Ballistic Missile Defense
A German-American Analysis
ResearchPublished 2001
A German-American Analysis
ResearchPublished 2001
The Bush Administration has already signaled its intention to proceed with national missile defense in some form. This paper examines the desirability, feasibility, and risks and costs of missile defense in the context of the NATO alliance. It lays out a concrete and comprehensive approach to strategic offensive and defensive arms and arms control policy and aims to be the basis for U.S.-European discussion and an aid in the search for common ground. The authors conclude by looking at the new realities that European leaders must confront and the key questions they need to answer as the United States proceeds with missile defense.
This publication is part of the RAND issue paper series. The issue paper was a product of RAND from 1993 to 2003 that contained early data analysis, an informed perspective on a topic, or a discussion of research directions, not necessarily based on published research. The issue paper was meant to be a vehicle for quick dissemination intended to stimulate discussion in a policy community.
This research in the public interest was supported by RAND using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors, the fees earned on client-funded research, or independent research and development (IR&D) funds provided by the Department of Defense.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.