US missile shield buckling under China, Russia, and North Korea

US missile shield buckling under China, Russia, and North Korea

Facing critical challenges of outdated technology, escalating costs and strategic vulnerabilities

Gabriel Honrada from Asia Times reports…

US missile defenses face mounting criticism as outdated systems and limited interceptors struggle to counter an evolving barrage of nuclear threats.

This month, the Atlantic Council released a report arguing that US missile defenses are insufficient against nuclear-armed adversaries such as China, Russia and North Korea.

The report states that while the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Missile Defense Review advocates staying ahead of North Korea’s missile capabilities while relying on strategic deterrence against China and Russia, this approach is insufficient due to the increasing sophistication and number of missile threats.

While the report says that the Biden Administration’s plan to increase ground-based interceptors (GBIs) by 2028 is seen as a step forward, it raises concerns about strategic stability with China and Russia. The report calls for a layered missile defense system, integrating advanced technologies and offensive measures to prevent missile launches.

It also stresses the importance of protecting US nuclear forces and command and control systems to ensure deterrence.

The report recommends increasing missile defense funding to one percent of the annual defense budget and enhancing transparency with China and Russia to mitigate arms race concerns. It says the ultimate goal is to create a robust defense system that complicates adversaries’ attack plans and reassures US allies.

The report concludes that US national security and its ability to project power globally could be significantly undermined without addressing these threats.

US missile defense may not have been a priority since the Reagan Administration. In 1983, the Reagan Administration unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a futuristic multi-layered space-based missile defense system. However, SDI was criticized for its exorbitant costs and the fact that it could not be tested without a nuclear attack.

The idea of guarding against a nuclear attack also went against the concept of deterrence, incentivizing a Soviet first strike before the US could complete the system. US interest in the SDI waned when the Reagan Administration ended and when the START I Treaty was signed in 1991.

Further, Robert Peters and Keara Gentry mention in a June 2024 Heritage Foundation report that despite over USD 170 billion spent in the past two decades, US missile defense capability has remained essentially unchanged since 2004.

Peters and Gentry point out that the 44 GBIs the US has may be insufficient to defeat a limited nuclear strike on the US mainland and future threats. They also say increasing the number of GBIs would cost $90 million each — a costly endeavor.

While the next-generation interceptor (NGI) program aims to bolster US  missile defense, a June 2024 report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) mentions that the program faces risks due to overlapping design and production activities, optimistic scheduling and increased costs from supply chain issues.

The GAO report says that the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not fully addressed technical risks or updated threat-related performance requirements, raising concerns about the program’s ability to meet its 2028 fielding deadline…

Continue this analysis at Asia Times

Header featured image (edited) credit: Depiction of Chinese missiles attacking the US Navy. Image: Chinese Internet

••••

••••

Stay tuned tuned…

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*