U.S. Moves to Improve Missile Defense

On January 17, President Trump, along with Vice President Pence and Acting Defense Secretary Shanahan announced the release of the 2019 Missile Defense Review (MDR).

The MDR is the last of four strategic guidance documents that Trump directed the national security establishment to create to guide decision-making on critical defense policy issues.

The focus of the MDR is protection against “emerging and future rogue states’ missile threats.” It calls for robust regional missile defense for U.S. forces abroad and allies and partners against all potential enemies.

The expanding capabilities of nations such as North Korea and Iran include emerging technologies such as advanced cruise missiles, ballistic missiles and hypersonic weapons. The U.S. has, according to defense officials, lagged in keeping up with these developments.

The MDR is geared towards protecting against these threats. According to the Pentagon, “To counter a potential threat from North Korea, it will strengthen the defense of the nation against the ICBMs they’ve developed. Trump has directed a 50 percent increase in homeland defense interceptors — from 44 to 64 — and supporting radars. These interceptors can also defend the homeland against an Iranian ICBM threat should it materialize.”

Developments from Russia and China have also been taken into consideration. Both nations have increasing number and types of short, medium and intermediate- range missiles, to include hypersonic and advanced cruise missiles. The MDR calls for a layered approach that includes integrated air and missile defense, cooperation with allies, increased numbers of missile defense interceptors, and new technologies for intercepting advanced threats. It also states that America should stay ahead of these threats by developing advanced technologies and innovative concepts.

The MDR included six specific steps that should be taken:

First, 20 new ground-based interceptors are being constructed, which will bring the total to 64. Currently 40 GBIs are at Fort Greely, Alaska, and four are at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California.

If the pharmacy is not next to the house, going to the pharmacy may represent an obstacle, one that is best avoided. online levitra canada as the drug is also used for treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. According tadalafil 20mg no prescription to the report, only 35% of prescription medications had new active ingredients. They will help you weed through the vendors and find one levitra 100mg you can believe for a genuine product, good service and reasonable pricing. The cheap levitra https://regencygrandenursing.com/post-acute-sub-acute-care/orthopedic-rehab regular food gets digested normally on some occasions and poorly on others.

Second, The Department of Defense (DoD) will focus on developing new missile defense technologies, such as more powerful sensors and radars that will be deployed to detect missile launches and track them so countermeasures can be taken.

Third, measures should be taken to protect all American cities from ballistic missile attacks. To do this, the DOD will develop an effective missile defense against emerging advanced cruise and hypersonic weapons.

Fourth, greater budget support will be provided to space activities in order to terminate hostile missile launches anyplace across the globe.

Fifth, bureaucratic obstacles that hinder speedy deployment of cutting-edge missile defense technologies will be eliminated.

Sixth, the U.S. will work with allies on missile defense protection, such as prioritizing the sale of American missile defense and technologies so they can be defended as well. The U.S. will also share with them early warning and tracking to detect missile launches.

The Arms Control Association has previously noted that “Upon taking office in 2009, the Obama administration took steps to curtail the Bush administration’s rush to expand the U.S. homeland missile defense footprint… and instead place greater emphasis on regional defense, particularly in Europe. The Obama administration decided to alter its predecessor’s plans for missile defense in Europe, announcing on Sept. 17, 2009, that the United States would adopt a European “Phased Adaptive Approach” to missile defense (EPAA). President Obama’s first Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, also canceled a number of next generation programs, including two designed to intercept missiles during their boost phase, due to “escalating costs, operational problems, and technical challenges.”

Mr. Obama faced a major political embarrassment when, during a conference in South Korea, the former president, not realizing his microphone was on, promised his Russian counterpart that he would “be more flexible” for Moscow on missile defense after his next election.

Photo: Two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors are launched during a successful intercept test. (US Missile Defense Agency Flickr)

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.