"Would the deployment of a National Missile Defence System destabilise the international system, or should it be pursued?"

Authors Avatar

IP 36620 – Strategy in the Nuclear Age

Coursework Essay:

“Would the Deployment of a National Missile Defence System Destabilise the International System, or Should it Be Pursued?”

(1,627 Words)

Pages: 10

Student Number: 010800186

Contents

Page 1 – Contents

Page 2 – Abstract

Page 3-8 - Would the Deployment of a National Missile Defence System Destabilise the International System, or Should it Be Pursued?

Page 9 – Bibliography


Abstract

This essay argues that the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is a relic of the Cold War, unsuited to the geo-political realities of today.  The introduction of a National Missile Defence system would not destabilise the international system; East-West relations have moved beyond what they were in 1972, the modern threat is very different to what it was in the Cold War, and the logic of Mutually Assured Destruction can not safeguard against contemporary dangers to Western Security.


Would the Deployment of a National Missile Defence System Destabilise the International System, or Should it Be Pursued?

The debate about National Missile Defence (NMD) centres on the significance or irrelevance of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABMT) between the United States and the Soviet Union, which restricted the deployment of continent-wide defences against ballistic missiles.  The ABMT was negotiated at a time of the Cold War when the introduction of a defence system into nuclear relations would almost certainly have antagonised the arms race.  However, the AMBT is a Cold War relic, unsuited to the geo-political realities of today.  The negotiators of the treaty could envisage such a situation developing and this is why the ABMT contains an opt-out clause.  It is under this clause that the United States has exercised its rite to withdraw from the treaty following a six-month notice period (this notice period will terminate in June 2003 and the US will be free from its obligations under the treaty).

The threat of nuclear attack has changed.  The United States is not attempting to defend against a large-scale, calculated attack from Russia (or indeed, China).  Rather, and this is particularly true since the September 11th 2001 attacks, the main concern is with potential ‘Rogue’ states.  Such Rogue states pose the highest threat of a deliberate attack against the United States, nevertheless, rogue states are not the only threat that the United States may potentially face in the post-Cold War era.  The nuclear arsenals inherited by the Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belorussia demonstrate that despite a (former) Superpower’s efforts, the security of nuclear weapons can not be guaranteed.  This could have very dire consequences.  Incidents of state-sponsored terrorism are well documented - the Iranian government has long provided support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) for example.  A deterrent relationship may have maintained stability between the Cold War Superpowers, but it would be highly unlikely to work against a terrorist organisation with no fixed territorial entity/assets to threaten with a retaliatory strike.  Past terrorist activity also demonstrates that terrorists’ rationale does not necessarily match that of states’ political elites – Palestinian suicide bombers and the September 11th 2001 attacks both demonstrate that many terrorists are prepared to die for their cause.  A threatened retaliatory strike would not work against such a threat; NMD would prevent such a scenario from occurring in the first place.

Join now!

The ABMT possesses no capacity to defend against an accidental launch from a nuclear capable state.  NMD provides states with an alternative option to such a problem, allowing the United States to defend against an attack, consider all the options that it faced, and react appropriately.  Without such a defensive option, the US may believe that the deterrence relationship had failed and that it was now facing a security problem (imminent attack from an adversary). As a result, the US may attempt to launch a nuclear retaliation strike; in order to pre-empt any second wave of attack that it ...

This is a preview of the whole essay