By Justin Baker
May 2010
Imagine an almost paradoxical dynamic whereby the state with the greatest defense posed the greatest threat to international strategic stability. In this dynamic, wars will no longer be won or lost based on the offensive prowess of the advancing military; rather, they will be won or lost based on a nation’s ability to nullify offensive superweapons with an impenetrable defense shield. During the mid-to-late 20th century, this dynamic was more of a fantasy-in-development than it was an operational and effective system.
During the Cold War’s détente era (1962-79), the United States accelerated an ambitious effort to address the threats posed by the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and the tactical ballistic missile (TBM). Building from the lackluster Nike Hercules missile system of the 1950s, the United States developed the Nike Zeus missile system with limited success. This continuous programmatic evolution culminated with the development of the Army Air Defense System which, in the 1970s, was renamed the PATRIOT Air Defense Missile System.1 However, in May 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Treaty (ABM Treaty), severely restricting the deployment of ABM systems to two domestic locations per nation. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the ABM treaty lost much (if not all) of its efficacy and the Western world finally witnessed an end to the decades-long nuclear arms race that enveloped the world in the Cold War.2 With 21st century advances in GPS, microprocessors, and laser-guided weaponry, a new arms race is now emerging – one that compels nations to cooperate on a hemispheric level by deploying a global missile defense system.
With the United States pioneering the regionalization of missile defense, select global powers (most notably Russia) initially feared that the regional proliferation of missile defense systems directly threatened the strategic stability of the international arena. According to a 2002 CRS report National Missile Defense: Russia’s Reaction, Russian officials explicitly feared that the proliferation of missile defense systems posed a direct and immediate threat to international strategic stability.3 These threats to the global balance of power struck at the hearts of core neorealists who feared that distortions in the ‘just equilibrium’ (i.e. a disproportionate shift in the balance of power) would not mitigate but incite international conflict.
Despite fervent Russian opposition, the United States under President George W. Bush continued to deploy Raytheon’s MM-104 PATRIOT missile system in the territories of six NATO allies (primarily European) and eight non-NATO nations. During his second term, President Bush attempted to expand U.S. missile defense systems into Poland and the Czech Republic, whereby Moscow responded by blasting the U.S. for attempting to unilaterally shift the balance of power.4
In September of 2009, the Obama administration dispensed with Bush’s plans to expand missile defense into Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, Obama has pushed for expansions into Bulgaria and Romania, prompting Moscow to seek inclusion in a NATO-led missile defense system. In an April interview with the Danish Broadcasting Corporation, Russian President Medvedev expressed his desire to participate in this system of global missile defense, as it must protect “all responsible participants of the international society.”5 More recently, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov cautioned that “cooperation needs to be from A to Z: to the end… We will assess the threats together, evaluate the risks together, and begin creating a defense system together.”6 After an April 2010 summit in Estonia, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the United States have expressed optimism that substantial missile defense talks will involve Russia in the coming months.7
However, Moscow warns that an attempt by the U.S. to significantly expand its own missile defense would compel Russia to exit any prospective agreements. Still, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov affirmed in an April 2010 interview that Obama’s current plans for missile defense expansion posed little-to-no threat to the national security interests of Russia.8
With these new developments, it seems as though the prospect of a global missile shield is compelling world powers to come together and cooperate on common defense. Nations that fall under the auspices of this defense shield must now consolidate their security interests by becoming dependent on mutual cooperation among shielded nations. While the Cold War divided the East and the West, the prospect of a Russo-American global defense shield may, at last, catalyze a mutually beneficial partnership between both regions.
Works Cited
1 Cirincione, J. (n.d.). Brief History of Ballistic Missile Defense and Current Programs in the United States. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=133
2 ABM Treaty 1972. (n.d.). U.S. Department of State. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/abm/abm2.html
3 Woolf, A. (2002). National Missile Defense: Russia’s Reaction. Congressional Research Service: Library of Congress, RL30967, 1-20.
4 BBC NEWS | Europe: US Missile Defense. (2009, September 20). BBC NEWS | News Front Page. Retrieved May 4, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6720153.stm
5 Novosti. (n.d.). Moscow expects U.S. reaction to missile defense system by year end. ‘RIA Novosti’ newswire. Retrieved May 18, 2010, from http://en.rian.ru/russia/201005
6 Ibid
7 Associated Press. (n.d.). NATO chief urges U.S.-Russia missile link – Europe- msnbc.com. MSNBC World news. Retrieved May 9, 2010, from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32910142/ns/world_news-europe/