2 research outputs found
Missile Defense in Europe: Progress Toward an Uncertain Outcome
Even before its announced completion date of 2018, the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to
regional missile defense in Europe can declare victory. So far it has been implemented close to schedule
and below budget despite continuing problems related to cost, debates about financial burden sharing, and
Russia’s warnings about its threat, real or imagined, to European security and stability. Russian aggression
in Crimea and Ukraine and its intervention in Syria have helped to shore up broad political support for the
project. The sharp tension trajectory of Russian-NATO relations and the need to reassure Eastern European
allies does however mean that Russia and a few domestic critics will continue to see EPAA as a political
lever to stoke the fires of uncertainty about U.S. commitment and to play on the fears in Eastern Europe of
abandonment in their first hours of need should a Russian attack occur.
Expansion of the EPAA’s capabilities beyond the current projected capability of the system by 2018 will be
difficult given the costs and the competing demands for missile defense assets elsewhere around the globe.
Barring any significant ratcheting up of Russian threats and other security risks in Europe, significant
expansion of the EPAA is unlikely, but so is any reduction in commitment to the project as it stands now.
However, there are many assumptions and challenges still to be discussed and confronted if EPAA is to
fulfill all of the political and military expectations set first by the George W. Bush administration and the
revised version under the Obama administration. This essay will examine each of these challenges in turn,
and gauge the seriousness of the dangers and risks, both political and military, involved. There is little
present evidence that the EPAA is at risk of drastic changes to its planned deployment, either in favor of
increased capability or a decreased U.S. commitment to fulfilling the promises already made. This is as it
should be. The EPAA, to quote Brad Roberts, is not a “fool’s errand.”i
What remains to be seen is how the
United States and NATO will address the challenges, old and new, that face the EPAA and indeed all
aspects of reliance on missile defense to deter and defend against growing threats
Missile Defense, Extended Deterrence, and Nonproliferation in the 21st Century
The following papers were commissioned as part of the Missile Defense, Extended Deterrence,
and Nonproliferation in the 21st Century project supported by the Project on Advanced Systems
and Concepts for Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (PASCC).
The papers have two general purposes: 1) to create a body of work that provides an overview of
the missile defense developments in major regions of the world; and 2) to provide emerging
scholars the opportunity to conduct research, publish, and connect with each other. We believe
we have succeeded on both counts.
The papers written for this project will be valuable for academics and policymakers alike, and
will be published and disseminated by the Center for International and Security Studies at
Maryland. This element of the project has also been successful in further bringing together a new
cadre of experts in the field and developing the next generation of academics and public servants
who will benefit from their participation in this project.
These papers were completed in the Fall of 2016