Determining Trajectory: Defining the Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) Debate

Abstract

The Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) debate can be broken into three schools of thought. The first consists of those intellectuals who are opposed absolutely to BMD research and deployment. This line of thinking finds security and stability in mutual vulnerability to strategic weapons. The second school, believing that security can be enhanced with the deployment of moderate missile defences, argues the case for limited BMD, insofar as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) remains a reality amongst the great powers. Those who reject the deterrence logic of safety-through-vulnerability and believe the ballistic missile threat is immediate are adherents of the aggressive or unilateral BMD school. This latter view has presently won over America's political leadership and leads efforts in the development and deployment of a multi-layered Ballistic Missile Defense System. Ultimately, the structure and status of this debate has implications for, and will influence the direction of, Canada's BMD policies.