Ballistic Missile Defence

Should the US deploy ballistic-missile defences? The arguments for and against are becoming increasingly polarised. This paper offers what is currently lacking in the debate: a quantitative analysis of how well defences would have to work to meet specific security objectives, and what level of defence might upset strategic stability.

Should the US deploy ballistic-missile defences? The arguments for and against are becoming increasingly polarised. This paper offers what is currently lacking in the debate: a quantitative analysis of how well defences would have to work to meet specific security objectives, and what level of defence might upset strategic stability.

Defense against nuclear attack—so natural and seemingly so compelling a goal—has provoked debate for at least twenty years. Ballistic missle defense systems, formerly called antiballistic missile systems, offer the prospect of remedying both superpowers' alarming vulnerability to nuclear weapons by technological rather than political means. But whether ballistic missile defenses can be made to work and whether it is wise to build them remain controversial. The U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 restricts testing and deployment of ballistic missile defenses but has not prohibited more than a decade of research and development on both sides. As exotic new proposals are put forward for space-based directed-energy systems, questions about the effectiveness and wisdom of missile defense have again become central to the national debate on defense policy. This study, jointly sponsored by the Brookings Institution and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, examines the strategic, technological, and political issues raised by ballistic missile defense. Eight contributors take an analytical approach to their areas of expertise, which include the relationship of missile defense to nuclear strategy, the nature and potential applications of current and future technologies, the views on missile defense in the Soviet Union and among the smaller nuclear powers, the meaning of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty for today's technology, and the present role and historical legacy of ballistic missile defense in the context of East-West relations. The volume editors give a comprehensive introduction to this wide range of subjects and an assessment of future prospects. In the final chapter, nine knowledgeable observers offer their varied personal views on the ballistic missile defense question.

Examines the ways in which views of technology have been used in debates over ballistic missile defence.

As ballistic missile technology proliferates, and as ballistic missile defenses are deployed by both the Russian Federation and the United States, it is increasingly important for these two countries to seek ways to reap the benefits of systems that can protect their own national security interests against limited missile attacks from third countries without undermining the strategic balance that the two governments maintain to ensure stability. Regional Ballistic Missile Defense in the Context of Strategic Stability examines both the technical implications of planned missile defense deployments for Russian and U.S. strategic deterrents and the benefits and disadvantages of a range of options for cooperation on missile defense.

Since the mid-1950s, successive Canadian governments have grappled with the issue of Canada’s participation in US ballistic missile defence programs. Until Paul Martin’s Liberal government finally said no, policy-makers responded to US initiatives with fear and uncertainty as they endlessly debated the implications - at home and abroad - of participation. However, whether this is the end of the story remains to be seen. Drawing on previously classified government documents and interviews with senior officials, James Fergusson assesses Canada’s policy deliberations and rationales for avoiding a definitive commitment in response to five major US initiatives. He reveals that a combination of factors resulted in indecision: weak leadership, wrangling between the Departments of External Affairs and National Defence, a belief that the United States would defend Canada without much Canadian participation, and a tendency to place uncertain and ill-defined notions of international security before national defence. Successive Canadian governments have failed to transform the debate over ballistic missile defence into an opportunity to define Canada’s strategic interests at home and on the world stage. Balanced and engaging, Canada and Ballistic Missile Defense offers the first full account of Canada’s uncertain response to US ballistic missile defence initiatives and an exploration of the implications of this indecision. It is essential reading for policy-makers, students, and scholars of Canadian foreign and defence policy as well as anyone who wants a fuller understanding of Canadian-American relations. Published in association with the Canadian War Museum.

Since the mid-1950s, successive Canadian governments have responded to US ballistic missile defence initiatives with fear and uncertainty. Officials have endlessly debated the implications – at home and abroad – of participation. Drawing on previously classified government documents and interviews with senior officials, James Fergusson offers the first full account of Canada’s unsure response to US initiatives. He reveals that factors such as weak leadership and a tendency to place uncertain and ill-defined notions of international peace and security before national defence have resulted in indecision. In the end, policy-makers have failed to transform the ballistic missile defence issue into an opportunity to define Canada’s strategic interests at home and on the world stage.