Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security

Limited National and Allied Missile Defense

| Spring 2002

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.

Want to Read More?

The full text of this publication is available via the original publication source.
Read Full Article
For more information on this publication: Please contact International Security
For Academic Citation: Fetter, Steve, Charles L. Glaser, Michael O'Hanlon and James M. Lindsay. “Limited National and Allied Missile Defense.” Quarterly Journal: International Security, vol. 26. no. 4. (Spring 2002):
190-201
.

The Authors

Michael O'Hanlon

Recommended
In the Spotlight
RSS
A detailed look at China’s development of a hydrogen bomb in fewer than three years, quicker than all other initial nuclear weapons states.
'New Cold Wars' are “more complex, more dangerous than the old one, because China and Russia are teaming up together.”
While U.S. media reports blame Iran and its drone attacks for “pouring gasoline on a region that is already in flames,” there's a lot more to the story, and “most of it reflects poorly on the United States.”
Most Viewed

Tags