FP Logo Your portal to global politics, economics, and ideas
FP Logo
Article Index
Search Site
FP Archive article
free registration required
back issue only
Home
Search Site
FP Archive
Article Index
FP e-Alert
Breaking Global News
Worldwide Links
Idea Feed
Country Intelligence
Free FP e-Alert
Submit Free FP e-Alert
More Info
Academic Program
Current Article

The article you requested is only available to FP subscribers. A short excerpt is provided here for your reference. Log on or purchase Archive access below to read the full story.

National Missile Defense: Is There Another Way?
By John Deutch, Harold Brown, John P. White
Summer 2000

After years of contentious debate, President Clinton is close to deciding whether to proceed with the deployment of a national missile defense (NMD) system. The proposed system—designed to defend the United States against limited intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) attacks—would consist of 100 interceptor missiles based in Alaska, supported by one acquisition radar and five early-warning radars. A possible second phase of the system would add 100 interceptors and a second acquisition radar (probably in Grand Forks, North Dakota), and would eventually network the radars with space-based infrared sensors. This system would be initially operational in 2005 and would reach full operational capability in 2008. Its deployment would either violate or require major changes to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the United States and Russia.

The president has indicated that he will base his decision on four factors: the nature and projected timing of the threat (based in part on a new National Intelligence Estimate); the technical readiness of the system for deployment (determined in part by a test scheduled for June 26); the affordability of the system; and the impact of deployment on arms control treaties and relations with Russia, China, and U.S. allies.

We believe that an NMD system is critical to the United States' future homeland defense. However, the system under consideration is not the best approach for initial deployment and fails to address several threats that the United States now faces. We propose an alternative approach...


Read the Full Story!


Free and unlimited access is available to all active FP subscribers. Non-subscribers can gain instant access by subscribing to FP or by purchasing a 24-hour or 7-day pass.

If you are a current subscriber or an FP passholder, please log in here:

Username:

Password:
Remember my login information on this computer.

If you are a subscriber, but don't have login information, click here to register now.

Forgot your username or password? Enter your e-mail address below and we'll send you your login information.

E-mail:

Subscribe Now

Not a subscriber? SUBSCRIBE NOW for instant access to all FP content! You'll get 6 insightful issues of FP and complete archive access for $19.95!

Passes

Buy this article for $0.00 USD

Buy a 24-hour Pass for just $7.95 USD.

Buy a 7-day Pass for just $24.95 USD.


 

Shop at FP
Subscribe to FP
Login
Username
Password


 
 
FP Logo
1899 L Street NW, Suite 550 | Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group, a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
Site design by bevia.com; Programming by Enovational Design