Missile Defense and National Security: The Need to Sustain a Balanced Approach

• Published in: Comparative strategy 2009-01, Vol.28 (1), p.1-9
• Main Authors: Crouch, J. D., Joseph, Robert, Payne, Keith B., Roehl, Jayson
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Defence policy; Defense Policy; Deterrence; Guided missiles; International relations; International security; International society; Investment; Military deployment; Military technology; Missile defense; Missiles; National defense; National Security; Nuclear Weapons; Rogue states; Technology; Threat; Threats; United States; United States of America; Weapons of mass destruction
• ISSN: 0149-5933; 1521-0448
• DOI: 10.1080/01495930802679678

The key missile defense questions facing policymakers today are what kind of systems should be fielded and to what extent should investments be made in future missile defense technologies. In recent years, some have argued that more investments are needed to counter theater-range missile threats, even if such investments come at the expense of developing future capabilities. On the surface, this approach seems reasonable given the sizable increase in the number of short-range ballistic missiles around the world. However, such an approach could undermine the U.S.' ability to defend against an adversary that might not be deterred by offensive forces alone. Moreover, it would not provide a meaningful capability in the long term that could dissuade an adversary from investing in ballistic missiles in the first place. This paper argues that the United States can achieve the deterrence and defense objectives set out for its missile defense forces only by sustaining a program that is balanced between the deployment of nearterm defenses and the development of advanced technologies, and between the fielding of defenses against theater-range threats and long-range threats to the American homeland.