By Michael Ruhle, Defense Opinion Writer.
President Trump’s plan to build a comprehensive missile defense system to protect the U.S. homeland is bound to evoke criticism, not least in Europe.
Like the debate that was sparked in the early 1980s by Ronald Reagan’s “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI), European critics will label missile defense technologically unachievable, prohibitively expensive, and, above all, militarily destabilizing .
Since SDI disappeared when Reagan left office, the question whether the U.S. could build a comprehensive missile defense, and whether this would have the catastrophic consequences predicted by the critics, remained unanswered.
Will the “Golden Dome” fare better? A comprehensive, multi-layered defense system to address threats from ballistic, hypersonic and advanced cruise missiles, “Golden Dome” seeks to incorporate a wide range of advanced technologies. Some of its space-based components promise the ability to intercept hostile missiles during their launch phase. This would mark a significant improvement over the United States’ existing ground-based missile defenses.
Technology has advanced considerably
It is obvious that the project’s name conjures the image of an impenetrable shield, which will remain unattainable. Yet irrespective of odd labels, defense technology has advanced a lot since the 1980s and offers new opportunities that the U.S. is determined to seize.
Ironically, it is in the Middle East and Europe where the strategic value of defending against ballistic missiles is demonstrated literally every single day. The Israeli
“Iron Dome” system is extremely effective against missile attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. And the U.S.-built “Patriot” systems supplied to Ukraine by various allies have emerged as the backbone of Kyiv’s defense against Russian missiles.
Unsurprisingly, the capability to intercept shorter-range missiles is now part of every advanced nation’s military toolkit. To be sure, building a defense against strategic nuclear missiles is far more difficult. However, when it comes to the protection of the U.S. homeland, Europeans can hardly criticize Washington for applying a logic like their own.
But what about the impact on strategic stability between the nuclear powers? Some argue that missile defense violates the iron law of nuclear deterrence, according to which mutual vulnerability must not be undermined by unilateral protective measures.
These arguments played a major role in the criticism levelled against Reagan’s SDI, and they are now being re-heated with respect to “Golden Dome.”
The threats have evolved and increased
But time has moved on. Today, the United States no longer must deal with a single adversary such as the Soviet Union, but with an array of difficult nuclear powers that includes Russia, China, North Korea and perhaps soon also Iran.
The risk of getting into conflict with one or more of these states is probably greater than during the Cold War. Hence, as far as the U.S. is concerned, the equation is simple: even a defense system that offers only limited protection is worth exploring. Arms control considerations, which played a significant role during the era of U.S.-Soviet bilateralism, no longer take center stage in today’s multinuclear world.
Those who believe they can revert to the age-old argument that missile defense is futile because it offers no protection against terrorist attacks or a nuclear device smuggled in a shipping container are arguing for banning Aspirin because it does not cure cancer.
A country whose collective memory was shaped by events such as Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and whose promises of nuclear protection are essential for the security of dozens of countries in Europe (and Asia), will not be receptive to such analytical trickery.
Missile defense will keep U.S. engaged
Europeans need not worry that the United States would retreat from the world to enjoy comfy isolationism under its protective umbrella. The United States’ embrace of missile defense is not a sign of isolationism, but of its very opposite. It is an investment in American internationalism.
By limiting vulnerability against nuclear missiles, missile defense reduces the risks of America’s continuing global military engagement. It will support the United States in maintaining its alliances even in a deteriorating security environment.
Against this backdrop, any European advice to the United States to abandon missile defense and instead remain in a permanent state of calculated (“stabilizing”) vulnerability is bound to fall on deaf ears. Worse, it would also contradict Europe’s own security interests.
An American missile defense makes the United States’ “extended” nuclear deterrent more credible. As an Arab proverb says: “Do not expect protection from someone who cannot protect himself.”
Michael Rühle served for over 30 years on NATO’s international staff, dealing with policy planning and speechwriting, energy and climate security and hybrid threats.
Are you a Defense Daily reader with a thought-provoking opinion on a defense issue? We want to hear from you.
- We welcome submissions of opinion articles on national security, defense spending, weapons systems and related areas.
- We welcome submissions from lawmakers, administration officials, industry representatives, military officials, academics, think tank experts, congressional candidates, international experts and others on issues important to the national defense community.
- We welcome a diverse range of opinions all along the political spectrum.
- Email: [email protected]