As outdated techniques and minimal interceptors struggle to withstand an ever-increasing storm of nuclear threats, US weapon defenses are receiving increasing criticism.
The Atlantic Council released a statement this month in which it claimed that US weapon mechanisms are inadequate against adversaries with nuclear weapons, including China, Russia, and North Korea.
The report claims that while the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Missile Defense Review recommends maintaining a lead in North Korea’s weapon skills while relying on proper deterrent against China and Russia, this method is insufficient due to the increasing sophistication and quantity of missile risks.
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. A split missile defense system, incorporating cutting-edge technologies and defensive measures to stop missile launches, is recommended by the statement.
In order to prevent punishment, it also emphasizes the importance of maintaining US command and control systems and nuclear forces.
In order to lessen concerns about arms races, the statement recommends increasing funding for missile defence to a portion of the defence budget each year and increasing transparency with China and Russia. It states that the ultimate objective is to develop a strong defense system that stifles adversaries ‘ invasion plans and informs US allies.
Without addressing these risks, the report concludes that US national security and its ability to project authority worldwide could be seriously harmed.
US missile defence may not have been a top concern since the Reagan administration. In 1983, the Reagan Administration unveiled the Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDI), a futuristic multi-layered space-based missile defense system. But, SDI received criticism for its exorbitant fees and the point that it could not be tested without a nuclear strike.
The idea of preventing nuclear attacks even conflicted with deterrence, which would encourage a Communist first strike before the US had put an end to the system. When the Reagan Administration ended and the START I Treaty was signed in 1991, US involvement in the SDI decreased.
Additionally, Robert Peters and Keara Gentry notice that despite spending more than USD 170 billion on defense in the last two years, US missile defence capability has largely remained constant since 2004 in a Heritage Foundation report from June 2024.
Peters and Gentry make the point that the 44 GBIs the US currently possess may be inadequate to stop a minimal nuclear attack on the US island and potential risks. Additionally, they claim that it would cost$ 90 million to expand the number of GBIs, making it a difficult task.
A report from the US Government Accountability Office ( GAO ) from June 2024 mentions risks brought on by the next-generation interceptor program, which aims to improve US   missile defense.
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 potential gaps, US weapon protection presents a major concern to potential nuclear-armed adversaries, perhaps provoking an offense-defense arms competition.
Ottawa Sanders claims in a 2024 content for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences that China worries that US weapon defenses could degrade its ability to launch a second strike by intercepting surviving missiles after a US second strike, degrading its atomic deterrent. He claims that Russia is concerned that US weapon defenses may weaken its capability to fight following a US counterattack.
North Korea threatens to employ nuclear weapons to push the US mainland into making choices that are beneficial to the latter in order to keep the US mainland at risk of a strong nuclear strike. But, US weapon protection threatens to destroy North Korea’s nuclear threats.
These potential opponents have developed nuclear weapons in a way that could fight US missile defense.
According to the US Department of Defense’s 2024 China Military Power Report, China’s nuclear growth is progressing quickly. Its stash exceeded 600 operating weapons in 2024 and is projected to exceed 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. Additionally, according to the PLARF, 400 intercontinental ballistic missiles ( ICBMs) can be used to launch multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles ( MIRV ) simultaneously.
The document says China’s sea-based nuclear arsenal includes six Jin-class submarines armed with JL-2 and JL-3 submarine-launched nuclear weapons. It also mentions that China improvements lower-yield tactical nuclear weapons, hypersonics and partial planetary assault systems, demonstrating corporate balance ambitions.
According to Andrew Harding and various writers in a Heritage Foundation content this month, China’s aim to achieve a “world-class” defense by 2049 may push the nuclear buildup. China may be increasing its nuclear arsenal in order to coerce itself into including a potential invasion of Taiwan in addition to its goal of developing a world-class military by 2049 and as a defensive response 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.
The report says Russia’s strategy to counter US missile defenses includes developing advanced delivery systems such as hypersonic glide vehicles, nuclear-powered cruise missiles, and autonomous underwater systems. These innovations are intended to keep Russia’s ability to retaliate following a first strike, keeping strategic deterrence at bay. Additionally, it mentions Russia’s opposition to US efforts to limit the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus.
Russian officials express concern about the impact of US advances in long-range conventional strike and missile defenses on the survivability of their strategic forces, according to the report.
In regards to North Korea, Hans Kristensen and other authors mention that there may be enough fissile material for up to 90 nuclear warheads, with about 50 likely assembled, in a July 2024 report for the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Kristensen and others say North Korea is enhancing its missile force with new solid-fuel long-range strategic missiles, short-range tactical missiles, and sea-based missiles.
They highlight North Korea’s strategic goals, including producing” super-sized nuclear warheads”, improving precision strike and range capabilities and developing hypersonic glide vehicles. They point out that North Korea’s plan to defeat US missile defenses includes diversifying its arsenal and developing advanced delivery systems to ensure its ability to retaliate after a first strike.
In keeping with those objectives, Politico reported in February 2023 that North Korea may already possess enough ICBMs to completely overthrow US missile defenses. According to the report, North Korea displayed 10 to 12 ICBMs during a military parade. According to the report, the ICBMs could easily surpass the US’s 44 GBI interceptors when fitted with four different warheads.