The science, technology, and politics of ballistic missile defense

Abstract

America's missile defense systems are deployed at home and abroad. This includes the Groundbased Missile Defense (GMD) system in Alaska and California, the Phased Adaptive Approach in Europe (EPAA), and regional systems in the Middle East and Asia. Unfortunately these systems lack workable architectures, and many of the required elements either don't work or are missing. Major review and reconsideration is needed of all elements of these systems. GMD performance in tests has gotten worse with time, when it ought to be getting better. A lack of political support is not to blame as the DoD spends about $10 billion per year, and proposes to add about $5 billion over the next five years. Russia objects to the EPAA as a threat to its ICBM forces, and to the extensive deployment of U.S. military forces in countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Romania, once part of the Soviet Union. Going forward the U.S. should keep working with Russia whose cooperation will be key to diplomatic gains in the Middle East and elsewhere. Meanwhile, America's missile defenses face an enduring set of issues, especially target discrimination in the face of attacks designed to overwhelm the defenses, stage separation debris, chaff, decoys, and stealth. Dealing with target discrimination while also replacing, upgrading, or adding to the many elements of U.S. missiles defenses presents daunting budget priorities. A new look at the threat is warranted, and whether the U.S. needs to consider every nation that possesses even short-range missiles a threat to America. The proliferation of missiles of all sizes around the world is a growing problem, but expecting U.S. missile defenses to deal with all those missiles everywhere is unrealistic, and U.S. missile defenses, effective or not, are justifying more and more offensive missiles.