A Look at Missile Defense Strategy

It was a privilege to serve in the Army as an Air and Missile Defense Soldier. Our mission was to defend maneuver forces and select geopolitical assets from adversary air or missile attack.

Thankfully, I spent the majority of my 24 year career performing this mission at the tactical and operational levels of leadership. I truly enjoyed leading air and missile defense Soldiers, also known as “duck hunters”, at the pointy end of the spear.

Whether it was early in my career serving in a short range air defense battery assigned to defend an Armor brigade or later on, leading a Patriot battalion that defended critical air bases in Korea, I loved being an Air Defender!

As I’ve mentioned in my last few blogs, the last five years of my military career were spent learning and practicing strategic leadership which included attendance at the National War College (NWC).

Before graduating from the NWC, each student must prepare and defend a thesis called an “Individual Strategic Research Project” or ISRP for short. This 30 page paper and oral defense was no joke! It was certainly the most academically rigorous project I ever undertook.

I picked an ISRP topic that was somewhat related to what I knew, Air and Missile Defense, albeit at the strategic level! 

The basic premise of my paper was a strategy that relied on a technological solution alone would not keep us safe from missile attack. It takes a strategy that incorporates all instruments of national power- Diplomatic, Informational, Military and Economic (a.k.a. DIME).

I think I also chose this topic because on a personal level, I’ve seen first-hand how challenging Missile Defense is. Make no mistake, the U.S. and our allies have the most technologically advanced Missile Defense weapon systems available. But the enemy always gets a vote. It’s a big sky and adversaries possess many very capable threat systems.

The following text is a heavily edited summary of my 30 page ISRP. Just as I did last week, I’ll offer a quick disclaimer that the following is the opinion and views of just one former student of national security strategy and by no means reflects that of the U.S. government.

Enormous resources are poured into the research, development, and deployment of national and regional missile defense systems.  Yet after 70 years, missile defense relies almost entirely on complex technological capability best described as hitting a bullet with another bullet.

A balanced approach to missile defense strategy which incorporates diplomatic and economic instruments of power buys the military industrial complex time to perfect next generation missile defense system technology.  Before considering strategic approaches, one must first understand the context driving our long standing pursuit of missile defense shields.

Ballistic missiles were introduced to modern warfare during World War II and initiated a global race to develop increasingly lethal missile technology.  The relatively low cost and ease of production as well as long ranges make the ballistic missile a strategic weapon system of choice for many nations. 

Ballistic missiles are easy to hide and difficult for an adversary to target prior to launch.  Additionally, once airborne, ballistic missiles are incredibly hard for the targeted adversary to defend against.  Those nations which possess ballistic missiles coupled with a Weapon of Mass Destruction (WMD) hold a military means that by its very nature, creates fear within its adversaries. 

With recent developments in hypersonic and maneuvering reentry vehicles, missile capability is even more desirable.  Ballistic missiles have almost transcended the military instrument of national power and have become a unique coercive lever for some nation’s pursuit of national interests.       

Technology has long served as the primary means to counter this potential threat. To fully understand the monumental technological effort required to establish an effective missile defense, it is worthy to review the complexity of such a system.

There are four basic categories to consider when employing a means to destroy a ballistic missile.  The first category is the phase of flight in which the intercept is to take place: pre-launch, boost, mid-course or terminal.  Second is the location of the interceptor: land, air, sea or space.  Third is the kill mechanism used by the interceptor and the final category for consideration is the type / location of sensors used to track the target.  

There are numerous challenges for developing anti-ballistic missile systems when considering any one of these four categories. For instance, the mid-course phase of flight is when the threat ballistic missile is most vulnerable as it reaches the top of its ballistic trajectory. However, this is also where threat re-entry vehicles may maneuver or employ countermeasures to confuse targeting systems.

Despite the inherent challenges, emphasis remains on mastering missile defense capability.   Considering the successful US Ground Based Mid-Course Defense (GMD) system as just one example, one can see this defensive capability comes with a hefty price tag.

Estimates vary widely, but GMD has most likely cost over $30 billion since inception.  Since the 1980s it is estimated the US has committed nearly $200 billion in non-inflation adjusted dollars towards the advancement of a National Missile Defense system.  

Again, this is just an example of the costs associated with one national level anti-ballistic missile system. There are numerous other tactical and operational level anti-ballistic missile systems in development or deployed worldwide. 

Considering only fiscal expenditures, avoids the totality of the debate regarding the cost associated with missile defense systems. There are political costs as well. The United States incurred a political cost when it withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and deployed a National Missile Defense system in Alaska.  

Withdrawal from the ABM treaty, deploying the GMD system, and increasing forward deployed Theater Missile Defense capabilities have contributed to the complication of some U.S. foreign relations.

In spite of the political and fiscal costs, we must still continue to pursue missile defense capability.  The benefits of an effective ballistic missile shield far outweighs the fiscal costs or the political risks.  However, in the interim, other strategic approaches should complement the technical component of missile defense strategy.     

A balanced approach of persuasive diplomacy and economic inducements while maintaining a credible coercive element may work to convince adversaries that the benefits of abandoning ballistic missile ambitions far outweighs those of keeping them. 

Some suggest targeted economic sanctions are the most effective complementary strategic approach to missile defense. Targeted economic sanctions will make gaining the resources for ballistic missile programs even more difficult and further slow development.    

Missile defense capability is a required means within US national security strategy to address ballistic missile threats, but missile defense strategy requires an appropriate balance of strategic approaches.  For 70 years we’ve relied almost solely on military technological solutions to deter or defend against various ballistic missile threats. 

I wouldn’t call this capstone writing assignment fun, but it certainly was educational. Additionally, the research I completed gave me some great insights into my follow on assignment after the NWC.

If you’ve enjoyed this small peek into strategy over the past few weeks and would like to read more, be sure to check out my book Writing to Lead: A Look at Military Leader Development Through Academic Writings on sale now at Amazon! 

Next week I’ll dial it back a little from strategic level leadership with a look at battle command.

The views, opinions and biases expressed in this blog are the authors and do not reflect those of the U.S. Army or Department of Defense.

Use the links in the about section below to follow on social media or subscribe for emails to receive updates on the latest weekly blog at www.normspivey.com!