Hypersonic missiles--specifically hypersonic glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles--are a new class of threat because they are capable both of maneuvering and of flying faster than 5,000 kilometers per hour. These features enable such missiles to penetrate most missile defenses and to further compress the timelines for a response by a nation under attack. Hypersonic missiles are being developed by the United States, Russia, and China. Their proliferation beyond these three could result in other powers setting their strategic forces on hair-trigger states of readiness. And such proliferation could enable other powers to more credibly threaten attacks on major powers. The diffusion of hypersonic technology is under way in Europe, Japan, Australia, and India--with other nations beginning to explore such technology. Proliferation could cross multiple borders if hypersonic technology is offered on world markets. There is probably less than a decade available to substantially hinder the potential proliferation of hypersonic missiles and associated technologies. To this end, the report recommends that (1) the United States, Russia, and China should agree not to export complete hypersonic missile systems or their major components and (2) the broader international community should establish controls on a wider range of hypersonic missile hardware and technology.

The Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS) of the Monterey Institute of International Studies and the Mountbatten Centre for International Studies (MCIS) at the University of Southampton are very pleased to initiate a new Occasional Paper series devoted to the topic of ballistic missile proliferation. The focus of this series reflects the concern of both centers that the spread of ballistic missiles constitutes one of the most serious and complex nonproliferation challenges today. This problem was highlighted in an extensive study on the future of nuclear weapons conducted by MCIS between 1997-99. It pointed to the role ballistic missile proliferation could play in threatening new action-reaction arms instabilities of great complexity and unpredictability, the reaction part of this equation being the pursuit of ballistic missile defenses, in particular by the United States. These instabilities were likely to simultaneously limit nuclear disarmament and stimulate nuclear proliferation, as well as threaten peaceful uses of space. In parallel, however, a process was also underway to build a regime to control ballistic missiles. This situation led MICS to initiate a project focused on addressing this emerging range of political and technical issues. One of its aims is to move the debate over missile defenses into an international context. A second is to assist in international efforts to develop mechanisms for multilateral control of ballistic missiles. The strategy chosen by MCIS was to engage states by requesting the preparation of short papers setting out national perceptions of the challenges facing the international community in the areas of missile proliferation and missile defense. An international workshop that included leading research organizations and individuals working in the field followed. Its purpose was to identify both the main policy issues emerging from the national papers and the evolving international debate, and to prepare the agenda for a larger seminar bringing together a broader range of specialists and those who had attended the first research workshop. The first workshop took place in December 2000, and the seminar will occur in March 2001.The aim of the seminar is to initiate a process of .Track-2. international dialogue on these issues, as well as agree the formation of an international consortium of research institutes to pursue this work. The contributions to this Occasional Paper were initially prepared as presentations for the December 2000 workshop. At that meeting, it was suggested that an early volume offering an overview of the missile defense issue and emerging challenges would be a useful contribution to the international debate on the control of missile proliferation and defenses, and serve as the first product of the new venture, to be known as the Mountbatten Centre International Missile Forum (MCIMF). Initial partner organizations in this Forum are the publishers of this occasional paper, the Monterey Institute for International Studies (MIIS); the Institut Français des Relations Internationales (IFRI); the Japanese Institute of International Affairs (JIIA); the Moscow Center of the Carnegie Endowment; and the Peace Research Institute, Frankfurt (PRIF). We would also like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the generous financial support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, which has enabled the project to move forward on a secure financial basis, and to thank the editorial staff of CNS for their work in producing this publication.

Why adopt a poststructural lens for the reading of the military strategy of national missile defence (NMD)? No doubt, when contemplating an attack on US territory by intercontinental ballistic missiles, consulting Michel Foucault and critical international relations theory scholars may not seem the obvious route to take. The answer to this lies in another question: why has there been so much interest and continuous investment in NMD deployment when there is such ambiguity surrounding the status of threat to which it responds, controversy over its technological feasibility and concern about its cost? Posed in this manner, the question cannot be answered on its own terms – the terms given in official accounts of NMD that justify the system’s significance on the basis of strategic feasibility studies and conventional threat predictions guided by worst-case scenarios. Instead, this book argues that the preferences leading to NMD deployment must be understood as satisfying requirements beyond strategic approaches and issues. In turning towards the interpretative modes of inquiry provided by critical social theory and poststructuralism, this book contests the conventional wisdom about NMD and suggests reading the strategy in terms of US identity. Presented as an analysis of discourses on threats to national security, around which the need for NMD deployment is predominantly framed, this book is an effort to let the two fields of critical international relations theory and US foreign policy speak directly to each other. It seeks to do so by showing how the concept of identity can be harnessed to an analysis of a contemporary military-strategic practice.

The National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 mandates a review of missile defeat policy, strategy, and capability to be completed by January 2018. This upcoming Missile Defeat Review (MDR) represents an opportunity for the Trump administration to articulate a vision for the future of air and missile defense. This collection of expert essays explores how the strategic environment for missile defense and defeat has evolved since 2010 and offers recommendations to help guide and inform the MDR’s development.

This book examines the implications of emerging security environment for missile defense. It identifies the lessons concerning the questions provided by the Gulf War, focusing on the redirection of the Strategic Defense Initiative towards a capability for global protection against limited strikes.