Don't Count on Missile Defense for Asia

There has been much concern as of late that North Korea could launch a test missile capable of reaching U.S. territory. To allay these concerns, the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) system is being touted by defense officials as sufficiently robust to protect U.S. territory from any missiles headed its way. Contrary to conventional wisdom, fear of a test missile is misplaced, as is any sense of security derived from missile defense.

In the context of current events, North Korea demonstrates neither the capability nor the inclination to strike U.S. territory with a missile. North Korea has never launched a missile any further east than Japan and virtually all of its previous test launches have been abysmal failures. Over time, as North Korea conducts greater numbers of tests, its missile technology could improve to the point where a North Korean missile attack would be a plausible threat. For now, however, a North Korean missile attack on the United States is nothing more than a theoretical exercise.

In terms of intentions, an attack from North Korea would run directly counter to the primary goal of its leadership: to secure the survival of its totalitarian regime. As long as American lives are kept out of North Korea's line of fire, there is little likelihood that the United States will engage North Korea militarily. Even traditional North Korea hawks, like Bruce Klingner from the Heritage Foundation, have argued that North Korea has no intention to target Hawaii.

BMD, meanwhile, is prohibitively expensive, has a history of failure, and encourages China and Russia to accelerate arms buildups. Though U.S. missile defense efforts since the 1980s have proven an economic boon for the defense industry, recurring cost overruns increase the cost of BMD without demonstrably increasing the benefit; the United States has never successfully tested missile defense technology except under the most tightly structured conditions. Further, the permanent introduction of BMD technologies into Asia could trigger an Asian arms race as Russia and China seek to maintain their existing politico-military advantages.

Similar plans for introducing BMD systems in Eastern Europe have already induced strident opposition from Russia, leading to a diplomatic row with the United States that lasted until President Obama's trip to Russia this week. Official statements from Russia even hinted that Russia's invasion of Georgia during the U.S. presidential election was attributable to the Bush administration's efforts to place BMD systems in Poland, Russia's traditional ‘sphere of influence.'

Given the cost and risk inherent to BMD systems, coupled with the lack of immediacy associated with the North Korea threat, there is simply no reason to think that BMD will improve America's security situation. Indeed, the permanent introduction of missile defense could catalyze a new arms race in Asia.