Roaring Mice and a Frightened Elephant: Why a Missile Defense Might Save the United States from the Evils of Rogue States

World Affairs ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 169 (3) ◽  
pp. 99-110
Author(s):  
Jo Jakobsen
2000 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Nathaniel J. Teti

Today, the United States stands alone as the world's sole superpower. Traditionally, this status and the nation's strategic location has served as an effective national defense. However, with the rise of new threats from rogue states, terrorists, and new powers, the United States must determine whether current national defense policy is sufficient in the world's changing political climate. This article examines the possibility of deploying a National Missile Defense system (NMD). The author suggests three policy alternatives and explores the concerns surrounding the issue. The alternatives include maintaining the status quo, implementing a limited program, or full deploying a full NMD system. The author discusses the difficulty in implementing NMD, but suggests that the changing climate calls for action.


2000 ◽  
Vol 99 (638) ◽  
pp. 285-289 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul H. B. Godwin ◽  
Evan S. Medeiros

“The United States and China must engage in some deep soul searching. What type of strategic stability does the United States seek with China? Is China a large rogue state whose strategic forces must be neutered by defensive systems, or is it a small Russia where strategic stability is achieved through mutual deterrence?”


Subject The Pentagon's recent Missile Defense Review. Significance President Donald Trump this month unveiled the first major review of US missile defence policy since 2010. Trump and his vice president have become staunch missile defence advocates, championing expansion in conjunction and coordination with efforts to create a Space Force. The ambitious effort outlined in the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Review this month would take the current, regionally focused missile defence programme and expand it so that it can, according to Trump, protect US nationals from missile attack, "anywhere, anytime, anyplace". Impacts US advances in defensive capabilities will trigger technological escalation as China and Russia move to improve offensive capabilities. Washington likely cannot afford to keep pace with potential adversaries' offensive capabilities because defensive capabilities cost more. If the United States overtly ‘weaponises’ space, other countries will follow. The demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty will bring a whole class of destabilising missiles back into the equation.


1999 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-142

We are here to discuss emerging threats to America's security as we reach a new century. How do we respond to the threat of terrorists around the world, turning from bullets and bombs to even more insidious and potent weapons? What if they and the rogue states that sponsor them try to attack the critical computer systems that drive our society? What if they seek to use chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons? The United States must deal with these emerging threats now, so that the instruments of prevention develop at least as rapidly as the instruments of disruption.


Author(s):  
J. Yu. Parshkova

The article reflects the US officials' point of view on the development of its national missile defense. The major threat to international security is the proliferation of ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The United States and the former Soviet Union made huge efforts to reduce and limit offensive arms. However, presently the proliferation of ballistic missiles spreads all over the world, especially in the Middle East, because of the ballistic missile technology falling into the hands of hostile non-state groups. Missile defenses can provide a permanent presence in a region and discourage adversaries from believing they can use ballistic missiles to coerce or intimidate the U.S. or its allies. With the possible attack regional missile defense systems will be promptly mobilized to enhance an effective deterrent. The ultimate goal of such large-scale missile defense deployment is to convince the adversaries that the use of ballistic missiles is useless in military terms and that any attack on the United States and its allies is doomed to failure. The United States has missile defense cooperative programs with a number of allies, including United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Israel, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and many others. The Missile Defense Agency also actively participates in NATO activities to maximize opportunities to develop an integrated NATO ballistic missile defense capability. The initiative of the development of US BMD naturally belongs to the United States. That country has enormous technological, financial, economic, military and institutional capabilities, exceeding by far those of the other NATO members combined.


2011 ◽  
Vol 161 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-181
Author(s):  
Paweł TURCZYŃSKI

It was in the 1970s when building anti-missile systems became technically possible. In the 1980s, R. Reagan had a vision of creating such a system covering the United States. After the Cold War was over, those projects were put to a halt, but as soon as fears of terrorist attacks increased, W. Clinton started developing them again, and after 9/11, G. Bush prioritized them. The US was quick to develop proper military technologies, but the concept of the National Missile Defense was often criticized. Other countries (Russia and many EU members) criticized Americans for disturbing the international power balance and the selective choice of participating countries. In 2009 B. Obama renounced previous projects and proposed creating an international system shielding many countries. This project was accepted by NATO members and Russia, but its final creation has been put off.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document