For much of the past 20 years, a consensus has existed across Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses about fielding national missile defenses to counter unpredictable nuclear-armed regimes like North Korea and, potentially, Iran. Before walking away from this, there are a number of considerations to make that inform the case for sustaining and improving homeland missile defense as North Korean missile threats increase.
48 items, Page 1 of 5
Russia's air and missile campaign is likely to backfire, steeling Ukraine’s resolve and prompting greater support from the West.
We have made important progress with homeland missile defense, but today we risk falling further behind the threat.
The Missile Defense Review sets “the stage for a high-stakes policy debate between those who value missile defense as an enabler of US grand strategy, and those who fear enhanced missile defense may start an arms race with Russia and China,” write Walter Slocombe and Robert Soofer.
The Biden administration is expected to release its first budget request for FY 2022 in May. The request marks the first budget since FY 2011 that is not subject to the discretionary spending limits imposed by the Budget Control Act. While the defense budget request for FY 2022 was developed predominantly under the previous administration,...
The decision to reject congressional oversight on HBTSS increases institutional uncertainty at a time when stable funding and management is critical.
Offense-defense integration will not be a panacea, but it will be critical to a realistic and cost-effective way to contend with modern missile threats.
Absent any effort to expand or modernize GMD, homeland missile defense will likely fall behind current threats while NGI matures.
Limitations on the Houthi missile arsenal will be a necessary component of any lasting peace.
After five years, hundreds of long- and short-range missiles fired, and more than 160 missile-defense intercepts, it’s time to take stock.