Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned US National Missile Defense System
Sessler, Andrew M.
Cornwall, John M.
Garwin, Richard L.
Lewis, George N.
Postol, Theodore A.
Wright, David C.
Andrew M. Sessler, John M. Cornwall, Bob Dietz, Steve Fetter, Sherman Frankel, Richard L. Garwin, Kurt Gottfried, Lisbeth Gronlund, George N. Lewis, Theodore A. Postol, David C. Wright, Countermeasures: A Technical Evaluation of the Operational Effectiveness of the Planned US National Missile Defense System (Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists and MIT Security Studies Program, April 2000)
MetadataShow full item record
The National Missile Defense system under development by the United States would be ineffective against even limited ballistic missile attacks from emerging missile states. Moreover, its deployment would increase nuclear dangers from Russia and China, and impede cooperation by these countries in international efforts to control the proliferation of long-range ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. The United States should reconsider its options for countering the threats posed by long-range ballistic missiles and shelve the current NMD plans as unworkable and counterproductive.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Fetter, Steve; Lewis, George N.; Gronlund, Lisbeth (Nature Publishing Group, 1993-01-28)Patriot missiles were returned to the Gulf last week. But they were not the reason for the unexpectedly low casualty rate when Saddam attacked Israel with Scud missiles in 1991. Iraq fired more than 80 modified Scud ...
Fetter, Steve; Mendelsohn, Jack (Lawyers Alliance for World Security, 2000)In Chapter VI, Steve Fetter and Jack Mendelsohn outline Alternatives to NMD. There exists an effective alternative to NMD for dealing with the potential ballistic missile threat: strengthening the interlocking and ...
Fetter, Steve; Glaser, Charles L. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 2002)The Authors Reply: We agree with many of the points that James Lindsay and Michael O’Hanlon make in their response to our article. Where we disagree, it is mostly on judgments of the likelihood of various scenarios and ...