ABSTRACT
Much of the debate on whether to deploy ballistic missile defenses (BMD) has been emotional and ideological. Although Theater Missile Defense (TMD) controversies have generally been over technical questions and uncertainty about performance in battlefield situations, the debates about National Missile Defense (NMD) have been almost theological in character. Until recently, TMD was seen as so different in scale and range from NMD that advocates of Deterrence and protecting the ABM Treaty gave it scant attention. Most of the debate over BMD has been qualitative, not quantitative, and the positions taken were usually highly correlated with respective views about how to deal with the Cold War, Those favoring Deterrence have frequently overestimated the costs of BMD and overstated the likelihood that US opponents would develop counter-measures that would effectively penetrate BMDs. Key parts of the arms control community are vehemently opposed to the newer TMD systems, just as they oppose any NMD.
