missile defense systems

8/18/2019 Missile Defense Systems

1/16


2/16

Study Guide

- Committee DirectorsShabbar Virani

Asna Rizvi

Mohsin Masood Khan

- Assistant Committee Directors

Shumaila AmjadIqra Jalal Akbar


3/16

Missile Defense System

Introduction To The Topic

On August 6th and 9th of 1945, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities

of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. This culminating event of devastating militaryaggression in the Pacific Theater of the Second World War directly consumed approximately

214,000 mainly civilians lives, becoming arguably the single most important military

development of the 20th century, a blast which echoed through international affairs throughout

the century. When the United States debuted the destructive power of atomic weaponry in themiddle of the last century, it forever changed the balance of military power on the world stage, as

it had acquired, with many nations soon following, a virtually invulnerable means of obliteration

without discretion, and introduced an unparalleled degree of irresponsibility into warfare. Themost destructive weapon in history was also one that lacked the measure of control associated

with conventional armaments because it functioned with deadly indiscrimination within the blast

radius, thus rendering the distinction between military and civilian targets that existed before the

introduction of nuclear warfare ineffectual to their function.

The beginning of the “Nuclear Age” following the Second World War also marked the

Beginning of the Cold War arms race between the US and the USSR, as both these two majorsuperpowers and their allies sought to develop increasingly sophisticated weapons technology,

particularly more powerful nuclear arsenals and delivery systems. As these the opposing sides of

the Cold War continued to improve their offensive capabilities, states not directly involved in the

conflict, such as South Africa, Israel, Brazil, and others began to pursue their own weapons

programs. The acquisition of atomic weapons quickly set a geopolitical precedent in which statescould secure international relevance and best protect their interests through the possession of

nuclear armaments. However, as these sorts of weapons became more common,it became naturally evident that states with effective defense systems again nuclear strike would

command a strategic advantage over those employing exclusively offensive means.

Although the since the end of the Cold War, an arms race currently exists between major nuclear

powers, more states possess atomic weapons today than at the end of the US-USSR rivalry in the

late 20th century. International agreements such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT)

have been relatively successful in controlling the development on nuclear technology for military purposes around the world and encouraging decreases in the stockpiles of such armaments, yet

states such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran have,allegedly, continued to pursue their weapons programs. Thus, although the threat to international

peace and security present by nuclear weapons has changed, they continue to maintain a relevantrole in international affairs as a major component of state defense policies.

“Nuclear Weapons: A History.” New Internationalist International. New Internationalist.

June 2008.Web. 27 Jan 2014.


4/16

Background Information

Missile defense systems have undergone massive changes since the early days. As the first

missiles were used in warfare, anti-aircraft gunnery was still able to gun it down quiteeffectively, as the Brits did against the V-1s of Germany. However already with the developmentof the V-2, this proved ineffective as they moved too fast. The Nuclear missiles dropped in Japan

were dropped by bomber aircraft, making them easier to intercept (though preferably long before

the aircraft is above your own territory), but with the invention of Intercontinental BallisticMissiles (ICBMs) in the late 50’s, atomic payloads could be dropped from afar, and outside of

the effective range of interceptor aircraft. Initially measures against these missiles too were

developed, though the costof Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABMs) were almost as high as the

offensive missiles themselves, making it rather cost-inefficient. This ultimately again wassuperseded by Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs) that had one single

missile delivering multiple nuclear warheads, splitting off only at the descent phase of the flight,

making it nigh impossible to take them all out.

The ABM development was further halted when the US and the USSR signed the ABM treaty of

1972, which limited the amount of sites at which it could base a defensive ABM system to two:

one for the capital, and another one for protecting ICBM silos. As neither side developed morethan one, this was limited to this in 1974.This treaty only limited defense against strategic

missiles, but was unclear on what this meant. ICBMs and Submachine Launched Ballistic

Missiles (SLBMs) were considered to fall under this, but both side actively continued to develop

counter-tactical ABM, which ended up also being able to take down SLBMs due to their slowspeed. This treaty lasteduntil 2002, when the US unilaterally announced its withdrawal.

In between, many plans for other Missile Defense Systems were proposed, including theStrategic Defense Initiative (SDI) or “Star Wars” by Reagan during his presidency and other

satellite based initiatives. However, no effective one has been developed until recently, where

effective ABM systems have been researched and placed in Israel (the “Iron Dome”), the United

States, Russia, France, and India. Though only a few of these systems were tested in actualconditions, instead of merely against simulated launches, and none of them against actual

ICBMs.

TREATY BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE

UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS ON THELIMITATION OF

ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS. 1972. Web. Retrieved from:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/text/abm2.htm (Accessed: 10 Dec

2013).


5/16

Scope Of The Topic

The debate will mainly focus on the question of legality of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, Their potential to cause another arms race, and whether or not to designate their use as potentially offensive. Further areas that may be expounded upon, but will not be the focus of this

guide, are: the threats they pose to those states who cannot afford these systems themselves; potential destabilization caused in the Middle-East by Israel adopting one; the differentiation between strategic and tactical defense systems.

CHINA

China tested the FJ ABM in the Cold War but they were ultimately cancelled. The PLA has

currently developed the KT series of anti-ballistic missiles and also have adopted limited anti-

ballistic capabilities on the HQ-9, KS series, and HQ-16.

China successfully tested its exoatmospheric interception capability in a test in 2010 and also in

a test in 2013, being the second of two countries able to do so.

Four versions of the S-300 are in service the PMU, PMU1 and PMU2 and the navalised S-

300FM Rif. Based on the S-300PMU1, the Rif equips the PLAN’s two Type 51C Luzhou air -

defense destroyers enabling them to contribute to the protection of a coastal site against SRBM

attack.

The S-300PMU2 has the best chance of intercepting an SRBM missile as it employs

the 48N6E2 missile which has a warhead optimised for destroying ballistic missiles, and better

kinematics compared to earlier 48N6 missiles

HQ-9 may have some ABM capability.

However, it might be noted that on 11 January 2007 the Chinese successfully performed an anti-

satellite missile testusing a KT-1missile with a Kinetic Kill Vehiclemounted.

New missiles, the HQ-19, HQ-26, and HQ-29, are being built

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FJ_ABMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#KT_ASAThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS-1_(missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#Copieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_anti-ballistic_missile_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=48N6E2&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaituozhe-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_projectilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-26http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-19http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_projectilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaituozhe-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=48N6E2&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Chinese_anti-ballistic_missile_testhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#Copieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KS-1_(missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#KT_ASAThttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FJ_ABM


6/16

France, UK and Italy

Italy and France have developed a missile family called Aster (Aster 15 and Aster 30). Aster 30

is capable of ballistic missile defense. On 18 October 2010, France announced a successful

tactical ABM test of the Aster 30 missileand on 1 December 2011 a successful interception of aBlack Sparrow ballistic target missile.Royal Navy Type 45 destroyers and French

Navy and Italian Navy Horizon -class frigates are armed with PAAMS, using Aster 15 and 30

missiles.

Also, France is developing another version, Aster 30 block II which can destroy ballistic missiles

with a maximum range of 3000 km. It will have a Kill Vehicle warhead.

Superficie-Aria Media PortataTerrestre (Italian for Ground-based Surface-to-Air Medium

Range, SAMP/T) using batteries of Aster 30 missiles. France has demonstrated the feasibility of

destroying medium range ballistic missile.

Aster 15 and 30 missiles differ only in the size of their booster - total weights being 310 kg and

450 kg respectively. Aster 30 requires the longer tubes of the SYLVER A50 launcher, but its

range is extended from 30 kilometers (19 mi) to 120 kilometers (75 mi). Aster 30 is also capable

of ballistic missile defense. The first stage booster of the missile is entirely designed and

manufactured by Avio of Italy.

INDIA

India's air defense network has two principal components - the ‘Air Defense Ground

Environment System’ (ADGES) and the ‘Base Air Defense Zones’ (BADZ). The ADGES

network provides for wide area radar coverage and permits the detection and interception of most

aerial incursions into Indian airspace. The BADZ system is far more concentrated

with radars, interceptors, SAMs and AAA units working in conjunction to provide an intense and

highly effective defensive barrier to attacks on vital targets.

THE BALLISTIC MISSILE DEFENSE SYSTEM

(BMDS)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(missile_family)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_class_frigatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_class_frigatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_class_frigatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAAMShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radarshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircrafthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Aircraft_Artilleryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Aircraft_Artilleryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interceptor_aircrafthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radarshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_languagehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAAMShttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_class_frigatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyerhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Navyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aster_(missile_family)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italy


7/16

Missile defense technology being developed, tested and deployed by the United States is

designed to counter ballistic missiles of all ranges — short, medium, intermediate and long.

Since ballistic missiles have different ranges, speeds, size and performance characteristics, the

Ballistic Missile Defense System is an integrated, "layered" architecture that provides multiple

opportunities to destroy missiles and their warheads before they can reach their targets. The

system's architecture includes:

networked sensors (including space-based) and ground- and sea-based radars for target

detection and tracking; ground- and sea-based interceptor missiles for destroying a ballistic missile using either the

force of a direct collision, called "hit-to-kill" technology, or an explosive blast

fragmentation warhead;

And a command, control, battle management, and communications network providing the

operational commanders with the needed links between the sensors and interceptor missiles.


8/16

Missile defense elements are operated by United States military personnel from U.S.

Strategic Command, U.S. Northern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, U.S. Forces Japan,

U.S. European Command and others. The United States has missile defense cooperative

programs with a number of allies, including United Kingdom, Japan, Australia, Israel,

Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Poland, Italy and many others. The

Missile Defense Agency also actively participates in NATO activities to maximize

opportunities to develop an integrated NATO ballistic missile defense capability.

Cruise missile defense

Defending against an attack by a cruise missile on the other hand is similar to tackling low-flying

manned aircraft and hence most methods of aircraft defense can be used for a cruise missiledefense system.

In order to ward off the threats of nuke-tipped cruise missile attack India has a new missile

defense programme which will be focused solely on intercepting cruise missiles. The

technological breakthrough has been created with an Advanced Air Defense missile

(AAD) DRDO Chief, Dr V K Saraswat stated in an Interview "Our studies have indicated that

this [AAD] will be able to handle a cruise missile intercept

Furthermore, India is acquiring airborne radars like AWACS to ensure detection of cruise

missiles in order to stay on top of the threat.

Barak-8 is a long-range anti-air and anti-missile naval defence system being developed jointly

by Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and the Defence Research and Development

Organisation (DRDO) of India. The Indian Army is considering induction of a variant of Barak 8

missile to meet its requirement for a medium-range surface-to-air air defence missile. The naval

version of this missile will have the capability to intercept incoming enemy cruise missiles and

combat jets targeting its warships at sea.India has a joint venture for this missile with Israel.

On 17 November 2010, in an interview Rafael's Vice President Mr. LovaDrori confirmed that

the David's Sling system has been offered to the Indian Armed Forces.

ISRAEL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_K_Saraswathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_early_warning_and_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-airhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Lova_Drori&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Slinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Slinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mr._Lova_Drori&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-airhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Research_and_Development_Organisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barak-8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_early_warning_and_controlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_K_Saraswat


9/16

Israel has a national missile defense against short and medium-range missiles using their Arrow

missile system. The Arrow or Hetz is a family of anti-ballistic missiles designed to fulfill an

Israeli requirement for a theater missile defense system. It is reported to be more effective

against ballistic missiles than the MIM-104 Patriot surface-to-air missile. Jointly funded and

produced by Israel and the United States, development of the system began in 1986 and has

continued since, drawing some contested criticism. Undertaken by Israel Aerospace

Industries (IAI) and Boeing, it is overseen by the Israeli Ministry of Defense's " Homa"

administration and the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.

The Arrow system consists of the joint production hypersonic Arrow anti-missile interceptor,

the Elta EL/M-2080 "Green Pine" early-warningAESA radar, the Tadiran Telecom "Golden

Citron" ("Citron Tree") C3I center, and the Israel Aerospace Industries "Brown Hazelnut"

("Hazelnut Tree") launch control center. The system is transportable, as it can be moved to other

prepared sites.

Following the construction and testing of the Arrow 1 technology demonstrator, production and

deployment began with the Arrow 2 version of the missile. The Arrow is considered one of the

most advanced missile defense programs currently in existence. It is the first operational missile

defense system specifically designed and built to intercept and destroy ballistic missiles. Initial

operating capability of Arrow 3 is expected in 2014.The first Arrow battery was declared fully

operational in October 2000. Although several of its components have been exported, the Israeli

Air Defense Command within the Israeli Air Force (IAF) of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is

currently the sole user of the complete Arrow system.Apart from Arrow missile, Israel has Iron dome which is designed to intercept and destroy short-

range rockets and artillery shells fired from distances of 4 to 70 kilometers away and David's

Sling that is designed to intercept medium-to-long range rockets and cruise missiles, such as

those possessed by Hezbollah, fired at ranges from 40 km to 300 km.

RUSSIA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israelhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defense_(Israel)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2080_Green_Pinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_radarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadiran_Telecomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTARhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTARhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTARhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_domehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Slinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Slinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Slinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David%27s_Slinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_domehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Defense_Forceshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Forcehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_Air_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_operating_capabilityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C4ISTARhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tadiran_Telecomhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_radarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_warning_radarhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EL/M-2080_Green_Pinehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersonichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_Defense_Agencyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministry_of_Defense_(Israel)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Aerospace_Industrieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-to-air_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriothttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_(Israeli_missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel


10/16

The Russian A-135 anti-ballistic missile system is currently operational only around the city

of Moscow, the national capital, and is being augmented to protect major cities in Russia. The A-

135 anti-ballistic missile system is a Russian military complex deployed around Moscow to

counter enemy missiles targeting the city or its surrounding areas. It became operational during1995. It is a successor to the previous A-35, and compliant with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile

Treaty from which the US unilaterally withdrew in 2002.

The A-135 system attained "alert" (operational) status on 17 February 1995. It is currently

operational although its 53T6 (NATO:SH-11) component is deactivated (as of February 2007). A

newer missile is expected to replace it. There is an operational test version of the system at the

test site in SaryShagan, Kazakhstan.

The S-300PMU1 and PMU2 can intercept SRBMs, and the S-300V and S-400 Triumf systems

are capable of intercepting a multiple IRBM attack by all DF-21 model IRBMs.

The enhanced but yet to be produced S-300VM/VMK is capable of intercepting ballistic missiles

with a range of 2,500 km re-entry speeds of 4.5 km/s, whereas the S-400 is claimed to be capable

of intercepting ballistic missiles with a range of 3,500 km which equates to re-entry speeds of 4.8

to 5 km/s. A system designed to intercept warheads at 5 km/s has the ability to act as a point

system against simple ICBM warheads which have a typical re-entry speed of 7 km/s.[3] Apart

from the main Moscow deployment, Russia has striven actively for intrinsic ABM capabilities of

its late model SAM systems. Russian ground based theatre defence against ballistic and cruise

missiles are centered on the in-service

S-300P (SA-10)

S-300V (SA-12A/B Giant/Gladiator)

S-300PMU-1/2 (SA-20A/B Gargoyle)

S-400 (SA-21)

S-500 ( In development )

Other Developments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53T6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sary_Shaganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-APA-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-APA-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-APA-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300Vhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-500_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-400http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300Vhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_(missile)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-APA-3http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sary_Shaganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/53T6http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-35_anti-ballistic_missile_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ballistic_missilehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russiahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscowhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-135_anti-ballistic_missile_systemhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia


11/16

Japan

In 2014, the Japan Air Self Defense Force (JASDF), and also the Japan Ground Self DefenseForce (JGSDF), completed their 50th year of annual live-fire missile launches at White Sands

Missile Range (WSMR), and also at McGregor Range, New Mexico in Fort Bliss. The latest

annual service practice of the PAC-3 Patriot missile demonstrated a 100 percent kill rate before a

group which included the commanding general of WSMR, and the 32nd Army Air & Missile

Defense Command (AAMDC). Every JASDF Patriot team participated in the annual exercise,

which takes several months.

Since 1998, when North Korea launched a Taepodong-1 missile over northern Japan, the

Japanese have been jointly developing a new Surface-to-air interceptor known as the Patriot

Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) with the US. So far tests have been successful, and there are

planned 11 locations that the PAC-3 will be installed. A military spokesmansaid that tests had

been done on two sites, one of them a business park in central Tokyo, and Ichigaya – a site not

far from the Imperial Palace. Along with the PAC-3, Japan has installed a US-developed ship-

based anti-ballistic missile system, which was tested successfully on 18 December 2007. The

missile was launched from a Japanese warship, in partnership with the US Missile Defense

Agency and destroyed a mock target launched from the coast.

Japan is in consultations with the United States to possibly deploy the Terminal High Altitude

Area Defense (THAAD) system and a ground-based version of the Standard Missile-3

interceptors mounted on Aegis destroyers. Japan's intention is to create a four-stage anti-missile

shield.

Republic of China

Republic of China, commonly known as Taiwan, is also engaged in the development of an anti- ballistic missile system, based on indigenously developed Tien Kung-II (Sky Bow) SAM system

and Patriot-III missiles.

Taiwan is building up a "missile defense shield" in response to Chinese missiles pointed in its

direction. The latest addition will be six Patriot III batteries and a long-range early warning radar

system. Albeit, Taiwan needs Terminal High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) units

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexicohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Blisshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_Army_Air_%26_Missile_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_Army_Air_%26_Missile_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_High_Altitude_Area_Defensehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taepodong-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_Army_Air_%26_Missile_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32nd_Army_Air_%26_Missile_Defense_Commandhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Blisshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexicohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Sands_Missile_Range


12/16

While speaking at a seminar in Vienna in 2012, Zhu Chenghu, of China's National Defense

University, opined missile defense to be destabilizing; Zhu was not alone: Joseph Circincione, of

the Ploughshares Fund and attending the same seminar, stated that any US military planner in

Zhu's position would have had to say the same thing, in order to project credible militarydeterrence. Bruno Gruselle, in 2010, noted that French policy makers considered the 1972 Anti-

Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty and the doctrine ofMutual assured destruction to be the

cornerstones of strategic stability. Some French analysts, notably Camille Grand, view missile

defense as jeopardizing both the doctrine and the Treaty, as well as risking a new arms race,

which is reflected in the development of advanced missile defense counter measures and decoys

as well as a higher number of and more maneuverable independently targetable reentry vehicles.

Additionally experts question the accuracy and reliability of these systems. Beyond the technical

difficulties, which have been described as more challenging than hitting one bullet with another

all performance data is derived from experiments and scripted tests. Their effectivity in an actualwar situation is uncertain.

Gruselle noted most French security experts doubted the technological feasibility of ballistic missile

defense. Some thought it foolish to spend huge amounts of money on unproven technologies that

lacked operational or political usefulness. Instead, the French defense policy community viewed

missile defense merely as an American "economic weapon" used to defeat the Soviet Union and win

the Cold War. The extant missile defenses are currently vulnerable to hypersonic missile vehicles,

which travel at speeds high enough to outmaneuver missile defenses. China is among the countries

pursuing hypersonic vehicles as missile delivery systems.

Yousaf Butt, a critic of missile defense, states in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists that "just as

with nuclear weapons, the U.S. infatuation with missile defense will cause other nations to desire this

expensive technology.

Russia's top military officer has threatened to carry out a pre-emptive strike on U.S.-led NATO

missile defense facilities in Eastern Europe if Washington goes ahead with its controversial plan to

build a missile shield.[51] Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov also warned that talks

between Moscow and Washington on the topic are "close to a dead end. U.S. State Department

special envoy Ellen Tauscher responded that neither country can afford another arms race

Current challenges

These are the main challenges regarding the topic:

Offensive vs. Defensive

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-Huffington_post-54http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-Huffington_post-54http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-Huffington_post-54http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_defense_systems_by_country#cite_note-Huffington_post-54http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_assured_destructionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treatyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty


13/16

Many find it hard to justify limiting a state’s defense system as much as offensive weaponry can

be limited. Indeed, it may seem counter-intuitive to forbid a state from effectively defendingitself. However, it should be taken into account of the implications a solid defense system also

brings, namely a more effective first-strike capability, and the increase of (nuclear) stockpiles.

First-strike capability

The reason ABMs increase the first-strike capability of a state, lies in the idea that a first strike

will always target the nuclear stockpiles of the opposing state in an effort to reduce theretaliatory strike (second-strike) to a minimum. With the current, and probably also all future

technology, it remains impossible to fully defend against an all-out first strike. This is due to the

vast number of missiles in, for example, the United States’ armory: 10,000 nuclear armed

missiles alone. The number of ABMs needed to be armed and ready at all times to prevent such amassive attack is extraordinary, and probably unsustainable even with the whole US military

budget on it. Whereas normally a state would have to take out most, if not all of the stockpiles to

even consider such astrike, due to not wishing to be hit by such a missile themselves; by being able to shoot down alot of missiles, this barrier is lowered dramatically.8 To counter being on the losing side of this,

countries will need to invest in missile technology.

Increase of (nuclear) stockpiles

One of the main arguments of why a full-scale war using missiles will not occur, is the concept

of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This implies that as soon as one side starts the attack,

the other will always be able to provide a sufficient counter-response to make it a draw, or

pyrrhic victory at best. The risk of being bombed in retaliation thus overshadows any gain madefrom using the weapons in the first place. Of course, this theory also meant that the only way to

protect oneself against nuclear weapons meant developing them yourself, or finding allies who

would cast you under their ‘nuclear umbrella’, like the NATO. Adhering to this theory in a worldof ABM thus means thatProliferation of missile stockpiles will increase in the future, rather than

decrease. Whereas earlier a couple of hidden nuclear submarines and some ICBM sites

sufficiently deterred other nations, this will cease to be once the technology of ABMs getsadvanced enough. The only way to counter this is heavy investment into either technology so as

to make them undetectable, or into increasing the overall stockpile ready to be launched in the

event of a nuclear attack, something Russia has alreadyIndicated 2009 due to these reasons.

The above noted offensive implications of these systems thus poses the question whether the

construction of these facilities close to borders of other states can be regarded as the threat of useof force. The Russian Federation indicated as much when the NATO announced its plans to build

a defense system in Eastern European states such as Poland. This brings into question one of the

fundamental keystones of international law: refraining from the threat of use of force. To note is

also NATO’s response: it was not aiming the missiles at Russia, but at any attack by Iranian


14/16

Missiles. This is effectively admitting it was aiming the missiles at another country, further

spurring the threatening dynamic of the ABMs.

Main stakeholders

United States of America

The US is very invested in this technology, and one of the major proponents of further

Development. It has started placing numerous systems both in its internal borders as well as

those states allowing their assistance. Furthermore, while not the focus of this debate, it remains

one of the few states actively threatening with the weaponization of outer space for these purposes.

NATO

Many NATO states are supportive of the BDM system the US is planning to place in EasternEurope, although some countries remain critical. Overall, they see the threat of rogue states or

terrorist groups as a valid reason to invest in this technology

Russia

Whilst Russia is not against ABM technology per se it does regard placement of thatTechnology near its borders as a threat to its sovereignty. It currently has an active ABM system

around Moscow, and is planning to expand this to other major cities.

Israel

A heavy proponent of ABM technology, citing the ‘Iranian threat’. Israel is also focused on

tactical missile defense, as it is often bombed from neighbouring territories by what they deemterrorist groups.

China

While generally keeping outside of the debate, it send a clear message related to theseSystems when it shot down a satellite of own manufacturing in 2007 so as to indicate its fiercedetermination to not enter another arms race into space.

Relevant treaties


15/16

While no treaties are currently in effect regarding this topic, delegates are encouraged to research

those treaties concerning the weaponization of outer space, those concerning nuclear armaments,and those concerning missile limitation.

Conclusion

Overall this topic is a very controversial one where the committee shall have to balance the right

of self-defense for states with the threat these systems can pose to the equilibrium of weapons

currently in the world, and possibilities of ending up in another arms race. Additionally the

committee shall has to find a way to enforce or engender compliance with any decisions it doesmake. Best would be to work towards a treaty, as non-binding measures will most likely fall into

the Prisoner’s Dilemma trap, where states force each other into non-compliance.

Further Reading

History of Strategic and Ballistic Missile Defense Volume I & II available from:


16/16

http://history.army.mil/html/books/bmd/index.html

Army-Technology.com contains many useful facts about the systems and missiles currently in

existence, for example Israel’s Iron dome:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/irondomeairdefencemi/

More arguments on Missile Defense can be found on websites such as the Campaign for NuclearDisarmament:

http://www.cnduk.co.uk/

Also on Nuclear Files, presenting a list of many links arguing pro and con:

http://www.nuclearfiles.

org/menu/key-issues/missile-defense/issues/pro-con/

http://www.mda.mil/system/system.html
http://history.army.mil/html/books/bmd/index.htmlhttp://history.army.mil/html/books/bmd/index.htmlhttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/irondomeairdefencemi/http://www.army-technology.com/projects/irondomeairdefencemi/http://www.cnduk.co.uk/http://www.cnduk.co.uk/http://www.nuclearfiles/http://www.nuclearfiles/http://www.nuclearfiles/http://www.cnduk.co.uk/http://www.army-technology.com/projects/irondomeairdefencemi/http://history.army.mil/html/books/bmd/index.html

missile defense systems

Documents