KOSEN 한인과학기술자네트워크

The United States has pursued missile defense since the dawn of the missile age shortly after War WarⅡ. The development and deployment of missile defense has not only been elusive, but has proven to be one of the most divisive issues of the past generation. The Bush Administration has substantially altered the debate over missile defenses. The Administration requested significant funding increase for missile defense programs (about 61 percent above that approved by Congress for FY2001), eliminated the distinction between national and theater missile defense, restructured the missile defense program to focus more directly on developing deployment options fro a “layered” capability to intercept missile aimed at U.S. territory across the whole spectrum of their flight path, adopted a new, untried development and acquisition strategy, and announced U.S. withdrawal from 1972 Anti-ballistic Missile Trealy The Administration argued these steps wear necessary in response to growing concerns over the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, especially on the part of a handful of potentially hostile states and terrorists. In addition, they asserted that U.S. deterrence theory has outlived its usefulness, and that it could not be relied upon to dissnade unstable leaders in roguc states. Critics take issue with assertions that the threat is increasing, citing evidence that the number of nations seeking or possessing nuclear weapons has actually declined over the past twenty years. Moreover, they argue that the technology for effective missile defense remains immature, that deployment is provocative to allies, friends, and adversaries, and it is a budget-buster that reduces the availability of funds to major powers will view U.S. missile defense as an attempt at strategic domination and that some, such as China, will expand its missile capabilities in response. The Bush Administration’s plans raise a number of issues, many of which are examined in this report. The issues that have received attention in the 107th Congress, are: 1) U.S. compliance with the ABM Treaty and now the announced withdrawal from the Treaty; 2) a new acquisition concept for developing missile defense that does not lend itself readily to oversight, system definition, or cost and effectiveness analysis; and, 3) the restructuring of existing missile defense programs within the Missile Defense Agency (formerly BMDO). This report replace CRS Issues Briefs: National Missile Defense: Issues for Congress (CRS Issues Brief IB10034), and Theater Missile Defense: Issues for Congress (CRS Issues Brief IB98028). The report will be updated as needed.