The Bush Administration has substantially altered the debate over missile defenses. The Administration requested significant funding increases for missile defense programs (about 61 percent above that approved by Congress for FY2001), 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, and announced U.S. withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty. Critics 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 twenty years. Moreover, they argue that the technology for effective missile defense remains immature, that deployment is 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 major powers will view U.S. missile defense as an attempt at strategic domination and that some, such as China, will expand its missile capabilities in response. The Bush Administration's plans raise a number of issues, many of which are examined in this report. The issues that have received attention in the 107th Congress, are: 1) U.S. compliance with the ABM Treaty and now the announced withdrawal from the Treaty; 2) a new acquisition concept for developing missile defense that does not lend itself readily to oversight, system definition, or cost and effectiveness analysis; and, 3) the restructuring of existing missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency (formerly BMDO).


    Access

    Access via TIB

    Check availability in my library


    Export, share and cite



    Title :

    Missile Defense: The Current Debate


    Contributors:

    Publication date :

    2002


    Size :

    58 pages


    Type of media :

    Report


    Type of material :

    No indication


    Language :

    English