum effect by using them on cities, as the United States did in 1945.
"We're at a perilous crossroads," Toon said. The spread of nuclear weapons worldwide combined
with global migration into dense megacities form what he called "perhaps the greatest danger to the
stability of society since the dawn of humanity."
95
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good Iran Impact Extension

NMD is critical to countering the threat of Iranian missiles – deployment as soon as
possible is key
[Bapodra]
In fact, the emerging Iranian threat is nothing less than a race against the clock. Iran
is involved in both a long-range missile program and a clandestine nuclear weapons
program. Both programs could reach initial operating capability in the 2013-2015
timeframe or even earlier. Pending immediate approval, current projections forecast
completion of the Polish and Czech "third site" installations within five years,
which is only marginally ahead of Iran's estimated long-range ballistic missile
capability and nuclear capability.[3] Moreover, with the possibility of a Manhattan
Project-like effort by Iran, supported by countries such as North Korea, Iran's
capability may well be realized even earlier than currently expected.
With Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saber-rattling and threatening to
"wipe Israel off the face of the earth,"[4] it is incumbent upon the United States to
take the growing Iranian threat seriously by taking steps to protect itself, its
forward-deployed troops, and its friends and allies.
European NMD is key to deter Iran – it’s a significant symbol of Western unity
http://www.frstrategie.org/barreFRS/publications/pv/defenseAntimissile/pv_20070412_eng.pdf, [Bapodra]
To put it simple, the Americans feel they need to have an MD system and are able
to build it. The decision to field a European MD component comes directly from
this logic, and it appears futile to look for some hidden motives (for example, an
attempt to divide the European Union). The radar is meant to provide better
tracking of Iranian missiles, and the interceptor base would give the US additional
interception opportunities of an ICBM aimed at the US, plus some rudimentary
level of protection for their bases in Europe and parts of European territory
(excluding south-eastern part of the continent). On this last point, it is worth to
point out that spending lots of money and efforts on protecting someone else’s
territory makes in this case perfect strategic sense. After all, if the US is protected
by the anti-missile shield, what would be the ‘next best thing’ for Iranian planners
wishing to deter the West from interfering in Iran’s affairs?
96
DDI ’08 NMD DA
Technical debates over the Iranian threat are irrelevant – NMD is key to
demonstrate U.S. resolve and deter Iran, regardless of the exact status of their
program
Arguments pointing to the slow pace of the Iranian missile developments, lack of
strategic rationale for Iran to build an arsenal for striking Europe or the United States
when better targets are available in the neighbourhood (e.g. American bases across the
Gulf), or the availability of other means of transporting WMD to the target, will have
no impact on the United States. Scrapping the system would be equal with admitting
the fundamental flaws of the ‘undeterrable rogue states’ doctrine. Neither this, nor any
next administration seems prepared to make such a move. Of course, as with every
major armaments programme, there is also the self-perpetuating internal logic of ‘we
have advanced so far, and cannot stop here…’.
97
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good Impact– Russian Expansionism

A. European NMD is key to deter Russian expansionism – failure of negotiations
would embolden Putin to destabilize Eastern Europe
[Bapodra]
If anything, the opposite is true. Defensive weapons systems such as missile defense have a stabilizing
effect on the security environment, as opposed to offensive weapons, which research has shown can be
destabilizing. As a defensive capability, U.S. missile defense plans for Europe will act as a deterrent to
rogue nations and non-state actors from acquiring ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction.
There will be less motivation for ballistic missile capability if Europe has the ability to defend against
it. To make America and its allies deliberately vulnerable to attack is not only nonsensical, it is likely to
incur further proliferation. As President Bush stated, "Missile defense is a vital tool for our security, it's
a vital tool for deterrence and it's a vital tool for counterproliferation."[8]
However, the failure of third site negotiations would embolden those in Russia who believe that the
United States is negotiating from a position of diplomatic and military weakness. Putin would claim--
with some credibility--to have scored a diplomatic victory over the United States. Failure would also
increase Russian boldness in intimidating former satellite states, adding to instability in Eastern Europe.
B. Russian military expansionism gets modeled by India and Pakistan
Business Week, September 30, 2002 [Bapodra]
But heightened activity in the Caucasus presents risks for the U.S., too. One is the
danger that U.S. advisers in Georgia get targeted in a new flare-up of violence.
America's global image could also suffer through a closer identification with
aggressive Russian war methods. And a dangerous precedent could be set. If Putin
mounts a larger military effort with the tacit approval of Washington, countries in
other hot spots could follow his example. Analysts fear India, for example, could
invoke the same argument Putin is using to launch a major strike against the part of
Kashmir controlled by Pakistan. ''This has got to be very carefully controlled'' by U.S.
policymakers, says Fiona Hill, an expert on the Caucasus region at the Brookings
Institution. Even as Putin cooperates with the war on terror, he's posing yet another
dilemma for Bush's hard-pressed anti-terrorism team.
98
DDI ’08 NMD DA
C. India-Pakistan military expansion causes nuclear war
Ghulam Nabi Fai, Kashmiri American Council, July 8, 2001, Washington Times [Bapodra]
The foreign policy of the United States in South Asia should move from the
lackadaisical and distant (with India crowned with a unilateral veto power) to
aggressive involvement at the vortex. The most dangerous place on the planet is
Kashmir, a disputed territory convulsed and illegally occupied for more than 53 years
and sandwiched between nuclear-capable India and Pakistan. It has ignited two wars
between the estranged South Asian rivals in 1948 and 1965, and a third could trigger
nuclear volleys and a nuclear winter threatening the entire globe. The United States
would enjoy no sanctuary. This apocalyptic vision is no idiosyncratic view. The
director of central intelligence, the Defense Department, and world experts generally
place Kashmir at the peak of their nuclear worries. Both India and Pakistan are racing
like thoroughbreds to bolster their nuclear arsenals and advanced delivery vehicles.
Their defense budgets are climbing despite widespread misery amongst their
populations. Neither country has initialed the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, or indicated an inclination to ratify an impending
Fissile Material/Cut-off Convention.
99
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD Good – Russian Expansionism Extension

NMD in Europe is key to check Russian expansionism
Which threat is so potent that it requires the US base as an ‘insurance policy’ against
aggression? Most of the supporters of Poland’s involvement in the Missile Defence
project point unanimously at Russia and the possible future course of its policy. With
the new strength coming from gas and oil revenues, Russia looks determined to
increase its influence not only in the ‘near abroad’ (i.e. former USSR), but also
globally. At home, the Kremlin-devised concept of ‘sovereign democracy’ provides a
basis for a stable system political which has most of the attributes of a democracy (e.g.
periodic elections), but little of its spirit (no real choices for the voters). According to
some commentators, the new over-confident Russia may, in the medium to long-term
perspective, try to use not only the energy weapon, but also the threat of military force
as a foreign policy tool.
100
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NEG: CZECH/POLAND KEY
Czech and Polish NMD key to intercepting missiles—location
"The Czech Republic and Poland represent a significant improvement of any US system,
because they are relatively close to the Middle East, they could track very well any
incoming missiles, they could provide territory for early warning radars, and should the
need be so, there could also be an interceptor base located in their territory that could
attempt to shoot down any such missiles that would either target Europe itself or would
be just passing over Europe and heading to the United States."
Poland and Czech missile defense key
Why has the United States narrowed it down to these two countries, and not Slovakia, or
Bulgaria, or Romania for example?
"Perhaps they think that Poland and the Czech Republic are close enough, they certainly
belong to the Atlanticist group within NATO, so they might be open to such negotiations.
Moreover, there was at least preliminary interest expressed by the militaries and
governments of both of these countries several years ago when the technical talks
started. And as I mentioned, their territory is well placed enough for the entire system to
work. Moreover they perhaps trust those allies with which they have more regular
contacts, that is at least since March 1999, when both countries joined NATO, whereas
Slovakia, Bulgaria and Romania are more recent newcomers to NATO. So, the United
States may not necessarily
trust them in all technical matters, in their competence to deal with such highly
sophisticated systems, shall we say."
101
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NEG: A2 "NMD FAILS"
NEW TESTING HAS MADE NMD USEFUL—PREFER OUR EVIDENCE IT'S BASED ON
THE NEWEST RESEARCH
PRNEWSWIRE 7-21-08 http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/us-validates-radar-

capabilities-against/story.aspx?guid=%7BD2329A81-FEA6-4735-8D7D-
9F49D9751205%7D&dist=hppr [JWU]
"Last Friday evening in Colorado Springs, Colorado, the United States for the first time,
successfully integrated and validated four diverse tracking and discriminatory sensor radars
against a three stage, long range ballistic missile dispersing countermeasures and decoys over the
Pacific Ocean. The test integrated the Sea-Based X-Band Radar (SBX) in the Pacific, the Aegis
Destroyer USS Milius (DD-79) with its SPY -1 radar in the northern pacific, the mobile forward
based X-band Radar (AN/TPY-2 X-band) located in Juneau, Alaska and an upgraded early
warning Radar located at the Beale AFB near Yuba City, California. The real time accumulation
of data from the four radar sources to make the exact target coordinates of the warhead was
accomplished, validating the United States capability to initially deal with complex future
ballistic missile threats. This achievement affirms the current technology to track and discriminate
a warhead with countermeasures and decoys of future ballistic missile configurations."
102
DDI ’08 NMD DA
POLITICS—OBAMA K2 NMD
OBAMA WILL DISBAND NMD; MCCAIN WILL SUSTAIN IT
WASHINGTON TIMES 7-8-07 http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jul/08/poland-tries-to-

save-us-missile-defense-deal/
Even if the Czech deal receives that final approval, many analysts - and apparently the
Polish government - are looking beyond the Bush administration and focusing on what
Mr. Obama or Mr. McCain might do.
"While negotiations [with Poland] are 'ongoing,' I think it's clear that the decision will
ultimately fall to the next administration," said Julianne Smith, Europe Program director
at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Baker Spring, national security fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that if a deal on
the interceptors is not reached by the end of the summer, "it is unlikely that the
administration will be able to conclude a deal before President Bush leaves office."
Mr. Sikorski's attempt to determine what Mr. McCain's and Mr. Obama's plans for the
shield might be is understandable given the significant commitment Poland would be
making, Mr. Spring said.
Mr. McCain supports the program, but Mr. Obama does not.
"I will cut investments in unproven missile-defense systems. I will not weaponize space," Mr.
Obama said last year.
OBAMA WIN WOULD KILL NMD
There are also concerns the shield project could be dropped in the event of a Democratic victory
in November's US presidential election.
Russian political analyst Fyodor Lukyanov told news agency AFP he doubted Gates' statement
that agreement on missile defense could be achieved under the Bush administration and said both
sides were in a holding position dictated by domestic politics.
Bush is unlikely to change his position on missile defence in his final year, and Moscow will wait
for a possible Democratic victory in US presidential elections in November in the hope of a
change of position, Lukyanov said.
103
DDI ’08 NMD DA
2AC FRONTLINE 1/2
1. NO LINK—U.S. CAN PASS MISSILE DEFENSE WITHOUT EUROPEAN SUPPORT

—EMPIRICALLY PROVEN
Mr. Huessy is President of GeoStrategic Analysis. During the Reagan administration he worked
to secure the deployment of the INF and Peacekeeper missiles, deploy missile defense, guest
lecturer at the Joint Military Intelligence Colleg. 7-16-08
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27546 [JWU]
On whether the European deployment divides anyone, should no US military policy be

undertaken unless it receives the blessing of the foreign diplomatic community? Isn’t this an echo
of the “international test” so cherished by Senator John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential campaign?
Think back. There was widespread opposition to President Reagan’s deployment of Pershing and
GLCM missiles in Europe in response to the Soviet deployment of SS-20s. Not only was the
opposition widespread, the Soviets put some $300 million into the campaign to stop the American
and allied efforts. If we had used Obama’s test, the Cold War would still be going on.
There is a real problem with saying unless a US policy meets with the approval of the nuanced-
minded diplomats, say in Europe, it does not go forward. This isn’t just out-sourcing your foreign
policy: it’s surrendering sovereignty to others. And how unanimous does the approval have to be?
Do China, Russia, Iran and Zimbabwe get a vote? In short, Senator, why does US defense and
military policy require the moral approval of such ethical giants as Iran and North Korea, or say a
France under Chirac or Russia under Putin?
2. NO LINK—POLAND NOT INTERESTED IN QUID PRO QUO DEALS WITH U.S.

Warsaw's increasingly tough negotiation style with the United States signals that the current
Polish government is no longer satisfied with a quid pro quo relationship with its number one
ally. In January, Prime Minister Tusk saidhttp://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/936fd89e-bfe7-11dc-8052-
0000779fd2ac.html he was "responsible for the safety of Poles, and not the safety of the United
States."
3. AUSTRILIA WILL HOST NMD ANYWAY—IMPACT INEVITABLE
Hannah Middleton PhD 01 (date based on newest date in article) "the armed wings of
globalisation" http://www.anti-bases.org/nmd/armed_wing_of_globalisation.htm [JWu]
Australia is a front line state for US NMD plans, through the base at Pine Gap and the Australian
Government is almost alone in giving strong public support to Star Wars.
The National Missile Defence program involves developing a system to intercept a limited
number of ballistic missiles targeted on the US. However, NMD is not a benign, defensive
umbrella. It is a controversial space battle system to control space for the US alone.
104
DDI ’08 NMD DA
2AC FRONTLINE 2/2
4. NMDS FAIL: WILL WASTE ITSELF KILLING DECOYS
Union of Concerned Scientists, no date http://www.anti-

bases.org/nmd/national_missile_defence.htm "A missile defense with limits" Fact Sheet [JWu]
At some point in this process, the system must discriminate the actual warhead from the other
objects. Otherwise, the NMD system--with a limited number of interceptors--would risk simply
running out of interceptors if it attempted to fire at all the objects. Because the NMD interceptors
are designed to intercept their targets above the atmosphere, where there is no air resistance and
where lightweight objects travel on the same trajectory as a heavy warhead, the system would be
particularly vulnerable to countermeasures that use numerous lightweight decoys.
5. LONG TIME FRAME

IF WE HAD STARTED LAST YEAR, NMD TAKE UNTIL 2013
Washington announced in Jan 2007 that it wanted to install 10 missile interceptors in Poland and
a radar base in the Czech Republic to cover US territory but also some European allies, and
wanted it operational by 2013. The shield is aimed at countering attacks from "rogue states" such
as Iran and North Korea.
6. RUSSIAN SUPPORT KEY TO NMDS—PLAN DOESN'T CHANGE RUSSIA'S

PERCEPTION
PBS 2K "MISSILE DEFENSE POLITICS" pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/nmd_8-

24.html [JWU]
JEFFREY KAYE: And Cohen said the allies' support is likely to depend on the Russian reaction.
The allies want to maintain good relations with Russia, which opposes a U.S. missile shield.
WILLIAM COHEN: So you can't get the support of the allies unless you at least try to work it out
with the Russians. The Russians may see this as an opportunity to simply promote dissent and try
to exploit that dissent, and therefore preclude the United States from moving forward. I think
what we have to do is persuade our allies we are acting responsibly, we're dealing with the
Russians.
105
DDI ’08 NMD DA
AFF: OTHER NMD INEVITABLE
AUSTRALIA'S BACKING NMD ANYWAY
The Australian Government is backing NMD despite warnings that the system is not in Australia's
interests. Classified documents from the Office of National Assessments (ONA - Australia’s peak
intelligence assessment body) say “Pine Gap will be a key component of the early warning
system for any US missile defence system."
"Any weakening of international arms control regimes would have a negative impact on
Australia's security," the ONA report says.
PINE GAP SOLVES NMD
Pine Gap is one of the largest and most important US satellite ground control stations in the
world.
Established in 1968 as a CIA intelligence base and situated in Central Australia, 19 kms south-
west of Alice Springs, Pine Gap has been used to collect data on ballistic missile launches for
over 30 years.
Pine Gap is in the Star Wars front line. It will be a Ground Based Relay Station for a new space
based missile tracking system, called SBIRS (Space-Based Infra-Red System), planned to be
operational by 2004.
Pine Gap will receive from satellites and forward to the US early warning of missile launches. It
will also provide information on the launch site, missile type, velocity, and what kind of warhead
the missile may carry. This information is essential if the missiles are to be destroyed before they
reach their targets.
The SBIRS satellites monitored by Pine Gap cover the most important area of US strategic
interest - China. Pine Gap is also an essential element in providing early warning and for tracking
any missile launches from Iran or Iraq.
106
DDI ’08 NMD DA
NMD WILL BE INSTALLED IN ISRAEL—IMPACT INEV
AFP 7-30-08
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5geXH3wo7vUf3ykhvWURm8ML9NNCA [JWU]
WASHINGTON (AFP) — US Defense Secretary Robert Gates has agreed to explore

deploying a powerful missile defense targeting radar in Israel, a senior US defense
official said Tuesday. "The idea here is to help Israel create a layered missile defense
capability to protect it from all sorts of threats in the region, near and far," said the
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Gates discussed the Israeli request
Monday in a meeting with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, the official said. Besides
the radar, Gates also agreed to explore sharing missile early warning launch data, as well
as US funding for two costly Israeli projects designed to counter short-range rockets and
mortars, he said. The official said deploying the X-band radar was a near-term
proposition, adding "all this is moving pretty quickly." "We are going to station this land-
based system there, and the Israelis would plug into it," said the official.
107
DDI ’08 NMD DA
AFF: DISAD'S NOT INTRINSIC
DISAD'S NOT INTRINSIC—PARTNERSHIP SOLVES

Analysts said there was a common feeling in Russia that the US had reneged on an
agreement after the collapse of the Soviet Union to abandon cold war politics. "Cold war
thinking has prevailed, especially on the western side," Yevgeny Myasnikov, a senior
research scientist at Moscow's Centre for Arms Control, told the Guardian. "Russia has
been deeply disappointed by what has happened after 1991. Nato started to expand, and
the US started to think it had won the cold war. We had hoped for a partnership. But it
didn't happen."
108
DDI ’08 NMD DA
AFF: NON/U—CZECH
NON-UNIQUE—CZECH REPUBLIC ALREADY ACCEPTED THE DEAL
Adrian J. Erlinger is a visiting Fulbright Research Scholar at the University of Warsaw's

Centre for East European Studies.7-11-08
WARSAW, Poland -- To defend against the potential threat of a nuclear attack from
"rogue states," the United States has been working to shore up support for deploying 10
silo-based long-range interceptors in Poland and a mid-course tracking radar in the Czech
Republic by 2013. After months of shuttle diplomacy and intense negotiations, U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice inked a deal with the Czechs on July 8 but failed to
convince her Polish counterparts to host the project.
109
DDI ’08 NMD DA
AFF: NO LINK—POLAND
POLISH SOCIAL DEMOCRATS KEY TO PASSAGE OF NMD—PLAN DOESN'T

CHANGE THEIR PERCEPTION
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE FOURTH INTERNATIONAL, 3-17-07

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/miss-m17.shtml [JWu]
To obtain the necessary majority in parliament for the new radar installation, the Czech
government, consisting of a coalition between Topolanek’s conservative ODS, the
Christian Democrats and the Greens, needs the support of at least two Social Democrat
(CSSD) deputies. Officially, the CSSD is the party of opposition, but the party leadership
has ensured that the party backs the right-wing government. In response, Topolanek has
promised the social-democratic party chief, Jiri Paroubek, a certain influence in
policymaking.
110
DDI ’08 NMD DA
AFF: RUSSIAN IMPACT TURN
Russian Impact Link turn: Without a shift to renewables, Russian oil conflicts go
nuclear

“The world is militarizing, and hydrocarbons are the main object of global conflicts; in
the struggle to possess them, the West is prepared to use all means on a broad scale, up to
nuclear weapons. As a source of hydrocarbons and other resources, Russia is one of the
first objectives of the new re-division of the world. A restraining element against attack
on Russia is what remains of the nuclear potential of the USSR.”
“A new arms race in on the march, a cold war, and, it seems, humanity is seriously
preparing for a ‘hot’ war,” he stressed, demonstrating with his words the determination of
Russia’s ruling elite to resort to any measures, no matter how destructive and catastrophic
they might be, to defend their interests.
111
DDI ’08 NMD DA
SPACE AFF TURNS 1/2
SATELLITES KEY TO NMD

Although the exact architecture of the proposed NMD system is not yet finalized, its general
shape is clear, and the components of the system have been chosen. The system will use ground-
based interceptors topped with an Exo-atmospheric Kill Vehicle (EKV) that is designed to destroy
the incoming warhead by colliding with it at high speed. This collision would take place above
the atmosphere, when the warhead is in the mid-course of its trajectory.
The launch of an attacking missile would first be detected by US early warning satellites. The
existing satellites, known as DSP (Defense Support Program) satellites, use infrared sensors to
detect the hot plume of a missile booster in the early stage of its flight.
Beginning in 2004, the DSP satellites will be replaced by a new system of early warning satellites
known as SBIRS-high (Space-Based Infrared System--high-earth orbit), which will also use
infrared sensors to detect missile plumes but have improved capabilities.
The data from the early warning satellites would be fed to the NMD Battle Management Center,
to be located at Cheyenne Mountain in Colorado.
SATELLITES KEY TO NMDS—WITHOUT SATELLITE DETECTION, MISSILES FLY

BLIND

Still, even its staunchest backers acknowledge that the kill vehicle is blind to enemy warheads for
most of its flight. Raytheon, its maker, says it can pick up the telltale heat emanations of targets
only in the last 100 or so seconds before impact.
So the weapon must still rely on radars and satellites to find its quarry. The needed helpers,
detailed in April in a Congressional Budget Office report, and in interviews with its author,
Geoffrey Forden, include these:
Early-warning radars. Five existing ones would be improved and a new one built in Asia to
help alert the force of interceptor missiles of enemy attack.
High-resolution radars. These can better resolve targets in space to aid tracking, eliminate decoys and assess
whether targeted warheads have been destroyed. Nine would be built.
Missile-tracking satellites. These detect heat from newly launched missiles and can help estimate flight paths. In
time, existing ones would be supplemented by five new ones, all in high orbits.
Warhead-tracking satellites. From low orbits, 24 of these new spacecraft would aid the hunt
for warheads and decoys.
Command centers. The main one at Cheyenne Mountain, Colo., a bunker hewn out of solid rock, would link all
the data, and its officers would fight the defensive war.
In-flight relays. On the ground, radio transmitters would send navigational signals to missile
interceptors heading for battle.
SPACE AFF TURNS 2/2

112
DDI ’08 NMD DA
SPACE LASERS SOLVE NMD IMPACT

JEFFREY KAYE: The Republican missile defense plan is much more ambitious than the one
President Clinton supports. Unlike the Clinton plan, which would be limited to using land-based
missiles to attack incoming warheads in space, the Bush version would use various weapons
systems -- which might include missiles from land and sea, as well as lasers in space -- to shoot
down warheads soon after they lift off. Richard Perle, a former Pentagon official during the
Reagan administration, now an advisor to Governor Bush, says Bush is unconcerned about the
ABM treaty. Bush believes the U.S. should withdraw from the treaty so that the best available
technologies can be explored without constraint.
113
DDI ’08 NMD DA
IRAQ ADVANTAGE LINK TURN
LINK TURN: MIDDLE EASTERN ENGAGEMENT HURTS INTERNATIONAL

ACCEPTANCE OF NMD
Lieber and Press wrote: “The sort of missile defenses that the United States might plausibly
deploy would be valuable primarily in an offensive context, not a defensive one—as an adjunct to
a U.S. first-strike capability, not as a standalone shield. If the United States launched a nuclear
attack against Russia (or China), the targeted country would be left with a tiny surviving arsenal
—if any at all. At that point, even a relatively modest or inefficient missile-defense system might
well be enough to protect against any retaliatory strikes, because the devastated enemy would
have so few warheads and decoys left.”
Such plans have taken on a fearsome relevance to international politics, amid the tensions
released by the debacle of US attempts to militarily conquer and control the Middle East.
114
DDI ’08 NMD DA
RANDOM EXTRANEOUS CARDS
AFF AGAINST CONSULT WITH CHINA RELATIONS IMPACT CONSULTING ON

NMDS SOLVES CHINA RELATIONS

Starting a March 14 speech by noting, "It is no news that China is opposed to the U.S. NMD
program," Chinese Ambassador Sha Zukang declared that he wanted to "make it clear that…we
are ready to have a dialogue and discussion with Americans [on NMD]." The head of the Chinese
Foreign Ministry's arms control and disarmament department, Sha pointed out that only through
consultations could the two sides "enhance mutual understanding and narrow down the
differences." Sha, who in his speech equated NMD with "drinking poison to quench thirst," said
Washington and Beijing need to talk "no matter how serious [the] issue."
U.S. LOOKING TO INSTALL MISSILES IN LITHUANIA
AFP 6-19-08
spacewar.com/reports/US_taps_Lithuania_as_alternative_to_Poland_for_missile_shield_
plan_999.html [JWU]
The United States has begun to sound out Lithuania as a possible alternative host for a
controversial missile shield as talks with Poland on the project grind on.
After a Polish minister said Tuesday that talks between Washington and Vilnius were
indeed underway, US officials confirmed that chief missile defence negotiator John Rood
had visited Lithuania, stressing all the while there were in actual fact no negotiations with
the ex-Soviet Baltic state.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell, however, made it clear Poland was not the only
option the United States had to host the shield.
"There are several European nations that could host the (missile) interceptors and
Lithuania is one of them," Morrell told reporters in Washington Tuesday.
115

322 Ko NMD Da

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

322 Ko NMD Da

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DDI ’08 NMD DA

Jackie “Awesome” Wu & A-Bomb 1/115

NMD DA- Peer Reviewed and Censored

NMD DA- Peer Reviewed and Censored.........................................................................................................1

Jackie’s Notes: THERE ARE FIVE F---ING SHELLS! FIVE!!! SHELLS!!!!!!!!

Lolcrabs, a new disad the day before disclosure?

1NC POLISH SECURITY Shell

ChinaView, March 08 http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-03/13/content_7780787.htm

B. NMD CAUSES GLOBAL ARMS RACE, WEAPONS PROLIF, AND SPACE

Analysts opposing NMD and European leaders have written numerous

1NC CZECH SHELL 1

Vladimir Volkov International Editorial Board member of WSWS 18 July 2008

1NC CZECH SHELL 2/3

C. UNIQUE INTERNAL LINK—FURTHER NMD PROGRESS WILL BE PERCEIVED AS

Vladimir Volkov International Editorial Board member of WSWS 18 July 2008

1NC CZECH LOLCRABS Alternate SHELL 2/2

RIA News, (Russian Information and News Agenct) 7-23-08

PBS 2K "MISSILE DEFENSE POLITICS" pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec00/nmd_8-

B. EUROPE ASKING U.S. TO CHANGE GAS EMISSION POLICIES

C. NMD POLICY IS QUID PRO QUO

1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL 2/2

D. IMPACT: US-Russian relations key to preventing nuclear terror

1NC EUROPE NMD SHELL 2/2 B

C. NMD sparks global nuclear arm races

NOW IS KEY FOR NMD TALKS

NO EUROPEAN NMDS NOW

Perception of unilat blocks NMD

Perception of unilateralism is blocking European support for NMD

UNIQUE INTERNAL LINK:

RADIO PRAGUE 7-9-08 http://www.radio.cz/en/news/105975 [JWU]

CZECH NMD TREATY HAS BEEN STARTED, BUT FACES OPPOSITION

NEW YORK TIMES 7-9-08

POLAND ON FENCE ABOUT NMD

NMD DIALOGUE WITH POLAND AREN'T SUCCESSFUL NOW

Russian Information and News Service, 8-1-08 http://en.rian.ru/world/20080801/115480478.html

U.S. soft power has eroded, causing Poland to block NMD

US-RUSSIA RELATIONS ON BRINK—RUSSIA WON'T COOPERATE ON NMDS

LUKE HARDING The Guardian staff writer, Moscow correspondent, 4-11-07

RUSSIA IS ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMDS

GERMANY IS ON THE FENCE FOR NMDS

WADE BOESE rsrch director of Arms Control Association APRIL 2001

GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMD—PERSUASION WILL

WADE BOESE rsrch director of Arms Control Association APRIL 2001

FRANCE IS ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMDS

WADE BOESE rsrch director of Arms Control Association APRIL 2001

GERMANY AND FRANCE ARE ON THE FENCE ABOUT NMD—PERSUASION WILL

WADE BOESE rsrch director of Arms Control Association APRIL 2001

SECURITY AND PROLIFERATION ISSUES GET EUROPE ON BOARD FOR NMD

Theresa Hitchens is Research Director of BASIC. and Stuart Samuels is a Consultant to

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AND WEAPON CONTROL EFFORTS KEY TO

Under certain conditions a limited NMD deployment could, hopefully,

EUROPE WANTS TO COOPERATE WITH THE U.S. OVER SECURITY ISSUES

NEWSWEEK 3-20-08 http://www.newsweek.com/id/124417 [JWU]

INCREASING POLISH SECURITY PASSES NMD

LONG TERM SECURITY IS THE ONLY FACTOR PREVENTING POLISH ACCEPTANCE

POLAND WANTS MILITARY SECURITY

HELPING POLISH SECURITY ALLOWS NMD IN POLAND

Vladimir Volkov International Editorial Board member of WSWS 18 July 2008

POLAND NEEDS MILITARY SECURITY ASSURANCE TO GO AHEAD WITH THE NMD

U.S. talks over NMD now—increasing Polish security is key to acceptance

LINK: ALTERNATIVE ENERGY—POLAND

DIVERSIFYING AWAY FROM OIL IS POLAND'S PRIORITY