ABSTRACT
Critics of Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) already have identified their preferred alternatives for responding to the proliferation and accidental/unauthorized launch threats. The alternative to GPALS suggested most frequently is the application of deterrence to Third Parties. For deterrence to function effectively and serve as an alternative to GPALS would require conditions that are unlikely to be present in US relations with multiple Third Parties. Another suggested alternative to the threat of ballistic missile proliferation is a US policy of preventive or preemptive offensive strikes. Measures to prevent proliferation also are suggested as an alternative to missile defense. The alternative to missile defense typically proposed as the preferred response to the threat of accidental/unauthorized launch is the installation of "command destruct" mechanisms in offensive missiles. In summary, those countermeasures to the limited missile threat typically proposed as alternatives to GPALS are: deterrence; preemptive/preventive strikes; expert controls; and command destruct mechanisms.
