US missile defenses face mounting criticism as outdated systems and limited interceptors struggle to counter an evolving barrage of nuclear threats.
This month, the Atlantic Council released a report arguing that US missile defenses are insufficient against nuclear-armed adversaries such as China, Russia and North Korea.
The report states that while the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Missile Defense Review advocates staying ahead of North Korea’s missile capabilities while relying on strategic deterrence against China and Russia, this approach is insufficient due to the increasing sophistication and number of missile threats.
While the report says that the Biden Administration’s plan to increase ground-based interceptors (GBIs) by 2028 is seen as a step forward, it raises concerns about strategic stability with China and Russia. The report calls for a layered missile defense system, integrating advanced technologies and offensive measures to prevent missile launches.
It also stresses the importance of protecting US nuclear forces and command and control systems to ensure deterrence.
The report recommends increasing missile defense funding to one percent of the annual defense budget and enhancing transparency with China and Russia to mitigate arms race concerns. It says the ultimate goal is to create a robust defense system that complicates adversaries’ attack plans and reassures US allies.
The report concludes that US national security and its ability to project power globally could be significantly undermined without addressing these threats.
US missile defense may not have been a priority since the Reagan Administration. In 1983, the Reagan Administration unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a futuristic multi-layered space-based missile defense system. However, SDI was criticized for its exorbitant costs and the fact that it could not be tested without a nuclear attack.
The idea of guarding against a nuclear attack also went against the concept of deterrence, incentivizing a Soviet first strike before the US could complete the system. US interest in the SDI waned when the Reagan Administration ended and when the START I Treaty was signed in 1991.
Further, Robert Peters and Keara Gentry mention in a June 2024 Heritage Foundation report that despite over USD 170 billion spent in the past two decades, US missile defense capability has remained essentially unchanged since 2004.
Peters and Gentry point out that the 44 GBIs the US has may be insufficient to defeat a limited nuclear strike on the US mainland and future threats. They also say increasing the number of GBIs would cost $90 million each — a costly endeavor.
While the next-generation interceptor (NGI) program aims to bolster US missile defense, a June 2024 report from the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) mentions that the program faces risks due to overlapping design and production activities, optimistic scheduling and increased costs from supply chain issues.
The GAO report says that the US Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has not fully addressed technical risks or updated threat-related performance requirements, raising concerns about the program’s ability to meet its 2028 fielding deadline.
Despite those capability gaps, US missile defense presents a significant challenge to potential nuclear-armed adversaries, possibly provoking an offense-defense arms race.
In a 2024 article for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Ottawa Sanders says that China fears that US missile defenses could undermine its nuclear deterrent by intercepting surviving missiles after a US first strike, thus degrading its second-strike capability. Likewise, he says that Russia is concerned that US missile defenses could erode its ability to retaliate after a US counterforce strike.
North Korea aims to hold the US mainland at risk of a direct nuclear attack, threatening to use nuclear weapons to force the latter into making decisions favorable to the former. However, US missile defense threatens to upend North Korea’s nuclear threats.
These potential adversaries have advanced their nuclear arsenals in ways that can defeat US missile defense.
According to the US Department of Defense’s 2024 China Military Power Report, China’s nuclear expansion is progressing rapidly. Its stockpile exceeded 600 operational warheads in 2024 and is projected to surpass 1,000 by 2030.
The report states that the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) is establishing 320 solid-propellant silos and doubling its DF-5 liquid-silo force to 50 silos, bolstering its “early warning counterstrike” capability. It also says the PLARF fields 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) capable of carrying multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles (MIRV).
The report says China’s sea-based nuclear arsenal includes six Jin-class submarines armed with JL-2 and JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missiles. It also mentions that China advances lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, hypersonics and fractional orbital bombardment systems, demonstrating strategic parity ambitions.
According to Andrew Harding and other writers in a Heritage Foundation article this month, China’s goal to achieve a “world-class” military by 2049 may drive the nuclear buildup. However, China may be building up its nuclear forces for coercive purposes, including a potential invasion of Taiwan, in addition to its goal of having a world-class military by 2049 and as a defensive reaction to US missile defense systems.
In Russia’s case, a November 2024 US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report says that Russia has around 1,710 deployed nuclear warheads, including ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers. The report highlights Russia’s modernization efforts, focusing on the SS-X-29 Sarmat heavy ICBM, SS-27 Mod 2 Yars ICBM, and Borei class SSBN.