Go to the Foreign Affairs home page

Published by the Council on Foreign Relations

Search Archives

Advanced Search



Home

The Current Issue

Background On The News

Browse By Topic

Book Reviews

Back Issues

Academic Resource Program

Subscribe to Foreign Affairs

Search


About Foreign Affairs
Subscriber Services
Newsstand Finder
Permisssions
Advertising
Sponsored Sections
International Editions
Site Map
Contact Us

CFR.org

BACKGROUNDER: The U.S. Financial Regulatory System
October 2, 2008

INTERVIEW: 'No Clear Winner' in First Presidential Debate
September 29, 2008

INTERVIEW: Bhutan's Road to Democracy
September 25, 2008


William G. HylandIn Memoriam: William G. Hyland
Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy IndexConfidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index
How to Promote Global HealthHow to Promote Global Health
What Now?Roundtable on the Iraq Study Group Report
9/11: A Roundtable9/11:
A Roundtable
Complete list »

Star Wars Strikes Back

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 1999

Article preview: first 500 of 4,946 words total.

Summary:  Ronald Reagan's dream never died; it only faded slightly. Star Wars is still with us in a scaled-back form. Although theater missile defenses -- popularized by the Gulf War's Patriots -- are now widely accepted, debate still rages over a nationwide system. Republicans worry about rogue states and terrorists with nukes, Democrats worry about angering Russia and violating treaty obligations, and neither side listens to the other. America is pouring billions of dollars into research and development, ignoring the fundamental flaws that missile defense has yet to overcome.

Michael O'Hanlon is Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution and Adjunct Professor at Columbia and Georgetown Universities. He is completing a book entitled Technological Change and the Future of Warfare.

THE PHANTOM MENACE OR A NEW HOPE?

Star Wars the movie may have enjoyed a comeback this year. But inside the defense community, Star Wars never left us. Unfortunately, neither have the polemics surrounding it; missile defense remains as controversial as ever. That may not have mattered much in the past, when missile-defense technology was too immature to make deployment practical. But there could soon be real consequences if the debate remains mired in ideology.

To understand the arguments and the stakes involved, a few definitions are essential. Ballistic missile defenses fall into two main categories: theater and national, designed to intercept short-range and long-range missiles, respectively. The United States now deploys a version of theater missile defense (TMD) -- the Patriot -- but does not yet operate more advanced TMD systems or a national missile defense (NMD) of any kind.

TMD and NMD use similar technologies: satellite-based infrared sensors that detect and track missile launches, radar that follows incoming threats and guides interceptors to them, and the interceptor missiles themselves. Eventually both may also include airborne and space-based lasers -- although such devices remain early in the laboratory stage today (a point recently reaffirmed by the Pentagon's chief scientist and its director of testing). But the similarities between TMD and NMD end there. For while TMD enjoys wide support in the American policy debate, NMD (or strategic defense) remains hotly contentious.

The popularity of TMD stems from its role in the 1991 Gulf War. Saddam Hussein fired about 90 Scud missiles at Israel and Saudi Arabia during the war -- killing 28 U.S. soldiers in their barracks near Dhahran and terrifying Israeli civilians. The early variant of the Patriot system deployed against him (designed more to shoot down airplanes than missiles) did not actually stop many Scuds. But it helped avert an Israeli retaliatory strike that might have fractured the U.S.-led coalition. The Patriot has been improved since the Gulf War, and is soon to be upgraded further. Other TMD programs are advancing, albeit in fits and starts, and their political support remains strong.

NMD, by contrast, remains technologically less developed and ideologically more fractured. Missile-defense enthusiasts, most of them Republicans, want above all else to protect America from direct attack. Arms controllers, most of them Democrats, consider reducing and securing nuclear armories and improving U.S.-Russian relations to be paramount, and worry that deployment of NMD would seriously threaten those goals. Each side voices valid concerns. But neither seems to acknowledge, or seriously wrestle with, the legitimate concerns of the other.

President Clinton has wisely tried to apply his instincts for finding a "third way" to resolve the controversy. In 1997, the administration devised an NMD-development program and then funded it robustly -- admittedly, after considerable congressional prodding. But while seeming to take initiative, the Clinton administration has actually passed the buck. Since NMD technology is not yet up to the job, deployment is out of the question; the administration has not actually had to do anything more ...

End of preview: first 500 of 4,946 words total.

— ADVERTISEMENT —

— ADVERTISEMENT —