GCC Missile Defense: Obstacles on the Road to Integration

The U.S.-led effort to establish a missile defense architecture for the Persian Gulf has been slower and less successful than the United States had hoped, mainly due to an unwillingness and inability to cooperate among the Gulf Security Council nations whose nations the system is designed to defend. Given, inter alia, Iran’s growing ballistic missile arsenal and unease with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in Gulf Arab capitals, security reassurances to the Gulf monarchies will become simultaneously more important and more difficult to make credible. In this environment, missile defense will be an important, but by no means sufficient, mechanism for assuring the Arab Gulf states. Cooperation on missile defense with the Gulf monarchies should continue, but with a realistic understanding of what is possible given the current chaos and political dynamics of the region

Future Challenges for Israel’s Iron Dome Rocket Defenses

After Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets at northern Israel during the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, the Israeli government began a crash program to find a technological solution to the rocket threat. The result was Iron Dome, which shot down its first rocket on April 7, 2011, and saw large-scale combat during wars in 2012 and 2014. The system has been hailed in Israel and worldwide as a success, with the Israeli military claiming a 90 percent interception rate. Some American defense commentators have even touted Iron Dome as evidence in favor of ballistic missile defense. However, serious questions remain about Iron Dome’s true technical efficacy, both in terms of its past performance and how it is likely to perform in the future under different conditions. Because so much about Iron Dome is classified, information provided by the Israeli military cannot be independently verified. Analyses performed by outside experts—both those questioning Iron Dome’s efficacy and those defending the Israeli government’s claims—are inconclusive. Assuming for the sake of argument that Iron Dome did, in fact, perform as advertised during its previous engagements, it is far from certain that it will be as successful in future engagements, where the volume of rocket fire will be higher and the rockets more accurate. This paper argues that Israel may have already reached “peak Iron Dome,” and the system’s military and political benefits will decrease in future wars until another technological breakthrough is made on rocket defense. This is not to say that Iron Dome was not worth the cost and should not have been procured. But expectations about Iron Dome from the Israeli military, Israeli civilians, and interested parties abroad should be tempered. If they are not, Iron Dome’s decreased success rate in future wars may pose political problems for Israel domestically and give Israel’s adversaries a decisive propaganda victory

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

ClearCode34: A Prognostic Risk Predictor for Localized Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

Gene expression signatures have proven to be useful tools in many cancers to identify distinct subtypes of disease based on molecular features that drive pathogenesis, and to aid in predicting clinical outcomes. However, there are no current signatures for kidney cancer that are applicable in a clinical setting

ClearCode34: A Prognostic Risk Predictor for Localized Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma

BACKGROUND: Gene expression signatures have proven to be useful tools in many cancers to identify distinct subtypes of disease based on molecular features that drive pathogenesis, and to aid in predicting clinical outcomes. However, there are no current signatures for kidney cancer that are applicable in a clinical setting. OBJECTIVE: To generate a signature biomarker for the clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) good risk (ccA) and poor risk (ccB) subtype classification that could be readily applied to clinical samples to develop an integrated model for biologically defined risk stratification. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A set of 72 ccRCC sample standards was used to develop a 34-gene classifier (ClearCode34) for assigning ccRCC tumors to subtypes. The classifier was applied to RNA-sequencing data from 380 nonmetastatic ccRCC samples from the Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), and to 157 formalin-fixed clinical samples collected at the University of North Carolina. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Kaplan-Meier analyses were performed on the individual cohorts to calculate recurrence-free survival (RFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS). Training and test sets were randomly selected from the combined cohorts to assemble a risk prediction model for disease recurrence. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The subtypes were significantly associated with RFS (p < 0.01), CSS (p < 0.01), and OS (p < 0.01). Hazard ratios for subtype classification were similar to those of stage and grade in association with recurrence risk, and remained significant in multivariate analyses. An integrated molecular/clinical model for RFS to assign patients to risk groups was able to accurately predict CSS above established, clinical risk-prediction algorithms. CONCLUSIONS: The ClearCode34-based model provides prognostic stratification that improves upon established algorithms to assess risk for recurrence and death for nonmetastatic ccRCC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: We developed a 34-gene subtype predictor to classify clear cell renal cell carcinoma tumors according to ccA or ccB subtypes and built a subtype-inclusive model to analyze patient survival outcomes