The Debate About Missile Defense: Some Preliminary Lessons From The Gulf War

Prior to the Gulf War there was little actual evidence to discipline the debate about missile defense. The Gulf War illustrated a type of Third Party threat that will become increasingly prevalent—including a limited number of primitive missiles armed with conventional or possibly chemical warheads. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was intended to support deterrence stability by codifying US and Soviet vulnerability to missile attack. The projected cost of Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) can hardly be considered excessive or unaffordable. The Gulf War demonstrated, however, that with the launching of missiles at urban centers accounting considerations are subordinated to the concern for the lives and property needing protection. There are significant lessons from the Gulf War for the consideration of GPALS and missile defense. In general, these lessons cast doubt on much of the traditional case against missile defense.