Donald Trump’s Administration Confronting Missile Defence: Key Challenges and Probabilistic Overview

Authors

  • Grzegorz Nycz Pedagogical University of Cracow

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1641-4233.23.04

Keywords:

Donald Trump’s administration’s security policy, missile defence, probabilistic analysis

Abstract

The text describes main US missile defence efforts in the first years of D. Trump’s administration. The analysis of current aspects of BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) deployments is enhanced by probability analysis examining missile defence reliability. Donald Trump took office in the time of increased military competition between the West and Russia and a dangerous regional crisis related to North Korean nuclear arsenal and its ballistic tests. BMD appeared to bring additional chances to US deterrence options in regional scale, allowing more successful first strike or active defence posture. Notably, D. Trump’s administration managed to raise defence expenditures including BMD spending.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Grzegorz Nycz, Pedagogical University of Cracow

Grzegorz Nycz - PhD, adjunct professor at the Pedagogical University of Cracow’s Institute of Political Science. Graduated from Jagiellonian University and Cracow University of Economics. Ryoichi Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund Fellow 2007/2008. His research refers to US security and foreign policy, with a special focus on nuclear deterrence and ballistic missile defense postures. His recent publications include a monography on strategic balance and US national security policy since 1945 to 2015 (published by Pedagogical University of Cracow in 2016) and articles related to ballistic missile defense investments, as well as US military-political engagements in Eastern Europe, Middle East and East Asia in the time of the “New Cold War” between Russia and the West.

References

Armstrong, M.J. The Effectiveness of Rocket Attacks and Defenses in Israel. “Journal of Global Security Studies”, no. 3.2 (2018), pp. 113–132.
Google Scholar

Baucom, D. The Rise and Fall of Brilliant Pebbles. “The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies”, no. 29.2 (Summer, 2004), pp. 143–190. Web. 24 July 2018, http://highfrontier.org/oldarchive/Archive/hf/The%20Rise%20and%20Fall%20of%20Brilliant%20Pebbles%20-Baucom.pdf
Google Scholar

Baucom, D. US Missile Defense Program, 1944–1994: A Protracted Revolution. Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (February 27, 1995). Web. 24 July 2018, www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a338560.pdf
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA338560

Bennett, B. Why THAAD Is Needed in Korea. “The Korea Times” (August, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/08/why-thaad-is-needed-in-korea.html
Google Scholar

Choon, Ch. 4 more Thaad missile defence launchers to be deployed in South Korea. “The Strait Times” (September 4, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/south-korea-to-announce-approval-of-environment-report-for-thaad-deployment-on-Monday
Google Scholar

Cimbala, S. Shield of Dreams. Missile Defenses in U.S. and Russian Nuclear Strategy. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2008.
Google Scholar

Czajkowski, M. Obrona przeciwrakietowa w stosunkach międzynarodowych. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2013.
Google Scholar

Dabrowski, J. Missile Defense. The First Seventy Years. Missile Defense Agency (August 8, 2013). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/first70.pdf
Google Scholar

Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA). Poland – Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) Battle Command System (IBCS)-enabled Patriot Configuration-3+. (November 17, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.dsca.mil/sites/default/files/mas/poland_17–67.pdf
Google Scholar

Dodge, M. President Obama’s Missile Defense Policy: A Misguided Legacy. Heritage Foundation (September 15, 2016). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/president-obamas-missile-defense-policy-misguided-legacy
Google Scholar

Futter, A. Ballistic Missile Defense and US National Security Policy. Normalisation and acceptance after the Cold War. London: Routledge, 2013.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203584477

Greaves, S. Statement Before the House Armed Services Committee. (April 17, 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/FY19_Written_Statement_HASC_SFS.pdf
Google Scholar

Grego, L., Lewis, G., Wright, D. Shielded from Oversight. The Disastrous US Approach to Strategic Missile Defense. Union of Concerned Scientists (July 2016). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2016/07/Shielded-from-Oversight-appendix-8.pdf
Google Scholar

Jóźwiak, J., Podgórski, J. Statystyka od podstaw. Warszawa: Polskie Wydawnictwo Ekonomiczne, 2012.
Google Scholar

Judson, J. Congress provides USD3,3 billion boost for missile defense in FY18 spending bill. “Defense News” (March 21, 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/03/22/congress-provides-33-billion-boost-for-missile-defense-in-fy18-spending-bill/
Google Scholar

Kang, Ch. ‘THAAD’ anti-missile system can’t protect South Korea from missile attacks by itself. “CNBC” (September 11, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/11/south-korea-missile-defense-thaad-system-cant-do-the-job-alone.html
Google Scholar

Korean Culture and Information Service (KOCIS). Panmunjeom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity and Unification of the Korean Peninsula. (April 27, 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.korea.net/Government/Current-Affairs/National-Affairs/view?affairId=656&subId=641&articleId=3354
Google Scholar

Lebovic, J. The Law of Small Numbers: Deterrence and National Missile Defense. “The Journal of Conflict Resolution”, no. 46.4 (August 2002), pp. 455–483.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002702046004001

Lewis, G. Technical Controversy. Can Missile Defense Work?, [in:] Regional Missile Defense from a Global Perspective, eds. C. McArdle Kelleher, P. Dombrowski. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2015; Kindle: Loc 1299–1689.
Google Scholar

McMahon, S. Pursuit of the Shield. The U.S. Quest for Limited Ballistic Missile Defense. Lanham: University Press of America, 1997.
Google Scholar

MDA a. FY 2017 Historical Funds. Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/FY17_histfunds.pdf
Google Scholar

MDA b. PB 2019–2023 Budget Summary USD Millions. Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/budgetfy19_summary.pdf
Google Scholar

MDA c. Ballistic Missile Defense Intercept Flight Test Record (as of May 30, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf
Google Scholar

MDA d. Ballistic Missile Defense Intercept Flight Test Record (as of March 2018). (23 March 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/testrecord.pdf
Google Scholar

MDA News. Homeland Missile Defense System Successfully Intercepts ICBM Target. (May 30, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.mda.mil/news/17news0003.html
Google Scholar

Meick, E., Salidjanova, N. China’s Response to U.S.-South Korean Missile Defense System Deployment and its Implications. “US-China Economic and Security Review Commission” (July 26, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Report_China%27s%20Response%20to%20THAAD%20Deployment%20and%20its%20Implications.pdf
Google Scholar

Ministry of National Defence (MON) a. Umowa na system „Wisła” podpisana (28.03.2018). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.mon.gov.pl/aktualnosci/artykul/najnowsze/podpisanie-umowy-na-elementy-i-fazy-systemu-wisla-r2018–03–28/
Google Scholar

MON b. Memorandum ws. baterii rakiet Patriot (August 6, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.mon.gov.pl/aktualnosci/artykul/najnowsze/memorandum-ws-baterii-rakiet-patriot-f2017–07–06/
Google Scholar

MON c. Memorandum of Intent Concerning PATRIOT Defense Capabilities. (July, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.mon.gov.pl/d/pliki/rozne/2017/07/MOU.pdf
Google Scholar

National Defense Strategy (NDS) 2018. Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf
Google Scholar

National Security Strategy (NSS) 2017. Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12–18–2017-0905.pdf
Google Scholar

Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) 2018. Web. 25 July 2018, https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF
Google Scholar

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller). Program Acquisition Costs by Weapon System, FY 2019 (February 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2019/FY2019_Weapons.pdf
Google Scholar

Osborn, K. U.S. Missile Defense Prepares for North Korea. Scout Warrior (September 21, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Could-THAAD-Protect-South-Korea-From-Massive-North-Korean-Missil-105944331
Google Scholar

Postol, T. Lessons of the Gulf War Experience with Patriot. “International Security”, no. 16.3 (Winter 1991–1992), pp. 119–171.
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2539090

Pugacewicz, T. Missile Defense Roles in the Post-Cold War US Strategy. “Politeja”, no. 50 (2017), pp. 263–293.
Google Scholar

Sagan, S. The Korean Missile Crisis. Why Deterrence Is Still the Best Option. “Foreign Affairs” no. 96.6 (Nov/Dec 2017), pp. 72–82.
Google Scholar

Steff, Reuben. Strategic Thinking, Deterrence and the US Ballistic Missile Defense Project From Truman to Obama. Farnham: Ashgate, 2013.
Google Scholar

Stone, M. et al. Raytheon gets OK for USD10.5 billion Patriot sale to Poland: Pentagon. “Reuters” (November 17, 2017). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-raytheon-poland-patriot/raytheon-gets-ok-for-10-5-billion-patriot-sale-to-poland-pentagon-idUSKBN1DH2KQ
Google Scholar

Syring, J. Statement. Senate Appropriations Committee (March 18, 2015). Web. 25 July 2018, http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/ps_syring_031815_sacd.pdf
Google Scholar

The White House a. An American Budget FY2019 (February, 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
Google Scholar

The White House b. Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un at the Singapore Summit (June 12, 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/joint-statement-president-donald-j-trump-united-states-america-chairman-kim-jong-un-democratic-peoples-republic-korea-singapore-summit/
Google Scholar

The White House Office of Management and Budget. Historical Tables. (2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/hist-fy2019.pdf
Google Scholar

US Army. US to deploy THAAD missile battery to South Korea (2016). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.army.mil/article/171316/us_to_deploy_thaad_missile_battery_to_south_korea
Google Scholar

US Department of State (DoS) a. Office of the Spokesperson, United States Welcomes Polish Missile Defense Tender (April 21, 2015). Web. 25 July 2018, https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2015/04/240961.htm
Google Scholar

US Department of State (DoS) b. Annual Report On Implementation Of The New Start Treaty (January 2016). Web. 25 July 2018, https://www.state.gov/t/avc/rls/rpt/2016/255558.htm
Google Scholar

US Embassy in Poland. Umowa między USA i Polską na dostawę systemu rakietowego Patriot (March 28, 2018). Web. 25 July 2018, https://pl.usembassy.gov/pl/patriot_pol
Google Scholar

Wilkening, D. A Simple Model for Calculating Ballistic Missile Defense Effectiveness. “Science & Global Security”, vol. 8.2 (1999), pp. 183–215. Web. 25 July 2018, https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Simple_Model_for_BMD.pdf
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08929880008426475

Yanarella, E. The Missile Defense Controversy. Technology in Search of a Mission. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 2002.
Google Scholar

Downloads

Published

2019-07-15

How to Cite

Nycz, G. (2019). Donald Trump’s Administration Confronting Missile Defence: Key Challenges and Probabilistic Overview. International Studies. Interdisciplinary Political and Cultural Journal, 23(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.18778/1641-4233.23.04