September 11, 2001 and National Missile Defense: Upping the Ante to Protect America Against the Rogue Missile Threat

Whether or not America needs a National Missile Defense (NMD) system in light of events of September 11, 2001 seems, in its simplest sense and on the one hand, to be a foregone conclusion. But on a more intellectual level, is this really the case? Can the events of perhaps the most tragic day in contemporary American history be responsible for altering the long debate over National Missile Defense to the point where deployment of a National Missile Defense system is imminent? The short answer is yes. The United States of America must deploy a National Missile Defense system now, in light of events of 9/11, if it is to "provide for the common defense" as charged by the Constitution. This paper analyzes the necessity for deploying a National Missile Defense system in light of events surrounding 9/11 using a construct organized around four specific criteria: 1) the changed nature of the ballistic missile threat, 2) movement in United States thinking concerning the effectiveness of deterrence for protecting the country against missile threats, 3) corresponding changes in American national security strategy goals and objectives, and 4) a serious reconsideration of the 1972 Antiballistic Missile (ABM) treaty. Using the criteria described, a framework for comparing the debate, both before and after 9/11, is established in an effort to ascertain shifts in the national and international discourse on a decision by the Government of the United States of America to field an operational National Missile Defense system. The conclusion is that the events of 9/11 have provided the Government of the United States reasonable and prudent justification to proceed with fielding an operational National Missile Defense system as soon as possible.