Assignment 2: Critical Evaluation of the U.S. National Missile Defense System

Unit and Assessment Context

Course: INTL2 / POLS2 / SEC2– American National Security and Defense Policy (Year 2–3 undergraduate)

Assessment type: Critical analysis essay (Assignment 2 of 3), worth 30–35% of the unit grade.

You will produce a structured critique of U.S. national missile defense (NMD) as a component of American security strategy, drawing on contemporary scholarship about effectiveness, cost, technology, and international consequences. The task reflects how security and strategic studies units in US, UK, Canadian, Australian, and Gulf universities routinely assess students’ ability to connect policy arguments with empirical evidence and alliance and arms control dynamics.

Assessment Description

Write a 1,200–1,500 word critical thinking essay that evaluates whether the United States should maintain, reform, significantly expand, or phase out its National Missile Defense posture in light of strategic, technological, economic, and diplomatic considerations.

Your essay must move beyond simple advocacy for or against the system and instead weigh competing claims about feasibility, opportunity costs, contribution to deterrence, and impact on arms control and strategic stability with Russia, China, and so-called rogue states. You should explicitly engage both supportive and critical perspectives and reach a defensible conclusion about what a prudent U.S. policy on national missile defense should look like over the next decade.

Task Instructions

i. Define the policy and its evolution
Begin with a concise definition of U.S. national missile defense, distinguishing it from regional or theatre missile defense and summarising how the current Ground-based Midcourse Defense system and related architectures emerged from post–Cold War debates and the 2002 U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Identify the core stated purposes of NMD and note at least one major historical critique such as cost, technical performance, or strategic instability.

ii. Assess technical effectiveness and limitations
Using contemporary analyses, evaluate how well current and planned NMD architectures perform under realistic conditions, including hit-to-kill reliability, decoys and countermeasures, salvo attacks, and emerging hypersonic and cruise missile threats. Explain at least one recent finding about system testing and why some experts argue that it is a limited defense against small arsenals but not a credible shield against major nuclear powers.

iii. Analyse costs and opportunity costs
Outline available estimates of NMD program spending and discuss what is at stake in terms of budget priorities and trade-offs with other defense and domestic needs. Demonstrate understanding of the argument that strategic missile defense can represent a high-cost, low-utility investment relative to alternatives such as diplomacy, arms control, cyber capabilities, or conventional deterrence.

iv. Evaluate strategic and diplomatic consequences
Engage with scholarship on how NMD affects strategic stability with major powers and how it intersects with nuclear modernisation, arms race dynamics, and alliance politics. Present at least one argument that missile defense undermines arms control and one that it may contribute to deterrence and reassurance.

v. Develop your critical position
Formulate a clear thesis about what the United States should do with its national missile defense posture. Justify your position by weighing technical feasibility, costs, likely adversary responses, and risks to crisis stability and escalation.

vi. Address counter-arguments
Present at least one strong opposing argument and explain why your position remains valid after evaluating the evidence. Identify areas of uncertainty and suggest how further testing, transparency, or arms control measures could mitigate risks.

Requirements and Formatting

• Length: 1,200–1,500 words (excluding reference list)
• Structure: Introduction with a clear thesis, 3–5 analytical sections, and a conclusion that synthesises findings without introducing new evidence
• Sources: Minimum of four recent academic or high-quality policy sources (2018–2026), including at least one peer-reviewed journal article and one policy or technical report
• Style: Formal academic writing in third person with consistent APA 7th referencing or program-specific style
• Academic integrity: Avoid reliance on pre-written essays; all sources must be properly cited

Marking Rubric (Assignment 2 – 35% of Unit Grade)

Sample Answer Content

Current debates about U.S. national missile defense rarely turn on whether the United States should defend itself at all; they instead focus on what kinds of missile defenses are technically credible, strategically sound, and economically justified. Analysts highlight that test performance remains mixed and often carefully controlled, raising doubts about effectiveness against complex real-world attack scenarios. Supporters argue that even a limited defense against small arsenals can enhance deterrence, while critics contend that adversaries can respond more cheaply through countermeasures or alternative delivery systems. The opportunity cost of sustained investment is significant, as funding directed toward missile defense could otherwise support diplomacy, arms control, or resilience against non-missile threats.

Scholarship on strategic stability further suggests that missile defense may incentivise adversaries to expand their arsenals to preserve deterrence credibility, thereby undermining arms control progress. However, limited and transparent systems may mitigate these risks if carefully aligned with diplomatic efforts and alliance commitments.

An additional perspective in the literature emphasises that the effectiveness of missile defense should be assessed not only in technical terms but also through its contribution to broader strategic outcomes, including deterrence credibility and alliance assurance. This multidimensional evaluation aligns with contemporary security studies approaches that integrate technological capability with political and strategic context (Talmadge, 2022).

Next Assessed Activity: Week 7 Policy Brief / Discussion Post

Course: INTL / POLS2 / SEC2 – American National Security and Defense Policy

Week 7 Discussion / Policy Brief Post: Alternatives to National Missile Defense

Overview
You will submit a short policy-oriented discussion post that builds on your essay by examining alternative approaches to managing long-range missile threats.

Task
Write a 300–500 word post or 1–2 page policy brief responding to the prompt:

“Assume the United States must prepare for missile threats while avoiding an arms race. Identify one realistic alternative or complement to expanding homeland missile defense and explain how it addresses vulnerabilities while limiting risks to strategic stability.”

Requirements

• Summarise one key weakness of current or expanded NMD
• Present one alternative supported by at least one source
• Evaluate one advantage and one limitation
• Respond to at least two peers with comparative analysis

Suggested Scholarly and Policy References (APA 7th)

1. Reif, K., & Kimball, D. G. (2018). U.S. ballistic missile defense: Understanding the issues. Arms Control Today, 48(3), 8–15.
2. Talmadge, C. (2022). Defending the United States: Revisiting national missile defense. International Security, 46(3), 51–92.
3. Ananiewicz, M., & Walczak, R. (2021). Missile defence systems: A revolution in military affairs. Safety & Defense, 7(1), 33–47.
4. Union of Concerned Scientists. (2016). The disastrous U.S. approach to strategic missile defense.
5. National Institute for Public Policy. (2025). Re-examining national missile defense strategy.
6. Acton, J. M. (2018). Escalation through entanglement: How the vulnerability of command-and-control systems raises the risks of an inadvertent nuclear war. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.