Missile Defense: The Current Debate (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (45 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Revised Dec. 21, 2005 |
| Report Number |
RL31111 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Steven A. Hildreth, Andrew Feickert, Ronald O'Rourke, Daniel Morgan, Marcia S. Smith, Christopher Bolkcom, Gary J. Pagliano, Amy F. Woolf, John D. Moteff |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Revised July 19, 2005 (45 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised March 23, 2005 (55 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Dec. 7, 2004 (55 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Revised Aug. 21, 2003 (61 pages, $24.95)
add
-
Premium Feb. 25, 2002 (58 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The United States has pursued missile defenses since the dawn of the missile age shortly after
World
War II. The development and deployment of missile defenses has not only been elusive, but has
been one of the most divisive issues of the past generation until recent years.
The Bush Administration substantially altered the debate over missile defenses. The
Administration requested significant funding increases for missile defense programs, eliminated the
distinction between national and theater missile defense, restructured the missile defense program
to focus more directly on developing deployment options for a "layered" capability to intercept
missiles aimed at U.S. territory across the whole spectrum of their flight path, adopted a new, untried
development and acquisition strategy, announced U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-ballistic
Missile Treaty, and has deployed an initial national missile defense capability.
The Administration argued these steps were necessary in response to growing concerns over
the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, especially on the part of a
handful of potentially hostile states and terrorists. In addition, they asserted that U.S. deterrence
theory has outlived its usefulness and that conventional or nuclear deterrence could not be relied
upon to dissuade unstable leaders in rogue states.
Critics, however, take issue with assertions that the threat is increasing, citing evidence that the
number of nations seeking or possessing nuclear weapons has actually declined over the past 20
years. Moreover, they argue that the technology for effective missile defense remains immature, that
deployment can be provocative to allies, friends, and adversaries, and it is a budget-buster that
reduces the availability of funds to modernize and operate U.S. conventional military forces. They
argue especially that some major powers view U.S. missile defense as an attempt at strategic
domination and that other, such as China, will expand their missile capabilities in response.
This report will be updated as needed.
