Defying Belief: Pursuing Provocative Strategies for Stable Peace and Security

Executive Summary, Katerina Canyon

The Atlantic Council’s report, “First We Will Defend the Homeland: The Case for Homeland Missile Defense”, advocates for increased investment in missile defense systems to protect the U.S. homeland from potential threats. This approach raises critical concerns regarding cost-effectiveness, strategic stability, global diplomacy, and the militarization of international relations.

This report highlights the risks and shortcomings of prioritizing missile defense systems and argues for alternative strategies focused on diplomacy, arms control, and sustainable security practices.

1. Costs and Budget Priorities

Problem:

• Missile defense systems are prohibitively expensive with marginal returns on investment.

• The Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, the cornerstone of U.S. homeland missile defense, has cost over $67 billion since its inception and has demonstrated limited reliability in tests.

Alternative Viewpoint:

• These funds could be better allocated toward addressing pressing domestic issues such as healthcare, infrastructure, climate adaptation, and education.

• Investing in social stability can reduce vulnerabilities and increase resilience without escalating arms races.

Recommendation:

• Shift funding priorities from missile defense to comprehensive economic security, which serves as a foundation for sustainable national security.

2. Technological Limitations and Reliability

Problem:

• Missile defense systems remain unproven under realistic conditions.

• Tests often occur in controlled environments that do not reflect the complexities of actual missile threats, such as decoys and multiple warheads (MIRVs).

Alternative Viewpoint:

• Reliance on an unproven system creates a false sense of security, potentially emboldening policymakers to adopt riskier foreign policies.

• Technology failures in a real-world scenario could lead to catastrophic consequences if adversaries perceive vulnerabilities.

Recommendation:

• Focus on improving diplomatic mechanisms, including treaties to prevent missile proliferation, rather than relying on unreliable systems.

3. Strategic Stability and Arms Race Dynamics

Problem:

• Expanding missile defense capabilities risks undermining nuclear deterrence and triggering an arms race.

• Russia and China may perceive U.S. missile defense systems as a threat to their second-strike capability, leading to increased missile development and deployment.

Alternative Viewpoint:

• Stability relies on mutual vulnerability, not unilateral invincibility.

• Missile defense systems erode trust between global powers, making arms control agreements less likely.

Recommendation:

• Prioritize arms control negotiations and confidence-building measures with nuclear-armed states rather than exacerbating tensions through defensive posturing.

4. Diplomatic Consequences

Problem:

• Emphasizing missile defense reinforces adversarial relationships and undermines diplomatic efforts to de-escalate tensions.

• Countries such as North Korea and Iran may interpret missile defense as offensive rather than defensive, prompting more aggressive policies.

Alternative Viewpoint:

• International cooperation, including denuclearization agreements and non-proliferation initiatives, reduces threats without fueling conflict.

• Missile defense strategies alienate allies who advocate for diplomatic solutions and multilateral approaches.

Recommendation:

• Strengthen diplomatic ties through regional security frameworks rather than relying on military deterrence.

5. Environmental and Ethical Concerns

Problem:

• Missile defense systems contribute to environmental degradation during testing and deployment.

• Ethical concerns arise regarding the militarization of space and its implications for peaceful exploration and development.

Alternative Viewpoint:

• Investing in peace-oriented technologies and sustainable infrastructure aligns better with ethical imperatives and long-term security.

Recommendation:

• Redirect resources to green technologies and international cooperation programs that promote environmental and social resilience.

6. Alternative Security Models

Problem:

• Overreliance on missile defense perpetuates the cycle of militarization rather than addressing the root causes of insecurity.

Alternative Viewpoint:

• Human security frameworks that emphasize economic development, public health, and education offer a more effective path to lasting security.

• Investment in diplomacy and conflict resolution mechanisms reduces the need for reactive defense measures.

Recommendation:

• Adopt a “peace economy” approach that reallocates resources from defense systems to community and infrastructure development.

Conclusion

The Atlantic Council’s proposal for expanding homeland missile defense systems reflects a militarized approach to security that is costly, unreliable, and destabilizing. This report argues that national security is better served through diplomatic engagement, arms control agreements, and investments in social and economic stability.

By shifting focus from missile defense to peacebuilding strategies, the United States can reduce global tensions, foster cooperation, and create a safer world without escalating the arms race.

Peace is not built through walls and shields but through trust and cooperation.

References

• “First We Will Defend the Homeland: The Case for Homeland Missile Defense” – Atlantic Council.

• Congressional Budget Office reports on the costs of missile defense programs.

• Arms Control Association analysis on the risks of missile defense escalation.

• SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) reports on arms control and disarmament.