NATO Missile Defence: The Political and Operational Case for a Two-Base Structure
Dec 2006, Vol. 151, No. 6
By Stephan Frühling and Svenja Sinjen
At the 2002 Prague Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government ‘initiated a new NATO Missile Defence feasibility study to examine options for protecting Alliance territory, forces and population centres against the full range of missile threats’. Since the United States continues to develop and deploy a system to protect its population from ballistic missiles, the need for European states in NATO to define their position has become more pressing, and ballistic missile defence (BMD) is at the top of the agenda at the Riga summit. Decisions about whether and how to defend the European continent are charged with technological, operational and political issues which have yet to be addressed in public debate. Although typically not recognized as such, missile defence is now central to the security relationship between Europe and the United States, and NATO’s raison d’être. A European debate on BMD is overdue. This article is intended to help initiate such a debate.
Stephan Frühling researches defence planning at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University.He has previously published a Canberra Paper on BMD options for Australia, and articles on strategic theory as well as nuclear deterrence. Stephan is the editor of the Australian journal, 'Security Challenges'.
Svenja Sinjen researches international relations in Germany and publishes articles on the development of the transatlantic defence co-operation, especially in the NATO framework.
Add your comments
By Stephan Frühling and Svenja Sinjen
At the 2002 Prague Summit, NATO Heads of State and Government ‘initiated a new NATO Missile Defence feasibility study to examine options for protecting Alliance territory, forces and population centres against the full range of missile threats’. Since the United States continues to develop and deploy a system to protect its population from ballistic missiles, the need for European states in NATO to define their position has become more pressing, and ballistic missile defence (BMD) is at the top of the agenda at the Riga summit. Decisions about whether and how to defend the European continent are charged with technological, operational and political issues which have yet to be addressed in public debate. Although typically not recognized as such, missile defence is now central to the security relationship between Europe and the United States, and NATO’s raison d’être. A European debate on BMD is overdue. This article is intended to help initiate such a debate.
Stephan Frühling researches defence planning at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University.He has previously published a Canberra Paper on BMD options for Australia, and articles on strategic theory as well as nuclear deterrence. Stephan is the editor of the Australian journal, 'Security Challenges'.
Svenja Sinjen researches international relations in Germany and publishes articles on the development of the transatlantic defence co-operation, especially in the NATO framework.
You need 4 credits to access this item
If you are a member or registered user, please login
Not already a member and have not yet registered?
Add your comments
Copyright © 2008 RUSI