Debate Desk
Is Missile Defense Destabilizing and a Plan America Should Abandon?
Defense against limited attack protects cities from rogue states and accidents, and no treaty can protect a city from a missile aimed at it.
The claim
Critics argue that defenses against ballistic missiles undermine deterrence by tempting a nation to believe it could strike first and survive, that rivals will respond with more weapons and that the technology is costly and unproven.
The answer in three points
- A government has a duty to protect its people, and having no defense against a missile launched by a rogue state or by accident is a choice to be vulnerable. Defense against limited attacks, such as North Korea's, saves lives that deterrence might not.
- Mutual assured destruction was never a moral ideal. It was a standoff that left both sides defenseless by design. A world that can defend against limited strikes gives leaders choices other than retaliation or surrender.
- The technology has improved. Interceptors have performed in tests and in combat, with Israel's systems intercepting large numbers of rockets and missiles, and American Navy ships have shot down ballistic missiles. Critics were right that early systems were unreliable, and the record since has improved, though costs are real.
A nation that cannot defend itself has to rely on the restraint of its enemies. A defense that can stop a few missiles gives presidents time and choices, and it reduces the temptation of rogue states to blackmail. The point is not to end deterrence but to add a layer to it.
The numbers
- The United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972, effective June 2002, according to the State Department.
- The Missile Defense Agency reports that the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system has been deployed since 2004 to defend against limited long-range threats from rogue states.
- The Israeli Defense Forces and the U.S. Navy used missile defense systems against ballistic and cruise missiles in 2024, according to official statements.
What they will say next
"Interceptors can be overwhelmed by cheaper decoys and numbers." True, and the offense has an advantage in cost against large forces. Defense is aimed at limited attacks, and at complicating an adversary's plans.
"China and Russia will build more." They are already building new missiles for their own reasons. A weaker defense would not slow that.
"The tests are staged." Some tests are scripted, and others are more realistic, and the track record has improved. Independent oversight helps.
"The money is better spent elsewhere." Money for defense should be weighed against other defense needs. The principle that a country should be able to defend its cities is sound.
A defense that works is a moral good, and one that can be improved should be.
"Defense could provoke a first strike." That worry is serious for a system that could defeat a massive attack, which no current system can. Limited defenses against small attacks do not change the balance between large powers and they remove incentives for rogue regimes to threaten blackmail.