Missile Defense Systems
Current Research for the MLA Summer Debate Camp…
TOPIC: Missile Defense Systems
Resolved: On-balance, missile defense systems do more harm than good.
Handout(s):
[-] LD Critical Thinking Packet (Summer) – Missile Defense Systems (MLA, Summer 2019).pdf
[-] LD Research Packet (For Summer Camp) – Missile Defense Systems (Magnet Academy, Summer 2019).pdf [or DOC]
Potentially Helpful Whiteboard Photo(s):
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – Outline for Cross-Examination (MLA, 2019-06-01).jpg
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – Outline for Evidence & Contentions (MLA, 2019-07-10).jpg
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – Outline for Writing the Framework (MLA, 2019-07-11).jpg
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – AFF Evidence Wasting Trillions (MLA, 2019-07-22).jpg
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – NEG Evidence Adversaries Aggressive Use of \’Missile Capability\’ (MLA, 2019-07-01).jpg
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – AFF Argument 02 Increased Risk of War-a (MLA, 2019-06-01).jpg
[-] WB Photo (Missile Defense) – AFF Argument 02 Increased Risk of War-b (MLA, 2019-06-01).jpg
BACKGROUND:
Theatre missile defense (Encyclopedia Britannica, Last Accessed: June 2019)
\”Theatre missile defense (TMD), also called theatre ballistic missile defense (TBMD), deployment of nuclear and conventional missiles for the purpose of maintaining security in a specific region, or theatre. The purpose of theatre missile defense (TMD) is to protect allies from local threats in their region or to address specific security issues and enable credibility in addressing particular threats. TMD refers primarily to defensive antiballistic missile systems. At the turn of the 21st century, the United States’s Patriot missile, designed to intercept incoming ballistic missiles before they strike their intended targets, was the best-known example of such a system. During the Persian Gulf War (1990–91), the Patriot was employed for TMD in Israel and Saudi Arabia to counter the threat of Iraqi Scud missiles. (Although initial assessments suggested that Patriot missiles were highly effective, later analyses cast doubt on the number of incoming Iraqi missiles actually destroyed by Patriots.)\”
How Does Missile Defense Work? (Union of Concerned Scientists, Last Accessed: June 2019)
\”That’s the basic motivation behind US homeland missile defense, a complex system of ground-based radars, satellite sensors, and interceptor missiles designed to destroy incoming warheads. If the system operated as promised, sensors would track intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) throughout their launch and flight. Interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California would then collide with and destroy the incoming weapons.\”
REQUIRED RESEARCH VIDEOS/MEDIA:
Graphic: How Does Missile Defense Work? ,
Union of Concerned Scientists, Last Accessed: June 2019
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/images/2016/07/nuclear-weapons-m-how-missile-defense-works.jpg
Lockheed Studies Sea-Launched Patriot PAC-3 & New 6-Foot Missile,
Breaking Defense, August 9, 2017 [4 min]
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/08/lockheed-studies-sea-launched-patriot-new-6-foot-missile/
NOTE: Please skim the article, but make sure to read the last few paragraphs!
The Missile Defense System Russia May Sell to Iran,
Wall Street Journal, April 15, 2015 [1 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xp1xnqlWyE
The U.S. unveils a new missile-defense program,
CGTN News, January 17, 2019 [2 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjqRCjdFyPQ
Trump\’s new plans for missile defense may spark arms race, critics say,
PBS Newshour, January 17, 2019 [9 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uz-4dK8taU
REQUIRED RESEARCH ARTICLES:
The Trump administration’s new Missile Defense Review is a mixed bag,
Frank A. Rose, Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution, January 25, 2019
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/01/25/the-trump-administrations-new-missile-defense-review-is-a-mixed-bag/
NOTE: MDR stands for Missile Defense Review (a review of our missile defense policies).
THE PROS AND CONS: On the positive side, [The MDR] recommendations to enhance the near-to-midterm effectiveness of U.S. homeland defense (e.g., deploy 20 more long-range interceptors in Alaska, increase the number of discrimination radars, improve the reliability of the kill vehicle) are good. So is the language on regional missile defense and cooperation with allies and partners. And its recommendation to examine new boost-phase defense options and space-based sensor capabilities have merit; however, those new technologies are certain to face technical, operational, and cost-related challenges.
My biggest concern about the MDR is the focus it places on space-based interceptors and the potential implications of that for stability with Russia and China. While the MDR only recommends studying the issue at this point, it appears that the Trump administration is inclined to begin the development of a space-based interceptor capability. If the United States moves in this direction, Russia and China are certain to react.
Finally, there are serious questions about how the administration will pay for the missile defense program outlined in the MDR, especially when the United States has big bills pending for strategic nuclear modernization and the recapitalization of our conventional military forces.
Defense Review makes the U.S. less safe,
Dr. Benjamin Zala, Nuclear Security Fellow, Harvard University, The Hill, January 15, 2019
https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/426392-missile-defense-review-makes-us-less-safe
Note: Benjamin Zala is a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School.
But Americans should be concerned about the missile defenses being deployed today. This seemingly innocuous system of radars, tracking technology and interceptors undermines stability in Washington’s strategic relations with Moscow and Beijing. Defending against attack flies in the face of the idea of mutually-assured destruction, the idea reluctantly embraced during the Cold War (and after), to lower the risks of nuclear first strikes. Both sides being equally vulnerable to nuclear retaliation means that neither has the incentive to strike first. Developing missile defenses, by definition, means abandoning the concept of mutual vulnerability. But this has been glossed over too easily in debates over the issue. If the United States can defend against a nuclear retaliation, what is it that is going to deter Washington from attacking first? Goodwill? Unending benevolence even during military crises? It may seem counterintuitive, but having the advantage of striking first is not good for American security.
The U.S. Navy’s New Missile Defense Is a Bad Idea
David Axe, The National Interest, January 17, 2019
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/us-navy%E2%80%99s-new-missile-defense-bad-idea-41902
The U.S. Navy will try for the first time to shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile in the middle phase of the ICBM\’s flight, the Pentagon announced on Jan. 17, 2019. But it\’s not clear the Navy\’s SM-3 missile is up to the task. Even if it is, its deployment could lead to a dangerous arms race.
The SM-3 announcement was part of the Trump\’s administration\’s roll-out of its new Missile Defense Review. \”Our goal is simple,\” Pres. Donald Trump said. \”To ensure that we can detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States, anywhere, any time and any place.\” That includes hitting ICBMs during the midcourse phase of flight. At present just one weapon, the U.S. Army\’s Ground-Based Midcourse Defense rocket system, in theory, can strike an ICBM.
A new version of the Navy\’s own SM-3 — its main missile-interceptor — could reinforce the GMD. \”The SM-3 Blk IIA interceptor is intended as part of the regional missile defense architecture, but also has the potential to provide an important \’underlay\’ to existing [ground-based interceptors] for added protection against ICBM threats to the U.S homeland,\” the missile-defense review states.
IMPORTANT: Read the entire article, but answer the questions (see handout) based on the above paragraphs. Thanks!
ADDITIONAL \”OPTIONAL\” RESEARCH ARTICLES & VIDEOS:
[Optional] THAAD ER (ER = Extended Range),
Lockheed Martin, August 18, 2015 [4 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3SMs_IR1vc
Note: THAAD = Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
[Optional] Brookings experts react to the new Missile Defense Review,
Brookings Institution, January 22, 2019
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2019/01/22/brookings-experts-react-to-the-new-missile-defense-strategy/
NOTE: This is excellent information if you are looking for a more in-depth analysis of the missile defense topic.
[Optional] Should the U.S. Continue to Fund the SDI Anti-Nuclear Missile Defense System?
Balanced Politics, Last Updated: November 19, 2011
https://www.balancedpolitics.org/missile_defense.htm
NOTE: This is published material, yet it is a bit superficial. The benefit comes from having many ideas organized into one reading. Each of these ideas can be cut into a collection of evidence \’cards\’. 🙂
[Optional] THAAD Missile Defense Systems Are Coming to Russia\’s Doorstep,
David Axe, The National interest, May 21, 2019
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/thaad-missile-defense-systems-are-coming-russias-doorstep-58667
[Optional] What to look for in the upcoming Missile Defense Review,
Aaron Mehta, Defense News, January 11, 2019 [2 min]
https://www.defensenews.com/pentagon/2019/01/11/what-to-look-for-in-the-upcoming-missile-defense-review/
NOTE: Reading the article is optional — did you pay attention to the general\’s explanation of countermeasures against missile defense?
[Optional] Trump pushes for a major expansion of US missile defense systems,
Fox News, January 17, 2019 [3 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rw_KAhEyoGg
In the Eye of a Geopolitical Storm: South Korea’s Lotte Group, China and the U.S. THAAD Missile Defense System,
Dr. Brian Tilley, Harvard University, December 11, 2017
https://scholar.harvard.edu/briantilley/publications/eye-geopolitical-storm-south-korea%E2%80%99s-lotte-group-china-and-us-thaad-missile
CONTACT INFORMATION (Coach Bill):
Bill Eddy,
coachbill@magnetacademy.com
714.655.8135 (I prefer text)
When contacting me, please include your name and class information (day/time). Thanks!
AFF: Undermining Dterence Threatens Peace (ex. MDR = Abandoning M.A.D.)
S: According too… Prof. Benjamin Zala, Nuclear Security Fellow, Harvard University, The Hill, January 25, 2019.
[Prof. Benjamin Zala is a Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow in the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School, Missile Defense Review makes the U.S. less safe, The Hill, January 25, 2019, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/426392-missile-defense-review-makes-us-less-safe]
Q: He states…
But Americans should be concerned about the missile defenses being deployed today. This seemingly innocuous system of radars, tracking technology and interceptors undermines stability in Washington’s strategic relations with Moscow and Beijing. Defending against attack flies in the face of the idea of mutually-assured destruction, the idea reluctantly embraced during the Cold War (and after), to lower the risks of nuclear first strikes. Both sides being equally vulnerable to nuclear retaliation means that neither has the incentive to strike first. Developing missile defenses, by definition, means abandoning the concept of mutual vulnerability. But this has been glossed over too easily in debates over the issue. If the United States can defend against a nuclear retaliation, what is it that is going to deter Washington from attacking first? Goodwill? Unending benevolence even during military crises? It may seem counterintuitive, but having the advantage of striking first is not good for American security.
F: What the author is telling us…
C: This means…
AFF: ???
S: According to… Dr. Laura Grego, Senior Scientist for the Global Security Program, Scientific American, April 24, 2018
[Dr. Laura Grego, Senior Scientist for the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Faulty and Dangerous Logic of Missile Defense, Scientific American, April 24, 2018, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-faulty-and-dangerous-logic-of-missile-defense/]
Q: She states…
Given North Korea’s pursuit of a nuclear-armed long-range missile, it seems reasonable to ask whether something isn’t better than nothing. That sounds plausible but does not hold up upon closer examination. The unconstrained pursuit of missile defenses can, perhaps counterintuitively, create even greater risks. For example, a belief that missile defense works better than it does can lead political and military leaders to adopt a more aggressive foreign policy and take more risks. U.S. officials regularly describe the system as much more capable than it has been demonstrated to be. Even President Trump stated on television last October that “We have missiles that can knock out a missile in the air 97 percent of the time.” Yet the testing data show there is no basis to expect interceptors to work more than 40 to 50 percent of the time even under the most generous and easiest conditions.
F: What the author is telling us…
C: This means…
AFF: AMD = Stimulating Dangerous “Arms Race” [3-4 words to describe the “fact”]
S: According to… Joe Cirincione, Expert in Nuclear Weapons, PBS Newshour, January 17, 2019.
[Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, Expert in Nuclear Weapons, Trump’s new plans for missile defense may spark arms race, critics say, PBS Newshour, January 17, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uz-4dK8taU]
Q: He states… [underline the key points]
Is that a good policy?
JOE CIRINCIONE: No, it\’s not. And it\’s very different from what the report said. The report itself is fairly modest. That\’s because it doesn\’t have much to build on. The existing system we have, a few dozen interceptors in the frozen tundra of Alaska, doesn\’t work. And the rest of the concepts are just view graphs and ideas. But what President Trump said dramatically expands the scope of this program, and that makes it dangerous. It turns it from a regional program designed to defeat a few primitive missiles from a small nation to one that\’s global in scope to defeat any missile anywhere launched by anybody. That would take major technological breakthroughs, decades of work and trillions of dollars. And the worst part is, it stimulates the very thing it\’s supposed to prevent, a new arms race. What\’s the response of China and Russia? To cower? To retreat? No. They will do what we do. They will build more weapons to overcome our defense. That\’s the dynamic of an arms race.
F: What the author is telling us… [Fact: Summarize the above underlines]
Missile defense does not work effectively; it requires technologies we do not currently have, decades of research, and trillions of tax dollars. By expanding it from a regional to global defense, it provokes Russia and China into a new arms race with them building more weapons to overcome our defense.
C: This means… [Opinion: Explain why we should care about the above fact]
Billions of people around the world will be put in grave danger as powerful nations develop weapons capable of destroying cities, but the potential annihilation of the entire world!
T: AMD = Stimulating Dangerous “Arms Race” [3-4 words to describe the “fact”]
S: According to… Joe Cirincione, Expert in Nuclear Weapons, PBS Newshour, January 17, 2019.
[Joe Cirincione, President of the Ploughshares Fund, Expert in Nuclear Weapons, Trump’s new plans for missile defense may spark arms race, critics say, PBS Newshour, January 17, 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uz-4dK8taU]
Q: He states… [underline the key points]
Is that a good policy?
JOE CIRINCIONE: No, it\’s not. And it\’s very different from what the report said. The report itself is fairly modest. That\’s because it doesn\’t have much to build on. The existing system we have, a few dozen interceptors in the frozen tundra of Alaska, doesn\’t work. And the rest of the concepts are just view graphs and ideas. But what President Trump said dramatically expands the scope of this program, and that makes it dangerous. It turns it from a regional program designed to defeat a few primitive missiles from a small nation to one that\’s global in scope to defeat any missile anywhere launched by anybody. That would take major technological breakthroughs, decades of work and trillions of dollars. And the worst part is, it stimulates the very thing it\’s supposed to prevent, a new arms race. What\’s the response of China and Russia? To cower? To retreat? No. They will do what we do. They will build more weapons to overcome our defense. That\’s the dynamic of an arms race.
F: What the author is telling us… [Fact: Summarize the above underlines]
Missile defense does not work effectively; it requires technologies we do not currently have, decades of research, and trillions of tax dollars. By expanding it from a regional to global defense, it provokes Russia and China into a new arms race with them building more weapons to overcome our defense.
C: This means… [Opinion: Explain why we should care about the above fact]
Billions of people around the world will be put in grave danger as powerful nations develop weapons capable of destroying cities, but the potential annihilation of the entire world!