President Joe Biden has his work cut out for him on the issue of missile defense.
The new president must have the courage to challenge the idea that has animated our missile defense strategy for so long – that more is better! Biden will have to decide what to do with the decision of the Donald Trump administration to expand the United States’ missile defense system with new sea-based missiles that can shoot down long-range ballistic missiles.
Missile defense systems look good on the surface. Advocates claim they make offensive missiles obsolete by ensuring a quality defense. However, this scenario does not play out the way advocates claim. Investing in missile defense means your adversaries will try and build even more missiles to overpower your missile defense systems, current events prove this. The Trump supported Aegis Standard Missile-3 Block IIA may help mitigate the threat from North Korea, but Russia and China are countering our move with building more sophisticated offensive nuclear missile systems to overwhelm our defenses!
One of the positive developments of the Soviet Russia/United States detente of the 1970’s was the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Both sides agreed to tap strategic missile interceptors to no more than 100 on each side. This led to steep reductions in the U.S. and Soviet nuclear forces. However, the George W. Bush administration left the ABM Treaty in 2002.
Leaving the ABM Treaty was a mistake, as it caused a rupture in the post-Cold War relationship between the U.S. and Russia which had already gone sour when the Bill Clinton administration extended the North Atlantic Treaty Organization into eastern Europe. In the post-ABM era, missile defense policy has placed a certain amount of emphasis on threats from rouge states like North Korea. Trump’s policy placed this idea on steroids in attempting “to further thicken defensive capabilities for the U.S. homeland” to defend against rouge states. Trump declared his goal was to “ensure we can detect and destroy any missile launched against the United States anywhere, anytime, anyplace.” The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2021 defense budget called for $180 million to adapt the Aegis missile defense system and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system to intercept ICBMs.
Cooler heads in the defense establishment have voiced opposition to the Trump approach. James Miller, former undersecretary of defense for policy and a Biden advisor, said that if the SM Block IIA missile becomes a permanent part of our security strategy then “we should expect the Chinese nuclear arsenal to grow substantially and for and Russia to resist reductions – and to prepare seriously to break out,” said reports.
Arms Control Association Executive Director Daryl Kimball said in his story “Missile Defense and the Arms Race” said that the Biden administration should not size its missile defense systems against the sophisticated arsenals of China and Russia. This is just the first step in arms control efforts, as Russia has stated further offensive nuclear cuts are impossible without limits in U.S. missile defense. Russia has also stated that its efforts to develop new intercontinental-range nuclear delivery systems such as underseas torpedo, hypersonic glide vehicles, and nuclear-powered cruise missiles are designed to overcome U.S. missile defenses.
China has already started to respond to our missile defense program by diversifying its nuclear strike capabilities, including by increasing the number of silo-based ICBMs that are armed with multiple warheads. Our efforts to downsize Russia’s arsenal and bring China into some sort of arms control regime means we must cut our missile defense program! The first hurdle is for our county to move away from the idea that there should never be any limits on our missile defense.
The U.S. is rolling through a tough moment in its history with political polarization and polarization in areas such as race and class. Millions cannot cope with a thousand-dollar emergency and many still lack healthcare. Considering those economic facts, the U.S. should not engage in an unnecessary and expensive arms race!
Jason Sibert is Executive Director of the Peace Economy Project.