1AC

Plan text

The US federal government should deploy a Brilliant Pebbles missile defense program in space above the mesosphere.

Contention 1: China

China can destroy US satellitesMacDonald 2008Bruce W. MacDonald (Senior Director at the United States Institute of Peace) 2008, China, Space Weapons, and US Security, Council Special Report No.38, September 2008, published by the Council on Foreign Relations,http://books.google.com/bookshl=en&lr=&id=o0GkabrNftIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP2&dq=Bruce+W.+MacDonald+(Senior+Director+at+the+United+States+Institute+of+Peace)+2008,+China,+Space+Weapons,+and+US+Security,+Council+Special+Report+No.38,+September+2008,+published+by+the+Council+on+Foreign+Relations&ots=OTkmlF7uGY&sig=ncw52NFQTbv6Zh5k4EefU7dtgqw#v=onepage&q&f=falseOn January 11, 2007, China launched a missile into space, releasing a homing vehicle that destroyed an old Chinese weather satellite. The strategic reverberations of that collision have shaken up security thinking in the United States and around the world. This test demonstrated that, if it so chose, China could build a substantial number of these ASAT weapons and thus might soon be able to destroy substantial numbers of U.S. satellites in LEO, upon which the U.S. military heavily depends. On lebruary 21, 2008, the United States launched a modified missile-defense interceptor, destroying a U.S. satellite carrying one thousand pounds ot toxic fuel about to make an uncontrolled atmospheric reentry. Thus, within fourteen months, China and the I inked States both demonstrated the capability to destroy \MO satellites, heralding the arrival of an era where space is a potentially tar more contested domain than in the past, with few rules.1

China war by 2017 Ergas 6 [Zeki, visiting scholar for three years at the Institute of International Studies of the University of California, at Berkeley, and for four years at the at the African Studies Program of the School of Foreign Service, at Georgetown University, presently Secretary General of PEN International’s Swiss Romand Center and lives in Geneva, “Introduction:  The Neo-con Project for a New American Century and its Implications”, Dec 5, 2006]As its title indicates, according to the larger study, America’s ‘manifest destiny’ is to be the world’s supreme political and economic power : a kind of Roman Empire of the 21st century which will

impose upon the world a Pax Americana based on freedom and prosperity. What distinguishes the neo-cons from liberals is that they believe that the United States should not shy from using force to achieve that overarching goal. More specifically the Pentagon document identifies China as an ‘emerging economic giant’ which will be America’s main rival in the near future . So for the neo-con intellectuals, it is not fundamentalist Islam and the international terrorists of Al Qaida that are America’s most serious future enemy but China. Furthermore, the Pentagon document gives a precise date as to when China will become an unacceptable threat to the US. That date is the year of 2017. Why

2017? And: What is the precise nature of that threat? The Pentagon document is based on the findings of a massive computer study that has analysed a myriad of economic, demographic, technological and military data that have been fed into it. Its conclusion is that, at the beginning of 2017, China – which will have then the largest middle class of the world , perhaps 500 million

people, or more  – will be consuming too much: too many energetic and mineral resources, and too many

consumer products, and there simply will not be on the planet enough room for both China and the United States, if China is to enjoy a standard of living comparable to that of the United States (or even to

that of Western Europe). So that is the conclusion of the Pentagon document. In reality, the ‘situation’ is worse, far worse, in fact, because, owing to the neo-liberal globalisation that is spreading around the planet like a bushfire, China is not alone in that hungry quest for advanced consumerism. It is closely followed by India, Russia and Brazil (the other three ‘emerging’ economic giants; together these ‘big four’ are often referred to as the CRIB countries (C for China, R for Russia, and so on) which have a combined population of about 2,800 million, or more than forty per cent of the world’s total. And even the rise of the CRIB countries does not represent the whole ‘scramble’ for advanced consumerism, for behind them are  important middle-sized countries -- like Turkey, South Africa, Thailand, Vietnam, Venezuela, Argentina, Chile, and so on. In fact a fierce and worldwide competition for scarce energetic and mineral resources in which the US and China are playing the leading roles has already started

Chinese analysts have already planned strategies to cripple the USAshley Tellis, Senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2007. 'China's Military Space Strategy', Survival, 49:3, 41 – 72, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/tellis_china_space1.pdfAmong many complex and diverse lessons, Chinese analyses of US military operations have yielded one critical insight : the United States is inordinately dependent on its complex but exposed network of sophisticated command, control, communications and computer-based intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems operating synergistically in and through space. 34 In other words, while American military power derives its disproportionate efficacy from its ability to leverage critical space assets, these very resources are simultaneously a font of deep and abiding vulnerability. Chinese strategists concluded, therefore, that any effort to defeat the United States would require a riposte against its Achilles heel: its space-based capabilities and their organic ground installations. 35 The ability to neutralise American space systems quickly would permit a weaker Chinese military to defeat the superior warfighting capabilities of the United States and ’level the playing field.’

If the US loses satellites to Chinese ASAT, Taiwan conflict will explode into US-China war.Ian Easton 2009Ian Easton, Research Fellow at the 2049 Project Institute, 2009. “The Great Game in Space,” http://www.project2049.net/documents/china_asat_weapons_the_great_game_in_space.pdfAny possible U.S. military contingency around the Taiwan Strait would require secure satellites as the U.S. becomes ever more reliant upon its space systems. Moreover, reconnaissance satellites are thought to limit the risk inherent in the build-up of forces that both the PRC and the U.S. could be expected to deploy to the region in the event of a crisis. However, if the U.S. was blinded as the result of a preemptive Chinese ASAT attack, the conflict could quickly escalate to a dangerous level. According to two experts on the subject, “if there is a great-power war in the twenty-first century, our crystal ball says that it will be between the United States and China over Taiwan, with a very serious potential for a horrible escalatory process.” 38 This underscores the gravity of the topic as well as the negative impact the Chinese shift towards fielding ASAT weapons could have.

Losing satellites would devastate our economy and cripple our military allowing competitors to get the edge,Charles H. Cynamon (USAF Major) 1999, Protecting Commercial Space Systems: A Critical National Security Issue, USAF study thesis, published by the USAF in April 1999, psu.edu systems, the more significant the impacts are sure to be. The loss of a single Iridium satellite will not be catastrophic, not even significant. Many of these big low earth orbit (LEO) systems will provide on-orbit spares to enable near real-time switchover to the spare. However, we must be concerned with the potential for an “Informational Pearl Harbor” whether perpetrated by another state or a terrorist intending to cripple our economy in the furtherance of their own interests . In this scenario, a peer competitor could attack our commercial space systems (a decisive point) to damage our economy (a center of gravity) via our financial markets. By devastating the US economy, an adversary might employ this diversionary tactic to turn our national focus inward. If US intervention can be prevented, our adversary’s goals are more likely to be achieved. A secondary benefit would be the negation of US military effectiveness in countering our adversary’s aggression. One might argue, an “Informational Pearl Harbor” is a worst case scenario we cannot afford to defend against. Unfortunately, the threat of an asymmetrical attack on the US is growing. The drug trafficking war on our southwestern border is analogous to the threats against our commercial systems. We know we can never completely negate the flow of drugs with surveillance and response alone. However, like the drug threat, we must take the necessary steps to reduce the threat to an acceptable level by using all of the tools at our disposal to identify, classify and, if possible, negate the sources before they manifest themselves.

Economic collapse causes nuclear war Lewis 98, (Chris H., environmental historian, University of Colorado-Boulder), THE COMING AGE OF SCARCITY, 1998, p. 56 AD: 7-7-09 CSMost critics would argue, probably correctly, that instead of allowing underdeveloped countries to withdraw from the global economy and undermine the economies of the developed world, the United States , Europe, Japan, and others will fight neocolonial wars to force these countries to remain within this collapsing global

economy. These neocolonial wars will result in mass death, suffering, and even

regional nuclear wars. If First World countries choose military confrontation and political

repression to maintain the global economy, then we may see mass death and genocide

on a global scale that will make the deaths of World War II pale in comparison.

However, these neocolonial wars, fought to maintain the developed nations' economic and

political hegemony, will cause the final collapse of our global industrial civilization . These wars will so damage the complex economic and trading networks and squander

material, biological, and energy resources that they will undermine the global

economy and its ability to support the earth's 6 to 8 billion people. This would be the worst-case scenario for the collapse of global civilization.

Aff solves for EMPs by China Kennedy 8A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years . Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not

help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched. Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea , the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP, along with and the Chinese, who have tested EMPs in the South China Sea. The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile- defense system in space.

The solution against China ASAT is to build a powerful BMD system.Howard Kleinberg 2011, member of the graduate faculty of the Department of Public & International Affairs at University of North Carolina Wilmington, April 2011. US Army Field Artillery Association, “A Global Missile Defense 'networK': Terrestrial High-Energy Lasers and Aerospace Mirrors,” p. LexisFortunately, this recently -revealed, real-world ASAT threat also brings a silver lining in it. As is the case with ballistic missiles, SBBMD weapons can also defend against ASATs. All ASATs, at least, whether direct-ascent or co-orbiting, must first be launched from the Earth's surface, regardless of the launch platform, and must first go through a boost phase. And since SB-BMD provides the single best way to stop any such missile attack from taking place, Robert Butterworth, suggests inhis article, "Assuring Space Support Despite ASATs," it would also provide the single best way to defend against ASAT attacks; same mission, different payload inside the threat missile. SB-BMDs could also intercept ASATs in other phases of their flight, at least within lower Earth orbit. For instance, the Missile Defense Agency's GMD can intercept ICBM warheads at the peak of their trajectories, some 1, 100 km (500 miles) or so. Similarly, an ASAT (direct-ascent or co-orbiting) on terminal approach towards a satellite in LEO would present a target of comparable size, density and velocity as a "mid-course" ICBM warhead (if not even larger), at a similar altitude, and possibly similar speed and trajectory. As a result, the AS AT could also be targeted and interceptedby a midcoursedefense-capable SB-BMD, in addition to its primary role of boost-phase defense, giving a "second-chance" round of shots with which to try to stop any ASAT.

Contention 2: Iran

Iran will be a missile threat by 2015.Brinton Turner, SpaceNews staff writer, 10SpaceNews, “GOP Pledges To Fully Fund Missile Defense”, 9/27/10, http://spacenews.com/policy/100927-gop-pledges-fund-missile-defense.html [Marcus]

Republican members of the U.S. House of Representatives on Sept. 23 unveiled a new “Pledge to America” policy agenda that includes freezing nonmilitary spending and restoring space missile defense funding that it

says is needed to protect the United States from a ballistic missile attack from Iran . “There is

real concern that while the threat from Iranian intercontinental ballistic missiles could materialize as early as 2015, the government’s missile defense policy is not projected to cover the U.S. homeland until 2020,” the document states. “We will work to ensure critical funding is restored to protect the U.S. homeland and our allies from missile threats from rogue states such as Iran and North Korea.” The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama last year overhauled plans for defending European allies and deployed forces from ballistic missiles. Under the previous administration’s plan, ground-based interceptors were to be placed in Poland in 2013. Obama’s plan will be implemented in four phases, starting with deploying Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense ships to European waters as soon as 2011 to defend against short- and medium-range threats. A new Aegis interceptor capable of defeating ICBMs is not planned to be ready until 2020. With the most recent U.S. intelligence estimates stating that Iran could have an ICBM capability by 2015, House Republicans say the United States may face a five-year vulnerability to an Iranian ICBM.

Iran has all intention to attack the US – recent testsNewsmax '8 (Kenneth R. Timmerman, Staff Writer, “U.S. Intel: Iran Plans Nuclear Strike on U.S.”, July 29th 2008, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-nuclear-plan/2008/07/29/id/324724#ixzz1O4Ro0WKT)Iran has carried out missile tests for a nuclear strike on the United States, the head of a national security panel has warned. In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee and in remarks to a private conference on missile defense over the weekend hosted by the Claremont Institute, Dr. William Graham warned that the U.S. intelligence community “doesn’t have a story” to explain the recent Iranian tests.

Iran wants to nuke Israel – Iran clearly wantsBard '11 (Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Policy Analyst, “Potential Threats to Israel: Iran”, June 27th, 2011, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html)"The only way to confront the Zionist enemy is the continuation and fortification of resistance and Jihad," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quoted as saying September 3, 2005, in a meeting with the militant group Islamic Jihad's secretary general Ramazan Abdullah (AFP, September 3, 2005). In October 2005, recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad quoted Ayatollah Khomeini and declared, “As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map .” The

president added: “And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism” (AP, October 26, 2005).

President Bush said February 16, 2005, “Iran has made it clear that they don't like Israel, to put it bluntly. And the Israelis are concerned about whether or not Iran develops a nuclear weapon, as are we, as should everybody....Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel, and I listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded my security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon, as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if their security is threatened.” Iran's nonconventional weapons are not a threat only toward Israel, they also pose a

danger to the United States and its interests around the world. And the American people recognize this danger. According to a January 2006 Gallup poll, 19% of Americans see Iran as an immediate threat to the United States and another 65% said Iran is a long-term threat.

MAD does not apply to Iran – they believe the end will come anywaysBard '11 (Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Policy Analyst, “Potential Threats to Israel: Iran”, June 27th, 2011, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html)Iran would never launch a nuclear attack against Israel, some argue because, as the old Sting song used to say about the Russians, the Iranians “love their children too.” In the days of the Cold War we used to refer to this idea as MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction . No Muslim leader would risk an Israeli

counterstrike that might destroy them. MAD also doesn’t work, however, if the Iranians believe there will be destruction anyway at the end of time . What matters, Bernard Lewis

observed, is if the infidels go to hell and believers go to heaven. And if you believe that killing the nonbelievers will earn you a place in Paradise with 72 virgins, what difference does it make if you go out in a blaze of glory as a suicide bomber or in the shadow of a mushroom cloud?

Iran Proliferating to other Muslim Countries – leading to middle east arms raceBard '11 (Dr. Mitchell Bard, Executive Director of the nonprofit American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise, Policy Analyst, “Potential Threats to Israel: Iran”, June 27th, 2011, http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Threats_to_Israel/Iran.html)If Iran has nuclear weapons it can also pose an indirect threat by sharing the technology or an actual weapon with other Muslim countries or terrorists. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows the peaceful pursuit of nuclear technology, including uranium mining and enrichment, under oversight by the IAEA, but Ahmadinejad raised worldwide concern about nuclear proliferation when he told the UN General Assembly in September 2005, “ Iran is ready to transfer nuclear know-how to the Islamic countries due to their need .” Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, repeated the proliferation threat several months later when he told the president of Sudan, “Iran’s nuclear capability is one example of various scientific capabilities in the country.... The Islamic Republic of Iran is prepared to transfer the experience, knowledge and technology of its scientists .” If Iran succeeds in getting a bomb, it will also

create a potential arms race as Arab states see the need to obtain weapons to deter the Iranians.

In fact, since 2006, 12 Middle East countries (Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, and the Gulf Cooperation Council) have either announced plans to explore atomic energy or signed nuclear cooperation agreements.

Aff solves for EMPs by Iran Kennedy 8A successful EMP attack on the U.S. would have a dramatic effect on the country, to say the least. Even one that only affected part of the country would cripple the economy for years . Dropping nuclear weapons on or retaliating against whoever caused the attack would not

help. And an EMP attack is not far-fetched. Twice in the last eight years, in the Caspian Sea , the Iranians have tested their ability to launch ballistic missiles in a way to set off an EMP, along with and the Chinese , who have tested EMPs in the South China Sea. The only solution to this problem is a robust, multilayered missile- defense system in space.

Contention 3: Heg

Loss of Space Control kills US Hegemony – Acting on geopolitics creates dominanceIWG Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, & the Twenty-First Century 2009 Report,” Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 2009, p. xi. //bw

The current state of affairs surrounding missile defense carries profound implications for the safety and security of the

United States, and its role on the world stage in the decades to come. Without the means to dissuade, deter, and defeat a growing number of strategic adversaries, the United States will be unable to maintain its status of global leadership. The creation of effective defenses against ballistic missile attack remains central to this task.

Historically, it is evident that the major geopolitical options that become available have been exploited by one nation or another . Th os e nations that are most successful in recognizing and acting on such options have become dominant. Others that have failed or have consciously decided not to do so are relegated to inferior political status. A salient case in point is ocean navigation and exploration. The Chinese were the first to become preeminent in this retrospectively pivotal area during the early Ming dynasty. However, geopolitical preeminence that was eventually lost to other powers.

In the twenty-first century, maintenance of its present lead in space is pivotal to the basic geopolitical, military, and economic status of the United States. Consolidation of the preeminent U.S. position in space akin to Britain’s dominance of the oceans in the nineteenth century is not an option, but rather a necessity, for if not the United States, some other nation, or nations, will aspire to this role, as several others already do. For the United States , space is a crucially important to twenty-first century geopolitical setting that includes a global missile defense.

American hegemony is necessary to prevent conflict in every region of the world – trade, competition, Indo-Pak war, Russia war, and East Asian War – collapse causes transition warsKagan 7 [Robert, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, “End of Dreams, Return of History, 6-19, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/07/end_of_dreams_return_of_histor.html]

The jostling for status and influence among these ambitious nations and would-be nations is a second defining feature of the new post-Cold War international system . Nationalism in all its forms is back, if it ever went away, and so is international competition for power, influence, honor, and status. American predominance prevents these rivalries from intensifying -- its regional as well as its global predominance . Were the U nited States to diminish its influence in the regions where it is currently the strongest power, the other nations would settle disputes as great and lesser powers have done in the past: sometimes through diplomacy and accommodation but

often through confrontation and wars of varying scope, intensity, and destructiveness. One novel aspect of such a multipolar world is that most of these powers would possess nuclear weapons . That could make wars between them less likely, or it could simply make

them more catastrophic. It is easy but also dangerous to underestimate the role the United States plays in providing a measure of stability in the world even as it also disrupts

stability. For instance, the United States is the dominant naval power everywhere, such that other nations cannot compete with it even in their home waters. They either happily or

grudgingly allow the United States Navy to be the guarantor of international waterways and trade routes, of international access to markets and raw materials such as oil. Even when the United States engages in a war, it is able to play its role as guardian of the waterways. In a more genuinely multipolar world, however, it would not. Nations would compete for naval dominance at least in their own regions and possibly beyond. Conflict

between nations would involve struggles on the oceans as well as on land. Armed embargos, of the kind

used in World War i and other major conflicts , would disrupt trade flows in a way that is now impossible. Such order as exists in the world rests not merely on the goodwill of

peoples but on a foundation provided by American power. Even the European Union, that great geopolitical miracle, owes its founding to American power, for without it the European nations after World War ii would never have felt secure enough to reintegrate Germany. Most Europeans recoil at the thought, but even

today Europe 's stability depends on the guarantee, however distant and one hopes unnecessary,

that the United States could step in to check any dangerous development on the continent. In a genuinely multipolar world , that would not be possible without renewing the danger of world war. People who believe greater equality among nations would be preferable to the present American predominance often succumb to a basic logical fallacy. They believe the order the world enjoys today exists independently of American power. They imagine that in a world where American power was diminished, the aspects of international order that they like would remain in place.

But that 's not the way it works. International order does not rest on ideas and institutions. It is shaped by configurations of power. The international order we know today reflects the distribution of power in the

world since World War ii, and especially since the end of the Cold War. A different configuration of power, a multipolar world in which the poles were Russia, China, the United States, India, and Europe, would produce its own kind of order, with different rules and norms reflecting the interests of the powerful states that would have a hand in shaping it. Would that international order be an improvement? Perhaps for Beijing and Moscow it

would. But it is doubtful that it would suit the tastes of enlightenment liberals in the United States and Europe. The current order, of course, is not only far from perfect but also offers no guarantee against major conflict among the world 's great powers. Even under the umbrella of unipolarity, regional conflicts

involving the large powers may erupt. War could erupt between China and Taiwan and draw in

both the United States and Japan. War could erupt between Russia and Georgia, forcing the United States and its European allies to decide whether to intervene or suffer the consequences of a Russian

victory. Conflict between India and Pakistan remains possible, as does conflict between Iran and Israel or other Middle Eastern states. These, too, could draw in other great powers, including the United States.

Such conflicts may be unavoidable no matter what policies the United States pursues. But they are more likely to erupt if the United States weakens or withdraws from its positions of regional dominance. This is especially true in East Asia , where most nations agree that a

reliable American power has a stabilizing and pacific effect on the region. That is certainly the view of

most of China 's neighbors. But even China, which seeks gradually to supplant the United States as the

dominant power in the region, faces the dilemma that an American withdrawal could unleash an ambitious, independent, nationalist Japan. In Europe, too, the departure of the United States from the scene -- even if it remained the world's most powerful nation -- could be destabilizing. It could tempt Russia to an even more overbearing and potentially forceful

approach to unruly nations on its periphery. Although some realist theorists seem to imagine that the disappearance of the Soviet Union put an end to the possibility of confrontation between Russia and the West, and therefore to the need for a permanent American role in Europe, history suggests that conflicts in Europe

involving Russia are possible even without Soviet communism. If the United States withdrew from Europe -- if it adopted what some call a strategy of "offshore balancing" -- this could in time increase the likelihood of conflict involving Russia and its near neighbors, which could in turn draw the United States back in under unfavorable circumstances. It is

also optimistic to imagine that a retrenchment of the American position in the Middle East and the assumption of a more passive, "offshore" role would lead to

greater stability there. The vital interest the United States has in access to oil and the role it plays in keeping access open to other nations in Europe and Asia make it unlikely that American leaders could or would stand back and hope for the best while the powers in the region battle it out. Nor would a more "even-handed" policy toward Israel, which some see as the magic key to unlocking peace, stability, and comity in the Middle East, obviate the need to come to Israel 's aid if its security became threatened. That commitment, paired with the American commitment to protect strategic oil supplies for most of the world, practically ensures a heavy American military presence in the region, both on the seas and on the ground. The subtraction of American power from any region would not end conflict but would simply change the equation. In the Middle East, competition for influence among powers both inside and outside the region has raged for at least two centuries. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism doesn 't change this. It only adds a new and more threatening dimension to the competition, which neither a sudden end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians nor an immediate American withdrawal

from Iraq would change. The alternative to American predominance in the region is not balance and peace . It is further competition . The region and the states within it remain

relatively weak. A diminution of American influence would not be followed by a diminution of other external influences. One could expect deeper involvement by

both China and Russia, if only to secure their interests. 18 And one could also expect the more powerful states of the region, particularly Iran, to expand and fill the vacuum. It is doubtful that any American administration would voluntarily take actions that could shift the balance of power in the Middle East further toward Russia, China, or Iran. The world hasn 't changed that much. An American withdrawal from Iraq will not return things to "normal" or to a new kind of stability in the region. It will produce a

new instability, one likely to draw the United States back in again. The alternative to American regional predominance in the Middle East and elsewhere is not a new regional stability. In an era of burgeoning nationalism, the future is likely to be one of intensified competition among nations and nationalist movements. Difficult as it may be to extend American predominance into the future , no one should imagine that a reduction of American power or a retraction of American influence and global involvement will provide an easier path .

SMD gives the US leverage in heg Forrest E. Morgan, Ph.D. in policy studies, University of Maryland; M.A.A.S. in airpower arts and sciences, Senior political scientist @ Rand, 9/15/10, http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2010/RAND_MG916.pdf, “Deterrence and First-Strike Stability in Space”

The United States can raise the thresholds of deterrence failure in crises and at some levels of limited war by implementing a coordi sides of a potential adversary’s cost-benefit decision calculus simultaneously. The foundation and central pillar of such a strategy would be a national space policy that explicitly condemns the use of force in space and declares that the United States will severely punish any attacks on its space systems and those of friendly states in ways, times, and places of its choosing. Cognizant of the fundamental U.S. interest in space stability, such a policy would embrace diplomatic engagement, treaty negotiations, and other confidence-building measures, both for whatever stabilizing effects can be attained from such activities and because demonstrating leadership in these venues helps to characterize the United States as a responsible

world actor with the moral authority to use its power to protect the interests for all spacefaring nations . In these settings and others, all U.S. policies, statements, and actions should be carefully orchestrated to bolster already emerging international taboos on space warfare and enhance the credibility of U.S. threats to punish space aggressors in multiple dimensions—in the terrestrial and informational domains as well as in space, through

diplomatic and economic means, in addition to the use of force. Such an approach would raise the potential costs in ways that future opponents would have to factor into their decision calculations in any crisis in which they are tempted to attack orbital assets. (See pp. 37–44.) At the same time, the United States should engage in a comprehensive and coordinated effort to persuade potential adversaries that the probability of obtaining sufficient benefit from attacking space assets would not be

high enough to make it worth suffering the inevitable costs of U.S. retribution. Part of such a strategy would entail perception management: The United States should, to the greatest extent possible, conceal vulnerabilities of its space systems and demonstrate the ability to operate effectively with missile defense systems to keep stability. However, perception management can only go so far in the face of observable weaknesses. Therefore, the strategy should also pursue multiple avenues to make vulnerable U.S . space systems more resilient and defendable, thereby demonstrating tangible capabilities to deny potential adversaries the benefits of attacking in space.

Contention 4: Solvency

Brilliant Pebbles solves better – most practical form of BMDClairemont Institute 12 (missilethreat.com)

Brilliant Pebbles, the top anti-missile program of the SDI was an attempt to deploy a 4,000-satellite constellation in LEO that would fire high-velocity , watermelon- sized non explosive projectiles at long-range ballistic missiles launched from anywhere in the world. If it had been deployed during the Persian Gulf War, Brilliant Pebbles would have shot down every Scud missile. The concept of Brilliant Pebbles remains the most efficient and cost-effective means of defending the U.S. against nuclear, chemical, and biological warheads.

BMD best way to stop ballistic missilesFAS ’07 (Federation of American Scientists)Boost Phase Intercept (BMDS) is a concept in which a hostile Theater Ballistic Missile (BALLISTIC MISSILES) is intercepted during its boost phase of flight. This advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD) assessed the feasibility of intercepting ballistic missiles before they could deploy submunitions or other countermeasures. the Air Force and Navy concluded the system was technically feasible. During boost phase, a BALLISTIC MISSILE is a relatively large and vulnerable target - it does not maneuver, and its exhaust plume presents a very high infrared (IR) signature. The need for BMDS capability is driven by the potential for post-boost countermeasures to defeat currently planned TMD systems. The BMDS concept offers several advantages. One, the lethality challenge is a greatly simplified destruction of the BALLISTIC MISSILE can be achieved by direct hits on the target warhead or by sending interceptor warhead fragments into the target booster fuel tanks, guidance system or the rocket motor. Two and, a successful BMD campaign eases the requirements placed on a terminal missile defense the system and provides an answer to many of the measures an enemy can adopt in order to counter terminal defenses, including the use of decoys, penetration aids, and advanced submunitions. And three, the BALLISTIC MISSILE boost phase of flight takes place over enemy territory.