The National Missile Defense Debate in the Post 9-11 Context
Abstract
The National Missile Defense (NMD) debate has raged for nearly sixty years. Generations of proponents and opponents have presented plausible arguments both for and against an NMD system, with a common and timeless thread running through them. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 changed the world as Americans know it, to include their stance on some national security issues. The question this analysis seeks to answer is whether the September 11 terrorist attacks bear any effect on the NMD debate. If so, does the weight of the argument fall to the proponents or opponents of a NMD system, or do the strikes have little to no effect at all on the debate? This study is limited in historical research because the attacks occurred within seven months of this writing. Therefore, the majority of research support relies on original thought and living resources. That said, one can learn much from history, especially considering the debate is not a new one. It is the intent of this paper to lay a foundation for the debate by reaching into the annals of missile and homeland defense that stretch as far back as the immediate aftermath of World War II, marking the birth of the missile shield idea. With this as a base, the analysis transitions through the Reagan and Clinton years, before culminating in an examination of the current debate in light of the terrorist attacks in an effort to answer the root question. The study yields the conclusion that an NMD system is indeed vital to the security of the United States, at least in a limited capacity to defend against a small salvo of missiles. The attacks of September 11 clearly amplify the need for a limited defense, as the face of the enemy has changed.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Apr 01, 2002
- Accession Number
- ADA420529
Entities
People
- Richard B. Van Hook
Organizations
- Air University