|
|
Debate:European missile defense
From Debatepedia
[  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Is the planned US missile defense system in the Czech Republic justified?
|
Editing tasks you can do:
- This article needs a background section.
- This article could use a stronger pro section.
[ ] Background and Context of Debate:
|
[ ] [  ] [  ] [  ] [  ] Security: Would a missile defense system increse European security?
|
[  ] [ ] Yes
- Threat of Islamic fundamentalism justifies European missile defense.Condaleez Rice said in July of 2008. - "Now it is clearly understood in the alliance that the challenges of the 21st century, the threats of the 21st century, make it necessary to have missile defense that can defend the countries of Europe."[1]
- More rogue states are producing WMD and ballistic missiles a recent report from the UK Ministry of defense (MoD). "[A]t current rates of progress, it seems likely that, well before 2030, one or more of these [proliferating] states will have ballistic missiles capable of reaching the UK carrying chemical or biological payloads and, potentially, nuclear weapons."[2]
- Backing down on European missile defense would create impression of weakness. Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "In recent years, the United States decided that leaving itself deliberately vulnerable to any weapon system or state, as it did during the Cold War, was foolish. And rightfully so. Deliberate vulnerability can lead to perceptions of weakness, inviting provocation or aggression from another nation or transnational actor. In addition, being perceived as weak and vulnerable can lead a potential adversary to use threats, intimidation, "blackmail" or coercion to achieve its objectives."
- Missile defenses are inherently defensive, not offensive Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "despite the range of concerns about missile defense, it should be emphasized that missile defense is a defensive—not offensive—weapon. Indeed, the dominant design of the missile defense interceptor warhead does not even contain an explosive charge; traveling at 15,000 miles per hour, it destroys the missile warhead by the sheer force of the collision. Therefore, the idea that missile defense is an offensive system, as many have suggested, is patently false. In a way, missile defense is like an umbrella; it is only needed if it rains."
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Both missile threat and defense capabilities do not yet exist. Magnus Ranstorp, research director for the Swedish Defense College, and one of the world’s foremost experts on terrorism, wrote, "It’s a defense system that doesn’t yet work intended to stop a threat that does not yet exist."[3]
- Missile defense systems are primarily offensive in nature. Lieber, Keir A. / Press, Daryl G. "The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy". Foreign Affairs. 2006 - "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."
- Similarly MDA’s Obering has a briefing that claims the threat from enemy missiles is growing and shows missiles in 20 countries. But all but two of those 20 countries - Iran and North Korea - are either friends, allies, or countries from which we have no missile threat, e.g. Israel, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, South Korea, Moldova, Ukraine, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.
- Moldova??? Yes, and recently Venezuela was added to the list. (…)"
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [  ] Iran: Is Iran a missile threat?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Iran would not use missiles; they lack "plausible deniability" Magnus Ranstorp, research director for the Swedish Defense College, and one of the world’s foremost experts on terrorism. - "Iranians always leave themselves plausible deniability. In supporting international terrorism in Afghanistan, Hezbollah in Lebanon or Shi’ite efforts in Iraq, they work through third parties, and stay in the shadows themselves."
- Intelligence reports show Iranian threat has been exaggerated. Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison. "Pushing Missile Defense in Europe". February 22, 2008 - "there is no credible evidence that a missile threat from Iran exists today. The National Intelligence Estimate released in December 2007 further undermined the credibility of that claim by stating that Iran had discontinued its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003. Even the Polish government, which looks set to try to overcome domestic opposition and accept the U.S. interceptor missiles, has dismissed the Iranian justification. In January 2008 Polish Foreign Affairs Minister Radoslaw Sikorski said publicly, "We feel no threat from Iran." And the belligerent stance of the United States toward Iran, far from protecting the United States or Europe from such a threat in the future, only enhances its likelihood. The example of North Korea, where years of U.S. military threats provided a strong inducement to seek nuclear weapons, is cautionary."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Effectiveness: Is a missile defense system effective?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Not so. On September 28, 2007, some 75 miles into space over the Pacific Ocean, a kill vehicle from America's missile defense system destroyed the mock warhead of a long-range missile. This test of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system provides further evidence that its "hit-to-kill" technology works. The GMD interceptor destroyed the mock warhead by the force of collision and did not use an explosive warhead of any kind.
- Hit-to-kill technology is common to a variety of missile defense interceptors now in either development or deployment. In addition to the GMD system, the technology is used in the Navy's Standard Missile-3, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Patriot PAC-3 interceptors. Roughly 80 percent of recent tests across all four of these programs have been successful.
- Yet, critics continue to argue that missile defense will prove ineffective. Congress should reject arguments that cloak policy preference in technical analysis and should protect Americans with a policy of designing and building the most effective missile defense system possible."
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Decoys can include objects which provide a close representation of the attacking enemy missile or its warhead encased in a re-entry vehicle. For example, a simple balloon in the shape of a cone – the shape of a re-entry vehicle – would travel out in space as fast as the RV itself and might be confusing to the defender. An enemy missile could carry many of these balloons (…)
- Countermeasures could include chaff or debris deliberately scattered by the attacker with the target missile or warhead to reflect the search radar of a missile defense system. This might be short metal rods – like paper clips – of the proper length, or bits of metal foil to reflect the radar, or to cloud the view the radar might otherwise have of the target.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Russia: Does Russia oppose a European defense system?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- European missile defenses would not counter a Russia-to-US attack. Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "The Kremlin also insists the limited system would undermine Russia's nuclear deterrent, despite the fact that a Russian land-based nuclear strike on the United States would not be launched on a trajectory over Poland, but would fly toward its American targets over the North Pole, or Iceland and Greenland, depending on the targets.
- In fact, according to the MDA, the proposed kinetic kill vehicle designated for deployment in Poland is simply not fast enough to catch a Russian land-based ICBM in a tail-chase scenario. These interceptors, therefore, would have no capability against Russia's sea- or air-based deterrence capabilities. (Interestingly, at the time, Moscow did not object to the U.S. decision six years ago to deploy missile defenses at California's Vandenberg Air Force Base and Alaska's Fort Greely to counteract the still-evolving North Korean nuclear and ballistic missile threat.)"
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Russian Foreign Minister said in a written statement, "There is no doubt that the approachment of elements of the U.S. strategic arsenal to the Russian territory could be used to weaken the potential of our deterrent. If the real deployment of the U.S. strategic missile defense system begins near our borders, then we will have to respond using not diplomatic but military-technological methods."[4]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Arms race: Can a European missile defense system avoid causing an arms race?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- European missile defense will not incite a new cold war arms race. "Missile Defense and Europe". State Department. March 28, 2007 - "The debate should not be, in my view, about issues of 20 years ago and issues of a so-called arms race, and in this context I was struck that today, today in Berlin as a matter of fact, the Americans and Russians are sitting down to discuss post-START issues and transparency issues for the post-START regime after the START Treaty expires. I mention this because the transparency and confidence-building measures which we're going to be discussing are a part and an illustrative part of the developing good strategic relationship between the United States and Russia as we address the new world that we face together.
- It is also true that the Treaty of Moscow, which reduced arms, reduced warheads on both sides, is being implemented. To remind you, it calls for massive reductions in warheads on both sides, down to between 1,700 and 2,200 by the end of 2012. The United States is on target to meet reductions. Russia is well on target to meet reductions.
- So the notion that somehow missile defense has to be seen as part of an emerging arms race between the United States and Russia, which is some of the odd commentary I hear from some Europeans, has no relationship to reality and the debate about missile defense ought to be conducted in a way, it seems to me, that reflects reality."
|
[ ] [ ] No
- European missile defense reawakens Cold War tensions and conflict Joanne Landy and Thomas Harrison. "Pushing Missile Defense in Europe". February 22, 2008 - "When the Soviet Union first built a limited missile defense system in the late 1960s, the United States responded by building up a nuclear strike strategy to overwhelm the new technology. The cycle of nuclear one-upmanship was partially halted by the ABM Treaty, but then the Bush administration withdrew from the treaty in 2002. Now, writes Hans Kristenson of the Federation of American Scientists, “history repeats itself, but the table has been turned. Today it is the United States building a limited missile defense system (more capable than the Soviet system, but purportedly focused on “rogue” state missiles), and it is the Russians who say they need to target it to maintain the effectiveness of their deterrent. The Cold War may be over, but military and policy planners in both countries still think in Cold War terms."
- Former French president Jacques Chirac said in 2001, U.S. missile defense plans "cannot fail to relaunch the arms race in the world."[5]
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Czech Republic: Is the missile defense plan for the Czech Republic a good idea?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Missile defense in the Czech Republic makes the country a target Josef Skuhra, 57, a Czech village maintenance worker. - "We’ve always been happy being forgotten about, but now Russia and the United States, who have always been enemies, fight over us. And once the Americans start building, how long can it be before even Osama bin Laden knows our name?"[6]
- Missile bases are illegitimate without popular approval The current attempt to place a base here, this time from the other direction, would serve to reawaken the Cold War in Europe and could reignite a new arms race. It is unthinkable that a democratic country should make a decision of such long-range impact, as the acceptance of a foreign military base on its soil, without an open debate. Neither the government nor Parliament has the mandate to make such a decision alone. This is a question which requires the input of the broad public because the population will have to live with the effects of such a base long after the current Parliament finishes its term and all the current polititians are retired. The only responsible way to make such serious decision is by referendum.
- Missile defenses in Europe would result in erecting fences to close off Brdy forests.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Poland: Is a missile defense system in Poland favorable?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Sovereignty: Is it consistent with national sovereignty?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Politics: Is a European missile defense system politically beneficial?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- European missile defense will improve transatlantic security relations. Peter Brookes. "The Case for European Missile Defense". Heritage. March 14, 2008 - "There are other advantages to fielding a missile defense system in Europe for the United States, too. Hosting a transatlantic missile defense system will deepen, and further unify, the security relationship between European NATO members, especially Poland and the Czech Republic, and the United States, enhancing our mutual national security against external threats from ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction."
|
[ ] [ ] No
- European missile defense is bitterly dividing Europe. Matthew Schofield. "Bush’s Missile Defense Radar Plan Riles Czechs". McClatchy Newspapers. July 2, 2007 - "The unilateral U.S. drive for an unproven system has in fact divided Europe, according to Otfried Nassauer, an expert on defense policy at the German research center Berlin Institute for Trans-Atlantic Security. 'In the end, Europeans have to decide whether a theoretical defense system is worth a very real split in Europe,' he said. 'It’s classic Bush. He had a plan and he’s going ahead with it, no matter the costs or arguments against it.'"
- That 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 or cooperative, and was undertaken unilaterally almost before the ink had dried on the Joint Declaration."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] US interests: Is a Euroepan missile defense system in Us interests?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- European missile defense will give European countries veto power over US security. Taylor Dinerman. "European missile defense: why bother?". 26 Mar. 2007 - "such weapons will give our allies a veto over whether or not an ICBM aimed at a US city will or will not hit its target. Once the system is operational, a British or Polish politician would have, at best, a few seconds to make up his or her mind to allow a GMD interceptor to launch. In the future a European leader might be in a position to decide whether a nuclear weapon would or would not explode over New York or Washington."
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Alternatives: Is European missile defense indispensable or do alternatives exist (ie space)?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- In fact, they're complementary. The Bush Administration's overall approach to missile defense is to field a layered missile defense capability for countering missiles of different ranges on a worldwide basis.This capability entails a variety of components that are optimized to counter different kinds of missiles.Thus, it is wrong to state that one particular component is more valuable than another.The GMD system proposed for Europe is optimized to counter long-range missiles, whereas THAAD and the Aegis systems are designed to counter short- and intermediate-range missiles.Fielding only the THAAD and Aegis systems in the European arena would not fully meet the need to counter long-range missiles and would not provide Europe with the most effective missile defense possible."
|
[ ] [ ] No
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Economics: Would European missile defense be economically beneficial?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
- Missile defense would increase arms spending and harm the poor. The construction of more bases threatens to spark new cycles of armament around the world. In developing countries, this results in the deepening of poverty for already desperate populations. In Europe, it could mean the end of state ensurance of social security.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Health: Are the health effects of a radar system OK, tolerable?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
The effects of such a high-power radar system on nearby residents are not known. The only similar systems are located in remote and unpopulated areas.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] NATO: How does NATO membership affect this debate?
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
- Quite the contrary. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer stated after the April 2007 North Atlantic Council meeting: "There is absolutely a shared threat perception...Allies all agree that there is a threat from ballistic missiles."[6]
- NATO military experts are currently studying plans for a short-range missile defense system to protect southern European nations that will not be covered by the U.S. initiative.[7] Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer has indicated that this system will complement the U.S. missile defense system, giving the clearest indication yet that NATO considers U.S. plans vital to Europe's defense.
|
[ ] [ ] No
- NATO members have no responsibility to create European Missile Defense.
|
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Pro/con resources
|
[ ] [ ] Yes
|
[ ] [ ] No
| |
