Limited National and Allied Missile Defense

Abstract

In an exchange of letters, James Lindsay and Michael O’Hanlon claim that in arguing that the costs of a national missile defense outweigh the benefits, Charles Glaser and Steve Fetter underestimate or ignore three possible scenarios that support the development of a limited NMD system: (1) nuclear deterrence alone may fail, (2) the existence of an NMD system may have a coercive value, and (3) preemption of an enemy’s intercontinental ballistic missiles before they reach the United States may be harder than assumed. Glaser and Fetter respond.