Suchergebnisse

THE UNITED STATES IS NOT PROTECTED FROM BALLISTIC MISSILE ATTACK. THE SUBJECT OF THIS ESSAY IS WHAT TO THINK ABOUT A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE. TOPICS COVERED ARE: SEMANTIC INFLITRATION; MUTUAL VULNERABILITY AND THE ABM TREATY; THE FUTURE OF SDI; AND MDA POLITICAL COMMITMENT. IT CONCLUDES THAT THE TIME FOR SDI IS NOW.

THE TACTICAL BALLISTIC MISSILE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE AND WILL NEVER BE PUT BACK IN. THERE WILL NEVER AGAIN BE A MID-INTENSITY OR HIGH-INTENSITY ARMED CONFLICT WITHOUT THE PROSPECT OF TACTICAL MISSILES. THEY ARE PROLIFERATED, AND THEY ARE PROLIFERATING. THIS ARTICLE EXPLORES THE LESSONS OFFERED BY THE GULF WAR, THE PROLIFERATION THREAT INCREASES, AND USING SPACE ASSETS.

The current stance of the Bush administration has renewed debate on the implications of national missile defense. While a large part of that debate concerns its technical and economic feasibility, there is also considerable debate concerning the ramifications of national missile defense for international peace and stability. Unfortunately, few studies have analyzed the implications of missile defense through the lens of deterrence theory. Those that have were based on classical deterrence theory, which is plagued by a variety of logical inconsistencies and empirical anomalies. Accordingly, I examine the implications of national missile defense for deterrence from the vantage point of an alternative theory of deterrence, perfect deterrence theory. The results indicate that national missile defense generally enhances the stability of deterrence; the greatest threat missile defense poses is causing dissatisfaction in potential challengers.

THE UNITED STATES APPEARS COMMITTED TO DEPLOYING A NATIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM. THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT THE BAD NEWS IS THAT IT WON'T WORK. THE WORSE NEWS IS THAT IT WILL UNDERMINE NONPROLIFERATION EFFORTS WORLDWIDE AND INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF NUCLEAR ATTACK.