QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
surface-to-air missile, destroy, ballistic missiles, kinetic vehicles, short, intermediate-range, conventional, warheads, united states, russia

Anti-Ballistic Missile

“A Surface-to-air missile designed to destroy in-flight ballistic missiles is known as an anti-ballistic missile (ABM). These systems employ either explosive...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

A Surface-to-air missile designed to destroy in-flight ballistic missiles is known as an anti-ballistic missile (ABM). These systems employ either explosive means, utilizing chemical or nuclear payloads, or employ kinetic vehicles that rely on direct impact for destruction. These kinetic interceptors may also possess sophisticated self-maneuvering capabilities, adding another layer of complexity to their engagement profiles.

Tactical ABM systems are extensively deployed and are crucial for countering short and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, particularly those armed with conventional warheads . Their role is to provide immediate defense against immediate threats.

On a larger scale, strategic ABM systems are operated by major powers such as the United States , Russia , China , and Israel . These systems are engineered to intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles , which are typically equipped with strategic nuclear warheads . During the tense geopolitical climate of the Cold War , the landmark ABM Treaty of 1972 played a pivotal role in regulating the nuclear arms race . The treaty’s limitations effectively prevented any single nation from developing an overwhelming advantage through excessive ICBM production, as such an endeavor would have been rendered futile against robust ABM defenses. It’s worth noting that, among modern strategic systems, Russia’s ABMs are the only ones that are currently armed with nuclear warheads, a distinct characteristic in the current landscape of missile defense.

Current Counter-ICBM Systems

The landscape of intercontinental ballistic missile defense is a specialized and highly guarded domain, with a limited number of nations possessing the capability to actively intercept such threats.

  • China’s HQ-19 : This formidable system is designed to engage medium, intermediate , and intercontinental ballistic missiles across both their terminal and mid-course phases. Beyond its primary role in ballistic missile defense, the HQ-19 is also reportedly capable of targeting satellites in lower Earth orbit. Its operational status commenced in 2018, following a series of tests that began in 2003, with notable further testing occurring in November 2015.

  • China’s HQ-29 : Another significant component of China’s evolving missile defense architecture, the HQ-29, is engineered to intercept intermediate and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Furthermore, this system is also designed with the capability to engage satellites. Its operational deployment is anticipated by 2025, signaling a continued investment in advanced air and missile defense capabilities.

  • Russia’s A-135 anti-ballistic missile system : This system, which underwent significant upgrades in 2017 to become the A-235, is specifically tasked with the defense of Moscow . Its operational history began in 1995, succeeding the earlier A-35 anti-ballistic missile system . Historically, the system employed Gorgon and Gazelle missiles, which were armed with nuclear warheads . However, through the 2017 upgrades, these missiles have transitioned to utilizing non-nuclear kinetic interceptors for ICBM interception, a shift reflecting evolving strategic doctrines and a desire to mitigate the risks associated with nuclear exchanges.

  • Israel’s Arrow 3 : Entering operational service in 2017, the Arrow 3 system represents a significant advancement in exo-atmospheric interception capabilities. It is specifically designed to engage ballistic missiles, including ICBMs, during the spaceflight phase of their trajectory. Its potential as an anti-satellite weapon is also a notable aspect of its design.

  • American Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system: Originally known as National Missile Defense , the GMD system underwent its initial testing in 1997, achieving its first successful intercept test in 1999. Unlike systems relying on explosive charges, the GMD employs a hit-to-kill approach, launching a kinetic projectile to physically intercept an ICBM. The current iteration of the GMD is primarily intended to shield the United States mainland against a limited nuclear attack, particularly from rogue states like North Korea. It’s important to note that the GMD is not currently designed to defend against a full-scale nuclear assault from Russia, given the existing inventory of approximately 44 ground-based interceptors tasked with defending against projectiles aimed at the U.S. This count excludes the contributions of THAAD, Aegis, and Patriot defenses, which offer shorter-range protection.

  • Aegis ballistic missile defense -equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile: This advanced missile demonstrated its capability to intercept an ICBM target on November 16, 2020, marking a significant milestone in sea-based missile defense.

  • November 2020 US Test: In a notable demonstration, the U.S. launched a surrogate ICBM from Kwajalein Atoll towards Hawaii. This launch triggered a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base, which in turn directed the USS John Finn to launch an interceptor. The missile successfully destroyed the surrogate ICBM while it was still outside the Earth’s atmosphere, showcasing the system’s effectiveness in mid-course interception.

American Plans for Central European Site

Further information on this topic can be found under National missile defense § Recent developments .

The strategic discussions surrounding ballistic missile defense extended into Europe, with a significant symposium held in 1993 involving western European nations. The council’s recommendations at the time emphasized the deployment of early warning and surveillance systems, alongside regionally managed defense systems.

By the spring of 2006, reports emerged concerning negotiations between the United States and the governments of Poland and the Czech Republic regarding the potential placement of missile defense installations. The proposed plan involved establishing a state-of-the-art ABM system, featuring a radar site in the Czech Republic and a launch facility in Poland, specifically at the launch site in Poland . The stated purpose of this system was to counter ICBM threats originating from Iran and North Korea.

This proposal elicited strong reactions from Russia. President Vladimir Putin voiced sharp criticism during a Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) security conference in Munich in the spring of 2007. Other European ministers also weighed in, suggesting that any modifications to strategic weapons arsenals should be a matter for negotiation at the NATO level, rather than being decided unilaterally between the U.S. and individual states, a point that sparked debate given the historical context of strategic arms reduction treaties primarily being bilateral agreements between the Soviet Union and the U.S. The German foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier , expressed considerable concern regarding the manner in which the U.S. had communicated its plans to its European partners, and he criticized the U.S. administration for failing to consult with Russia prior to announcing its intentions to deploy a new missile defense system in Central Europe. Public opinion in Poland also reflected division, with a July 2007 survey indicating that a majority of Poles opposed hosting a component of the system within their country.

By July 28, 2016, the Missile Defense Agency had advanced its planning and secured agreements, providing more concrete details about the Aegis Ashore sites slated for Romania (operational in 2014) and Poland (scheduled for 2018).

Current Tactical Systems

People’s Republic of China

Some of the sources cited in this section may not meet the criteria for reliable information. Improvements are needed by seeking out more robust and dependable sources. Citations that are deemed unreliable may be challenged and subsequently removed. (March 2022) (Please refer to Help:Maintenance_template_removal for guidance on removing this message).

The HQ-19 launcher was showcased at the Zhuhai airshow in 2024, while the HQ-29 launcher was also present.

Historical Project 640

Project 640 represented the People’s Republic of China’s indigenous endeavor to develop anti-ballistic missile capabilities. The Academy of Anti-Ballistic Missile & Anti-Satellite was established in 1969 specifically to advance this project. The initiative was envisioned to encompass at least three key elements: the requisite sensor and command/guidance systems, the Fan Ji (FJ) missile interceptor, and the XianFeng missile-intercepting cannon. The FJ-1 missile successfully completed two flight tests in 1979, while the low-altitude interceptor, FJ-2, saw some successful flight tests utilizing scaled prototypes. A high-altitude interceptor, the FJ-3, was also conceptualized. Despite the progress in missile development, the program encountered significant delays due to financial constraints and political considerations. It was ultimately terminated around 1980 under the new leadership of Deng Xiaoping. The rationale for its closure appeared to stem from its perceived redundancy following the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty between the Soviet Union and the United States, and the subsequent decommissioning of the U.S. Safeguard ABM system.

Modern Chinese Systems

In March 2006, China reportedly tested an interceptor system with capabilities comparable to the U.S. Patriot missiles.

China has also acquired and is engaged in the license production of the S-300PMU-2/S-300PMU-1 series of surface-to-air missiles, which possess terminal ABM capabilities. The domestically produced HQ-15 , based on this technology, may also offer terminal ABM capabilities.

The HQ-16 system, which entered service in 2008, is noted for its effectiveness in intercepting tactical ballistic missiles.

The HQ-9 system, deployed in 2001, provides terminal interception capabilities against short- and medium-range ballistic missile targets. Its latest variant, the HQ-9C, boasts a significant magazine depth. The Chinese Navy operates modern air-defense destroyers, such as the Type 052C destroyer and Type 051C Destroyer , which are armed with naval variants of the HQ-9 missiles.

In addition to its role against ICBMs, the HQ-19 is designed to intercept medium and intermediate ballistic missiles during their terminal or mid-course phases.

The HQ-22 , which became operational in 2019, can provide interception against short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal phase.

The HQ-26 is a naval-based ballistic missile defense system currently under development.

The Dong Neng-3 is an experimental mid-course interceptor system under development, designed to target intercontinental ballistic missiles and satellites.

On January 11, 2010, China conducted a land-based anti-ballistic missile test. This test involved an exoatmospheric intercept performed in the midcourse phase using a kinetic kill vehicle . The interceptor missile used was reportedly a SC-19 . As of 2010, sources indicated that the system was not yet operationally deployed.

A further anti-ballistic missile test was conducted by China on January 27, 2013. The Chinese Defense Ministry characterized the missile launch as defensive in nature and not directed against any specific country. Reports in February 2021 indicated that China had conducted another mid-course intercept anti-ballistic missile test.

Europe

Aster

The Aster missile family, a joint development between France and Italy , includes variants of the Aster 30 that possess ballistic missile defense capabilities. The United Kingdom is also an export customer, operating the Aster 30 Block 0.

On October 18, 2010, France announced a successful tactical ABM test of the Aster 30 missile, followed by a successful interception of a Black Sparrow target missile on December 1, 2011. The Horizon-class frigates in the French and Italian navies, the Royal Navy ’s Type 45 destroyers , and the French and Italian FREMM-class frigates are all equipped with the PAAMS system, which integrates Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. France and Italy are currently developing the Aster 30 Block II, a new variant designed to intercept ballistic missiles with ranges up to 3,000 km (1,900 mi), incorporating a kill vehicle warhead.

HYDIS²

This initiative, involving France, Italy, Germany , and the Netherlands , was announced on June 20, 2023. Led by MBDA , the HYDIS² (HYpersonic Defence Interceptor Study) project was selected in March 2023 and receives partial funding from the European Defense Fund (EDF). Its objective is to develop an architecture and mature the technologies for an endo-atmospheric interceptor capable of countering emerging, sophisticated threats. The HYDIS² project centers on MBDA’s Aquila hypersonic missile interceptor concept and includes a consortium of 19 partners and over 30 subcontractors from 14 European countries. France, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands have formally expressed their support and commitment by signing a letter of intent and agreeing on initial joint requirements. The ultimate goal of this project is to create a countermeasure that can be integrated into the French-led EU TWISTER (Timely Warning and Interception with Space-based TheatER surveillance) capability program. Launched in 2019 with MBDA France as the lead contractor, TWISTER aims to establish an air defense system capable of early warning, tracking, and intercepting high-performance air threats, including ballistic missiles (BMD) and hypersonic vehicles. The program involves France, Italy, Spain , the Netherlands, Finland , and Germany.

EU HYDEF

Competing with HYDIS², the EU HYDEF (European Hypersonic Defence Interceptor) project also focuses on the concept phase for developing an endo-atmospheric interceptor and is linked to the TWISTER program. Selected in July 2022 and also partially funded by the EDF, this project is coordinated by Spain’s SENER Aeroespacial Sociedad Anonima , with Germany’s Diehl Defence serving as the overall technical lead. They are spearheading a consortium of partners and subcontractors from various EU nations.

India

The second phase of India’s Anti-ballistic Missile defense test involved the AD-1 missile.

In November 2006, India successfully conducted the PADE (Prithvi Air Defence Exercise) , during which an indigenous anti-ballistic missile, designated the Prithvi Air Defence (PAD) , successfully intercepted a Prithvi-II ballistic missile in an exo-atmospheric engagement. The PAD missile, utilizing the secondary stage of the Prithvi missile, has an operational altitude ceiling of 80 km (50 mi). In the test, the target missile was intercepted at an altitude of 50 km (31 mi). On December 6, 2007, the Advanced Air Defence (AAD) missile system underwent a successful test. This missile is an endo-atmospheric interceptor with an operational altitude of 30 km (19 mi). Reports from 2009 indicated that the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) was developing a new Prithvi interceptor missile, codenamed PDV, designed to engage target missiles at altitudes exceeding 150 km (93 mi). The inaugural test of the PDV was successfully conducted on April 27, 2014. On May 15, 2016, India successfully launched the AAD, subsequently renamed Ashwin , from Abdul Kalam Island off the coast of Odisha .

As of January 8, 2020, the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) program had been completed, and the Indian Air Force and the DRDO were awaiting final government approval before commencing deployment to protect New Delhi , with subsequent deployment planned for Mumbai and other major cities and regions. The PAD and PDV systems are designed for mid-course interception, while the AAD is designated for terminal phase interception. India had previously explored acquiring the NASAMS-II system, but the Indian Air Force is now reportedly seeking a domestic alternative, potentially the land-based VL-SRSAM . Additionally, India operates three regiments of the S-400 missile system and employs Barak 8 missiles on both land and naval platforms, which offer a degree of protection against ballistic missiles for specific areas.

Iran

Iran has deployed the indigenous Arman anti-ballistic missile interceptor, alongside the S-300 missile system, for ballistic missile defense operations.

Israel

Arrow 2

The Arrow (Israeli missile) project commenced following a joint funding agreement between the U.S. and Israel on May 6, 1986.

The Arrow ABM system was developed and constructed in Israel, with significant financial backing from the United States through a multi-billion dollar program named “Minhelet Homa” (Wall Administration). Key participants in its development included companies such as Israel Military Industries , Tadiran , and Israel Aerospace Industries .

In 1998, the Israeli military conducted a successful test of the Arrow missile. Engineered to intercept incoming missiles traveling at speeds up to 2 miles per second (3 km/s), the Arrow was anticipated to significantly outperform the Patriot system’s effectiveness during the Gulf War. On July 29, 2004, Israel and the United States executed a joint experiment in the U.S. where the Arrow successfully destroyed a live Scud missile with a direct hit. By December 2005, the system had been successfully deployed in a test against a simulated Shahab-3 missile, a feat replicated on February 11, 2007.

Arrow 3

The Arrow 3 system is engineered for exo-atmospheric interception of ballistic missiles, including ICBMs . It also possesses capabilities as an anti-satellite weapon.

Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, Director of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency , remarked that “The design of Arrow 3 promises to be an extremely capable system, more advanced than what we have ever attempted in the U.S. with our programs.”

On December 10, 2015, the Arrow 3 achieved its first intercept during a complex test designed to evaluate its ability to detect, identify, track, and discriminate between real targets and decoys launched by an improved Silver Sparrow target missile into space. This milestone test was seen as paving the way for the low-rate initial production of the Arrow 3 system.

David’s Sling

Israel’s David’s Sling , also referred to as Magic Wand, is a military system jointly developed by Israeli defense contractor Rafael Advanced Defense Systems and American defense contractor Raytheon . It is designed to intercept tactical ballistic missiles, as well as medium- to long-range rockets and slower-moving cruise missiles, such as those in the arsenal of Hezbollah , within ranges of 40 km to 300 km. The system is intended to counter the latest generation of tactical ballistic missiles, including the Iskander .

Japan

A Japanese guided missile destroyer , the JDS Kongō, is pictured firing a Standard Missile 3 anti-ballistic missile.

Since North Korea’s launch of the Taepodong-1 missile over northern Japan in 1998, Japan has been collaborating with the U.S. on the development of a new surface-to-air interceptor, the Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3). Testing has been successful, with plans for PAC-3 installations at 11 locations, strategically positioned near major air bases like Kadena Air Base and Japanese military ammunition storage facilities. The precise locations remain undisclosed to the public. A military spokesperson confirmed that tests had been conducted at two sites, one of which was a business park in central Tokyo, and another at Ichigaya, an area not far from the Imperial Palace.

In parallel with the PAC-3 deployment, Japan has integrated a U.S.-developed ship-based anti-ballistic missile system, successfully tested on December 18, 2007. Japan possesses four destroyers capable of carrying the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and are equipped with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System . Japan is currently modifying an additional four destroyers to enhance its ballistic missile defense capabilities, bringing the total to eight ships.

Soviet Union/Russian Federation

Pictured are vehicles of the S-300PMU-2 system: from left to right, the 64N6E2 detection radar, the 54K6E2 command post, and the 5P85 TEL.

The Moscow ABM defense system was conceived with the objective of intercepting ICBM warheads targeting Moscow and other critical industrial centers. The system is based on the following components:

Taiwan

Taiwan has procured MIM-104 Patriot and indigenous Tien-Kung anti-ballistic missile systems. In response to the ongoing tensions with China, Taiwan developed the Sky Bow (or Tien-Kung) surface-to-air missile system, capable of intercepting and destroying enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles. This system was developed in collaboration with Raytheon Technologies , drawing inspiration from Lockheed Martin ’s ADAR-HP to create the Chang Bai S-band radar system. The missiles have a range of 200 km and are designed to engage fast-moving targets with low radar cross-sections. The most recent variant of this system is the Sky Bow III (TK-3).

South Korea

South Korea has been under imminent threat due to North Korea’s development of nuclear weapons. Initially, South Korea bolstered its ballistic missile defense (BMD) program by acquiring eight batteries of MIM-104 Patriot (PAC-2) missiles from the United States. However, the PAC-2, originally designed to intercept aircraft, is considered less effective against ballistic missile attacks from North Korea, given the advancements in their nuclear program. By 2018, South Korea opted to enhance its defense capabilities by upgrading to the PAC-3, which features a hit-to-kill capability against incoming missiles. A significant factor contributing to the less developed state of South Korea’s indigenous anti-ballistic defense system is its attempt to develop such capabilities independently since the early 1990s. The South Korean Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) confirmed in February 2022 the successful test launch of the L-SAM system. This missile, under development since 2019, represents South Korea’s next generation of anti-ballistic missiles. It is projected to have a range of 150 km, capable of intercepting targets at altitudes between 40 km and 100 km, and can also function as an aircraft interceptor. The L-SAM system is expected to be fully operational by 2024.

History

1940s and 1950s

The concept of intercepting rockets before they reach their target dates back to the introduction of modern missiles in warfare, specifically Germany’s V-1 and V-2 programs during World War II .

British fighter aircraft managed to destroy some V-1 “buzz bombs” in flight, though concentrated barrages of heavy anti-aircraft artillery proved more effective. Through the lend-lease program, the UK received 200 U.S. 90 mm AA guns, equipped with SCR-584 radars and computers developed by Western Electric /Bell Labs . These systems demonstrated a remarkable 95% success rate against V-1s that entered their operational range.

There is no documented instance of the V-2, the first true ballistic missile, being intercepted in the air. While SCR-584 radars could plot the V-2’s trajectory and offer some warning, they were more effective in backtracking the missile’s ballistic path to estimate launch locations. The Allies initiated Operation Crossbow to locate and destroy V-2 launch sites before they could be used, but these efforts were largely unsuccessful. In one recorded incident, a Spitfire encountered a V-2 ascending through the trees and fired upon it without any discernible effect. This led to Allied attempts to secure launching sites in Belgium and the Netherlands.

A wartime study conducted by Bell Labs concluded that intercepting ballistic missiles in flight was not feasible. The challenge lay in the missile’s speed, which would necessitate guns with virtually instantaneous reaction times, or weapons with ranges extending to dozens of miles—capabilities that seemed beyond reach at the time. However, this assessment predated the advent of high-speed computing systems. By the mid-1950s, the technological landscape had significantly evolved, prompting numerous global military forces to explore the development of ABM systems.

Following World War II, as the extent of German rocket research became apparent, the American armed forces began experimenting with anti-missile missiles. Project Wizard , initiated in 1946, aimed to develop a missile capable of intercepting the V-2.

However, defenses against Soviet long-range bombers took precedence until 1957, when the Soviet Union demonstrated its advancements in ICBM technology with the launch of Sputnik , the first artificial satellite. In response, the US Army accelerated the development of its LIM-49 Nike Zeus system. Throughout its development, Zeus faced criticism, particularly from factions within the US Air Force and the nuclear weapons establishment, who argued that it would be more practical to simply increase the number of nuclear warheads to ensure mutually assured destruction . Ultimately, Zeus was canceled in 1963.

In 1958, the U.S. investigated the potential use of airbursting nuclear weapons as a means to deter ICBMs. This involved conducting several test explosions of low-yield nuclear weapons —specifically, 1.7 kiloton boosted fission W25 warheads —launched from ships to very high altitudes over the southern Atlantic Ocean. Such an explosion generates a burst of X-rays within the Earth’s atmosphere, creating secondary showers of charged particles that extend over hundreds of miles. These particles could become trapped in the Earth’s magnetic field, forming an artificial radiation belt. The hypothesis was that this belt might be sufficiently potent to damage warheads traversing through it. While this specific outcome did not materialize, the Argus tests yielded crucial data regarding a related phenomenon: the nuclear electromagnetic pulse (NEMP).

Canada

Other nations were also involved in early ABM research. A notable project was undertaken at CARDE in Canada, which focused on addressing the fundamental challenges associated with ABM systems. A primary obstacle for radar systems is the conical nature of their signals, which spread out with increasing distance from the transmitter. For long-range interceptions, such as those required for ABM systems, the inherent inaccuracy of radar made precise interception difficult. CARDE explored the use of terminal guidance systems to overcome these accuracy concerns and developed advanced infrared detectors for this purpose. They also investigated various missile airframe designs, a novel and more powerful solid rocket fuel, and numerous systems for testing these components. Following significant budget reductions in the late 1950s, the research was discontinued. However, the project yielded several significant offshoots. One was Gerald Bull ’s method for cost-effective high-speed testing, which involved launching missile airframes from a sabot round, a concept that later formed the basis of Project HARP . Another was the development of the CRV7 and Black Brant rockets, which utilized the newly developed solid rocket fuel.

Soviet Union

V-1000

The Soviet military had requested funding for ABM research as early as 1953, but authorization to commence deployment of such a system was not granted until August 17, 1956. Their experimental system, designated System A, was based on the V-1000 missile, which bore similarities to early U.S. efforts. The first successful interception test was conducted on November 24, 1960, followed by the first interception involving a live warhead on March 4, 1961. In this latter test, a dummy warhead was released from an R-12 ballistic missile launched from Kapustin Yar , and it was intercepted by a V-1000 launched from Sary-Shagan . The dummy warhead was destroyed by the impact of 16,000 tungsten-carbide spherical projectiles approximately 140 seconds after launch, at an altitude of 25 km (82,000 ft).

Despite this success, the V-1000 missile system was deemed insufficiently reliable and was subsequently abandoned in favor of nuclear-armed ABMs. A retired variant of the V-1000 was repurposed to develop the 1Ya2TA sounding rocket , capable of delivering a 520 kg scientific payload to an altitude of 400 km. A significantly larger missile, the Fakel 5V61 (known in the West as Galosh), was developed to carry a more powerful warhead and engage targets at much greater distances from the launch site. Further development led to the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system , designed to defend Moscow, which became operational in 1971. The A-35 was designed for exoatmospheric interceptions and would have been vulnerable to a coordinated attack employing multiple warheads and radar blackout techniques.

During the 1980s, the A-35 underwent an upgrade, transforming into a two-tiered system known as the A-135 . The long-range Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) missile was intended for intercepts outside the atmosphere, while the short-range Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3) missile was designed for endoatmospheric intercepts of targets that eluded Gorgon.

American Nike-X and Sentinel

The Nike Zeus system proved to be an inadequate defense against the rapidly growing numbers of ICBMs, primarily because it could only engage one target at a time. Furthermore, significant concerns regarding its ability to effectively intercept warheads in the presence of high-altitude nuclear explosions, including its own, led to the conclusion that the system would be prohibitively expensive for the limited protection it offered.

By the time of its cancellation in 1963, investigations into potential upgrades had been underway for some time. These included the development of radars capable of surveying much larger volumes of space, tracking multiple warheads simultaneously, and launching multiple interceptor missiles. However, these enhancements did not address the fundamental issue of radar blackouts caused by high-altitude explosions. To overcome this limitation, a new missile with extreme performance capabilities was designed to engage incoming warheads at significantly lower altitudes, as low as 20 km. This comprehensive upgrade initiative was launched under the project name Nike-X .

The primary missile for this system was the LIM-49 Spartan —an enhanced version of the Nike Zeus with extended range and a substantially larger 5-megaton warhead, intended to neutralize enemy warheads through a burst of X-rays outside the atmosphere. A secondary, shorter-range missile named Sprint , characterized by its exceptionally high acceleration, was developed to counter warheads that evaded the longer-ranged Spartan. The Sprint was an incredibly fast missile, with some sources claiming it could accelerate to 8,000 mph (13,000 km/h) within four seconds of launch—an average acceleration of 90 g —and it carried a smaller W66 enhanced radiation warhead, in the 1–3 kiloton range, for in-atmosphere interceptions.

The experimental success of Nike X convinced the Lyndon B. Johnson administration to propose a limited ABM defense designed to provide nearly complete coverage of the United States. In a September 1967 speech, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara referred to this plan as “Sentinel ”. McNamara, who privately opposed ABMs due to cost and feasibility concerns (see cost-exchange ratio ), asserted that Sentinel would not be directed against the Soviet Union’s missiles, given that the USSR possessed more than enough missiles to overwhelm any American defense. Instead, he stated it would be aimed at the potential nuclear threat posed by the People’s Republic of China.

Concurrently, a public debate emerged regarding the merits of ABMs. Several inherent difficulties already cast doubt on the viability of an ABM system for defending against a full-scale attack. One significant challenge was the Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS), which offered minimal warning time for defensive systems. Another issue was the high-altitude EMP (generated by either offensive or defensive nuclear warheads), which had the potential to degrade defensive radar systems.

When this proved economically unfeasible, a scaled-down deployment utilizing the same systems was proposed, known as Safeguard (detailed further below).

Defense Against MIRVs

Testing of the LGM-118A Peacekeeper re-entry vehicles, with all eight deployed from a single missile. Each trajectory line represents the path of a warhead that, if live, would detonate with the explosive force of twenty-five Hiroshima-style weapons.

ABM systems were initially developed to counter single warheads launched from large intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The economic rationale was straightforward: as the cost of a rocket increases exponentially with its size, the expense of an ICBM launching a large warhead was expected to consistently exceed the cost of the much smaller interceptor missile required to destroy it. In an arms race, the defense was predicted to hold the advantage. [95]

Beyond the blast effect, the detonation of nuclear devices against incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles generates a neutron kill effect due to the intense radiation emitted, which neutralizes the warhead, or multiple warheads, of the attacking missile. [100] Most ABM devices rely on this neutron kill mechanism for their effectiveness.

In practice, the sophistication of interceptor missiles made them considerably expensive. The system required precise guidance all the way to the point of interception, necessitating complex guidance and control systems capable of operating both within and outside the atmosphere. Due to their relatively limited ranges, an ABM missile would need to be deployed to counter an ICBM regardless of its target. This implied the necessity of dozens of interceptors for each ICBM, as the precise targets of the warheads could not be known in advance. This situation fueled intense debates surrounding the “cost-exchange ratio ” between interceptors and warheads.

The strategic landscape shifted dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly, each launcher was capable of deploying not one, but several warheads. These warheads would disperse in space, demanding a separate interceptor for each warhead. This further amplified the need for multiple interceptors per warhead to ensure comprehensive geographical coverage. At this point, it became evident that an ABM system would invariably be significantly more expensive than the ICBMs they were designed to defend against. [95]

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972

The technical, economic, and political challenges outlined above culminated in the ABM treaty of 1972, which imposed restrictions on the deployment of strategic (as opposed to tactical) anti-ballistic missiles.

As stipulated by the ABM treaty and its 1974 revision, each signatory nation was permitted to deploy a maximum of 100 ABMs, designated to protect a single, limited area. The Soviets maintained their existing defenses around Moscow. The U.S. designated its ICBM fields near Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, where the Safeguard system was already in advanced development. The radar systems and anti-ballistic missiles were situated approximately 90 miles north/northwest of Grand Forks AFB, near Concrete, North Dakota. These missiles were deactivated in 1975. The primary radar site (PARCS) continues to function as an early warning ICBM radar, facing generally northward. It is located at Cavalier Air Force Station, North Dakota.

Brief Use of Safeguard in 1975/1976

The U.S. Safeguard system, which utilized the nuclear-tipped LIM-49A Spartan and Sprint missiles, represented the world’s second counter-ICBM system during its brief operational period in 1975-1976. Safeguard’s sole purpose was to protect the primary fields of U.S. ICBMs from attack, theoretically ensuring that any attack could be met with a U.S. retaliatory launch, thereby upholding the principle of mutually assured destruction .

SDI Experiments in the 1980s

The Reagan -era Strategic Defense Initiative , often referred to as “Star Wars,” along with research into various directed-energy weapon technologies, reignited interest in the field of ABM technologies.

SDI was an exceptionally ambitious program conceived to provide a comprehensive shield against a massive Soviet ICBM assault. The initial concept envisioned vast, sophisticated orbiting laser battle stations, space-based relay mirrors, and satellites equipped with nuclear-pumped X-ray lasers. Subsequent research indicated that certain planned technologies, such as X-ray lasers , were not feasible with the technological capabilities of the time. As research progressed, SDI underwent numerous conceptual revisions as designers grappled with the inherent complexities of such an extensive defense system. SDI remained primarily a research program and was never deployed. However, several technologies developed under SDI are now utilized by the present Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

Lasers initially developed for the SDI program are currently employed in astronomical observations. By ionizing gas in the upper atmosphere, they provide telescope operators with a reference point for calibrating their instruments. [101]

Tactical ABMs Deployed in the 1990s

The Israeli Arrow missile system underwent initial testing in 1990, prior to the first Gulf War . The Arrow project received support from the United States throughout the 1990s.

The Patriot was the first tactical ABM system to be deployed, although it was not originally designed for this specific purpose and consequently had limitations. It was employed during the 1991 Gulf War in an attempt to intercept Iraqi Scud missiles. Post-war analyses revealed that the Patriot’s effectiveness was considerably lower than initially believed, primarily due to its radar and control system’s inability to differentiate warheads from other debris when Scud missiles broke apart during re-entry.

Testing of ABM technology continued through the 1990s with mixed results. Following the Gulf War, several U.S. air defense systems were upgraded. A new variant, the PAC-3 , was developed and tested—representing a complete redesign from the PAC-2 deployed during the war, including an entirely new missile. Enhanced guidance, radar, and missile performance significantly improved the probability of kill compared to the earlier PAC-2. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot batteries successfully engaged 100% of enemy TBMs within their engagement zones. Of these engagements, eight were verified as successful kills by multiple independent sensors; the remaining were categorized as probable kills due to a lack of independent verification. The Patriot system was involved in three instances of friendly fire : two involved Patriot systems firing on coalition aircraft, and one involved a U.S. aircraft firing on a Patriot battery.

A new version of the Hawk missile was tested in the early to mid-1990s, and by the end of 1998, the majority of U.S. Marine Corps Hawk systems had been modified to provide basic theater anti-ballistic missile capabilities. [103] The MIM-23 Hawk missile is no longer in operational service with the U.S. as of 2002, but it continues to be used by numerous other countries.

Developed in the late 1990s, the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile was designed to be attached to a modified SM-2 Block IV missile utilized by the U.S. Navy .

Shortly after the Gulf War, the Aegis Combat System was expanded to incorporate ABM capabilities. The Standard missile system was also enhanced and tested for ballistic missile interception. During the late 1990s, SM-2 Block IVA missiles were tested for a theater ballistic missile defense role. Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) systems have also undergone testing for an ABM role. In 2008, an SM-3 missile launched from the Ticonderoga-class cruiser USS Lake Erie successfully intercepted a non-functioning satellite . [105][106]

Brilliant Pebbles Concept

Approved for acquisition by the Pentagon in 1991 but never realized, Brilliant Pebbles was a proposed space-based anti-ballistic system intended to circumvent some of the challenges encountered with earlier SDI concepts. Instead of relying on complex, large laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites, Brilliant Pebbles envisioned a constellation of a thousand small, intelligent orbiting satellites equipped with kinetic warheads. The system leveraged advancements in computer technology and aimed to avoid issues related to overly centralized command and control, as well as the high-risk, expensive development of large, intricate space defense satellites.

It promised a significantly lower development cost and reduced technical risk. The name “Brilliant Pebbles” derived from the small size of the satellite interceptors and their substantial computational power, which enabled more autonomous targeting. Rather than depending solely on ground-based control, the numerous small interceptors were designed to communicate cooperatively amongst themselves and target a large swarm of ICBM warheads in space or during their late boost phase. Development was eventually discontinued in favor of a limited ground-based defense strategy.

Transformation of SDI into MDA, Development of NMD/GMD

While the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative was conceived to defend against a massive Soviet attack, during the early 1990s, President George H. W. Bush advocated for a more limited version employing ground-based, rocket-launched interceptors at a single site. This system, under development since 1992, was projected to become operational in 2010 [107] and capable of intercepting a small number of incoming ICBMs. Initially named the National Missile Defense (NMD), it was rebranded as Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) in 2002. The GMD system was designed to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack. The Alaska site offers enhanced protection against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or China, though it may be less effective against missiles originating from the Middle East. The interceptors in Alaska could potentially be augmented by the naval Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System or by ground-based missiles deployed in other locations.

In 1998, Secretary of Defense William Cohen proposed an additional $6.6 billion investment in intercontinental ballistic missile defense programs to establish a system capable of defending against attacks from North Korea or accidental launches from Russia or China. [108]

In terms of organizational structure, SDI was reorganized in 1993 as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. In 2002, it was renamed the Missile Defense Agency (MDA).

21st Century

On June 13, 2002, the United States formally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, thereby resuming the development of missile defense systems that had previously been prohibited by the bilateral agreement. This action was justified as necessary to defend against the potential threat of a missile attack by a rogue state . The following day, the Russian Federation renounced the START II agreement, which had aimed to completely ban MIRVs .

The 2010 Lisbon Summit saw the adoption of a NATO program established in response to the escalating threat posed by the rapid proliferation of ballistic missiles from potentially hostile regimes. Although no specific region, state, or country was formally identified, the adoption stemmed from the recognition of territorial missile defense as a core alliance objective. At that time, Iran was perceived as the most likely aggressor, possessing the largest missile arsenal in the Middle East and a developing space program. This development led to concerns within Russia that NATO’s ABM system could undermine its retaliatory capabilities against perceived nuclear threats. To address this, Russia proposed that any ABM system implemented by NATO must be universally applicable, cover the entire European continent, and maintain the existing nuclear parity. The United States actively sought NATO’s participation in establishing an ABM system, citing the Iranian threat as sufficient justification. However, NATO officials expressed apprehension that U.S.-led missile defense facilities, while potentially protecting Europe, might diminish NATO’s responsibility for collective defense. They also raised concerns about the possibility of a U.S.-commanded operational system working in conjunction with the Article 5 defense provisions of NATO. [109]

On December 15, 2016, the U.S. Army SMDC successfully tested a U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocket, intended for use as a target in the training and exercise of various anti-ballistic missile scenarios. The rocket was launched as part of NASA’s sounding rocket program at White Sands Missile Range.

In November 2020, the U.S. successfully intercepted and destroyed a dummy ICBM. The missile was launched from Kwajalein Atoll [111][112] in the general direction of Hawaii, triggering a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base. This alert enabled the USS John Finn to launch an SM-3 Block IIA missile, which successfully destroyed the dummy ICBM while it was still outside the Earth’s atmosphere. [113]

See Also

Notes

Citations

  • Kristensen, Hans M.; Korda, Matt; Johns, Eliana; Knight, Mackenzie (3 March 2024). “Russian nuclear weapons, 2024”. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. 80(2): 118–145. Bibcode :2024BuAtS..80b.118K. doi :10.1080/00963402.2024.2314437. ISSN 0096-3402.
  • a b c United States Office of the Secretary of Defense (2018). Annual Report To Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2018 (PDF) (Report). p. 60. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 August 2018. Retrieved 17 April 2024.
  • a b c Garamone, Jim (28 July 2020). “Missile Defense Becomes Part of Great Power Competition”. DOD News. U.S. Department of Defense. Retrieved 18 April 2024.
  • a b c d Mezey, Jacob (10 September 2024). “Russian and Chinese strategic missile defense: Doctrine, capabilities, and development”. Atlantic Council.
  • Axe, David (11 November 2015). “Did China Just Test a New Satellite-Killer?”. The Daily Beast. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  • Kajal, Kapil (23 June 2025). “Patriot rival: China could debut double-barrel satellite, ballistic missile-killer system”. Interesting Engineering.
  • Wong, Enoch (23 June 2025). “Is China preparing to unveil its new HQ-29 ballistic missile defence system?”. South China Morning Post.
  • Sato, Daisuke (16 August 2025). “China’s HQ-29 missile defense system seen in new imagery”. The Defense Blog.
  • a b ARBATOV, ALEXEY; DVORKIN, VLADIMIR; TOPYCHKANOV, PETR; ZHAO, TONG; BIN, LI (2017). ENTANGLEMENT AS A NEW SECURITY THREAT: A RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVE (Report). pp. 11–46.
  • Israel successfully tests David’s Sling’s interceptor Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine . By Yaakov Lappin. Jpost.com, 25 November 2012.
  • “There is no guaranteed defence against ballistic missiles—yet”. The Economist. Retrieved 28 January 2018.
  • “Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) System”. Missile Threat.
  • FTM-44 (17 Nov 2020) U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test Against an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Target Flight Test Aegis Weapon System-44 (FTM-44). The C2BMC network detected an ICBM launch; U.S. Navy sailors aboard the USS John Finn (DDG-113) then launched an SM-3 Block IIA missile which destroyed the ICBM in mid-course.
  • a b MDA (18 Nov 2020) FTM-44 mission overview 20-MDA-10624 (Not to scale nor in real time).
  • Kluth, Andreas (29 November 2020). “A Successful U.S. Missile Intercept Ends the Era of Nuclear Stability”. Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 30 November 2020.
  • Assembly of the Western European Union . Technological and Aerospace Committee. Lenzer. via FAS. Anti-missile defence for Europe – guidelines drawn from the symposium Archived 15 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine . 17 May 1993.
  • a b c “MDA International cooperation”. Archived from the original on 1 September 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
  • Gaspers, J. (2007). A US Missile Defence Shield in Europe? Opinions and Arguments in the German Political Debate. Natolin Analyses 7(20)/2007.
  • “55% Polaków przeciw budowie tarczy (55% of Poles against building the Shield)” (in Polish). Polska Agencja Prasowa . 17 July 2007. Archived from the original on 20 January 2012. Retrieved 7 September 2007.
  • “(28 July 2016) Aegis Ashore” (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 11 October 2017. Retrieved 11 October 2017.
  • a b c d e “Project 640: China’s National Missile Defence in the ’70s”. SinoDefence.com. Archived from the original on 13 December 2011. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “donga.com[English donga]”. English.donga.com. 28 March 2006. Archived from the original on 20 June 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “Chinese Version of Patriot Interceptor Said Undergoing Tests”. MissileThreat. 29 March 2006. Archived from the original on 20 July 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “Pentagon Received No Warning of Chinese Missile Defense Test”. Globalsecuritynewswire.org. Archived from the original on 13 December 2011. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “Hongqi-15 (HQ-15)”. MissileThreat. Archived from the original on 5 May 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • Dominguez, Gabriel (15 January 2018). “PLAN inducts Type 054A frigate into North Sea Fleet”. IHS Jane’s 360. Archived from the original on 16 January 2018. Retrieved 21 January 2018.
  • Kopp, Carlo (November 2009). “CPMIEC HQ-9/HHQ-9/FD-2000/FT-2000 Self Propelled Air Defence System”. Air Power Australia: 1. Retrieved 18 April 2024.
  • “HQ-9/-15, and RF-9 (HHQ-9 and S-300) (China), Defensive weapons”. Jane’s Information Group. 7 January 2010. Archived from the original on 3 May 2012.
  • Chan, Ryan (4 September 2025). “China Builds Own ‘Golden Dome’ To Rival US Missile Defense”. Newsweek.
  • The International Institute for Strategic Studies (15 February 2019). The Military Balance 2019. London: Routledge. p. 262. ISBN 978-1857439885.
  • Gady, Franz-Stefan. “Revealed: China Tests Secret Missile Capable of Hitting US Satellites”. thediplomat.com. The Diplomat. Retrieved 18 October 2021.
  • LIN, JEFFREY; SINGER, P.W. (14 February 2018). “China shot down another missile in space”. www.popsci.com . Popular Science. Retrieved 18 October 2021.
  • a b “Demarche Following China’s January 2010 Intercept Flight-Test”. The Daily Telegraph. London. 2 February 2011. Archived from the original on 3 February 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2018.
  • 我国试验陆基反导 此前仅美国进行过相关试验 (in Chinese). SINA News. 12 January 2010. Archived from the original on 14 January 2010. Retrieved 11 January 2010.
  • “NTI”. Global Security Newswire. Archived from the original on 19 January 2010. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • Tate, Andrew (8 February 2021). “China conducts another mid-course anti-ballistic missile test”. Janes.
  • Trevithick, Joseph (4 February 2021). “China Claims It Has Conducted A New Midcourse Intercept Anti-Ballistic Missile Test”. The Drive. Archived from the original on 13 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
  • “SAMP/T Successful on First European Missile Defense Intercept Test”. Defense Update. 26 November 2010. Archived from the original on 29 November 2010. Retrieved 26 November 2010.
  • “Premier tir anti-balistique | Blog de la DE”. Ead-minerve.fr. Archived from the original on 26 April 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “Une première en France : un missile intercepté par un antimissile Aster” (in French). Marianne2.fr. Archived from the original on 5 September 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • Tran, Pierre (14 June 2016). “France, Italy To Cooperate in Development of Aster Missile”. DefenseNews. Retrieved 18 June 2021.
  • “MBDA debuts European hypersonic interceptor concept Aquila”. 20 June 2023.
  • “Aquila: MBDA to lead consortium for European interceptor against hypersonic threats”. 20 June 2023.
  • “Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO)’s projects - Overview” (PDF). 12 November 2019.
  • a b “Spanish, German companies start work on hypersonic missile interceptor”. 5 September 2022.
  • “Timely Warning and Interception With Space-Based Theater Surveillance (TWISTER)”. 12 November 2019.
  • Prithvi Mission Milestone in Missile Defence Archived 8 December 2007 at the Wayback Machine .
  • “India successfully conducts interceptor supersonic missile test”. Pib.nic.in. Archived from the original on 15 October 2015. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “DRDO to launch series of missiles”. The Hindu . 17 October 2009. Archived from the original on 8 November 2012. Retrieved 6 December 2012.
  • “India Successfully Test-Fires New Interceptor Missile”. News.outlookindia.com. Archived from the original on 28 April 2014. Retrieved 30 April 2014.
  • Franz-Stefan, Gady. “India Successfully Tests Supersonic Interceptor Missile”. Archived from the original on 14 August 2017. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  • Philip, Snehesh Alex (8 January 2020). “India’s ballistic missile shield ready, IAF & DRDO to seek govt nod to protect Delhi”. ThePrint. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  • Gady, Franz-Stefan (8 January 2020). “Report: India’s Homemade Anti-Ballistic Missile Shield Ready”. thediplomat.com. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
  • Lakshman, Sriram (11 February 2020). “U.S. State dept. nod for sale of air defence system to India”. The Hindu. ISSN 0971-751X. Retrieved 11 February 2020.
  • “India concerned over ‘very high price’ of American missile shield for Delhi”. mint. 16 February 2020. Retrieved 3 November 2022.
  • “Not Keen On NASAMS-II, IAF Wants Indian Missile Defence”. Livefist Defence. 20 July 2022. Retrieved 3 November 2022.
  • “All About The S-400 Defence System Used By India To Neutralise Pak Missiles”. www.ndtv.com . Archived from the original on 22 July 2025. Retrieved 7 December 2025.
  • Explainers, FP (10 May 2025). “Barak 8: India’s air defence system that intercepted Pakistan’s Fatah-II missile”. Firstpost. Retrieved 7 December 2025.
  • “Iran unveils new air defense weaponry as regional tensions ramp up, IRNA reports”. Reuters. 17 February 2024. Retrieved 16 November 2024.
  • “Russia Risks Reputation Of Its Weapons Systems With Iran Air Defense Delivery”. Forbes . Archived from the original on 24 September 2024. Retrieved 16 November 2024.
  • “Israeli-United States Relations”. Policy almanac. Archived from the original on 4 November 2002. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “Israeli missile test ‘successful’”. News. BBC. 11 February 2007. Archived from the original on 16 December 2007. Retrieved 25 April 2010.
  • a b Opall-Rome, Barbara (10 December 2015). “US-Israel Arrow-3 intercepts target in space”. Defense News . Retrieved 10 December 2015.
  • a b “U.S. and Allied Ballistic Missile Defenses in the Asia-Pacific Region | Arms Control Association”. www.armscontrol.org . Retrieved 26 April 2022.
  • “Japan plans Tokyo missile shield”. BBC News. 15 January 2008. Archived from the original on 18 January 2008. Retrieved 17 January 2008.
  • John Pike. “GlobalSystems: ABM-1 “. Globalsecurity.org. Archived from the original on 16 May 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “Russian Anti-Ballistic Guided Missile Systems”. Archived from the original on 9 February 2008.
  • a b John Pike (20 April 2018). “Galosh - Moscow System”. Globalsecurity.org. Archived from the original on 9 October 2018. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
  • Sean O’Connor (27 January 2014). “Russian/Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems”. p. 1. Archived from the original on 21 November 2015. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
  • “Wonderland.org: ABM-3 “. Archived from the original on 9 February 2008.
  • “Russian Anti-Ballistic Guided Missile Systems”. 20 December 2008. Archived from the original on 20 December 2008. Retrieved 21 July 2017. {{cite web }} : CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link )
  • John Pike (20 April 2018). “51T6 Gorgon”. Globalsecurity.org. Archived from the original on 9 October 2018. Retrieved 8 October 2018.
  • https://www.twz.com/land/taiwan-just-unveiled-its-own-high-altitude-anti-ballistic-missile-system
  • “Jason Cutshaw (August 8, 2019) Leader gives space and missile defense update at SMD Symposium”. 8 August 2019.
  • John Pike. " Operation Iraqi Freedom – Patriot “. GlobalSecurity.org. Archived from the original on 20 February 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
  • “BBC NEWS – World – Americas – US missile hits ’toxic satellite’”. news.bbc.co.uk. 21 February 2008. Archived from the original on 13 April 2009. Retrieved 21 July 2017.
  • MDA Newsroom (17 Nov 2020) U.S. Successfully Conducts SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test Against an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Target SM-3 Block IIA Intercept Test animation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUDQrLcY5oI Archived 25 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine .
  • Panda, Ankit. “What Is THAAD, What Does It Do, and Why Is China Mad About It?”. The Diplomat. Archived from the original on 4 April 2017. Retrieved 3 April 2017.
  • McCarthy, Niall. “Can The U.S. Intercept A North Korean Missile? [Infographic]”. Forbes. Retrieved 17 May 2023.
  • “Army Seeks To Field One-Size-Fits-All Battle Command System”. Space News. 29 June 2004.
  • Kiley, Gregory T. (17 May 2017). “Congress and the Administration Must Reassess Failing Missile Defense Programs”. RealClearDefense. Archived from the original on 21 May 2017. Retrieved 22 June 2017.
  • “Fort Sill Tribune staff (August 8, 2019) MOS 14E: Linchpin of Patriot missile system”. 8 August 2019.
  • “Jen Judson (11 Oct 2018) So Patriot and THAAD will talk. What does that really mean?”. 10 October 2018.
  • “Jen Judson (20 Aug 2020) US Army’s future missile defense command system nearly simultaneously defeats cruise, ballistic missile threats”. 20 August 2020.
  • Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) Archived 6 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine vendor summary.
  • “Daniel Cebul (12 October 2018) Army continues push for integrated sensors and shooters with latest IBCS contract”. 2 October 2018.
  • Daniel Cebul (9 October 2018) Army looks to a future of integrated fire Archived 26 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine by integrating THAAD IBCS LRPF.
  • Andrew Eversden (23 Dec 2021) Army awards Northrop Grumman $1.4 billion contract for IBCS Archived 24 December 2021 at the Wayback Machine .
  • “Jen Judson (February 6, 2017) Army falls behind with new anti-missile command system”. 6 February 2017.
  • Jen Judson (10 Mar 2022) Missile Defense Agency fires Patriot missile from THAAD system Archived 26 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine .
  • Huang, Po-Chang (9 May 2017). “Who to Protect? Taiwan’s SAM Systems and the Distribution of Protection” (PDF). TUFTS University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 9 October 2022. Retrieved 7 April 2022.
  • a b Park, Hwee Rhak (2018). “The Ballistic Missile Defense Construction Strategies of South Korea and Japan: Self-reliance versus Cooperation with the US”. Journal of International and Area Studies. 25(2): 87–106. ISSN 1226-8550. JSTOR 26909945.
  • “South Korea tests indigenous long-range surface-to-air missile”. Janes.com. Retrieved 26 April 2022.
  • a b Gregory Canavan, “Missile Defense for the 21st Century” Archived 13 July 2015 at the Wayback Machine , Heritage Foundation, 2003, p.3.
  • a b c Ramsey, Syed (12 May 2016). Tools of War: History of Weapons in Modern Times. Vij Books India Pvt Ltd. ISBN 9789386019837.
  • Nuclear Weapon Archive.org. Argus Archived 11 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine .
  • Gobarev, Victor (2001). “The early development of Russia’s ballistic missile defense system”. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies. 14(2): 29–48. doi :10.1080/13518040108430478. S2CID 144681318. Viewed 26 May 2012.
  • Karpenko, A (1999). “ABM AND SPACE DEFENSE”. Nevsky Bastion. 4: 2–47. Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 18 October 2015.
  • Krebs, Gunter Dirk. “1Ya2TA”. Gunter’s Space Page. Retrieved 12 November 2024.
  • Wragg, David W. (1973). A Dictionary of Aviation (first ed.). Osprey. p. 200. ISBN 9780850451634.
  • “Military Magic Boosts Astronomy : Declassified technology enhances celestial knowledge”. Astronomy. 29(1): 48. January 2001. Retrieved 26 January 2018. permanent dead link .
  • “Patriot system performance – report summary” (PDF). Defense Science Board Task Force. January 2005. Archived from the original (PDF) on 26 February 2006.
  • “Hawk”. FAS. Archived from the original on 15 October 2015.
  • “Navy Area Defense (NAD)”. FAS. Archived from the original on 12 August 2007.
  • “DoD Succeeds in Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite” (Press release). U.S. Department of Defense. 20 February 2008. Archived from the original on 26 February 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
  • “Navy Succeeds in Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite” (Press release). U.S. Navy. 20 February 2008. Archived from the original on 25 February 2008. Retrieved 20 February 2008.
  • “Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)”. MDA. Archived from the original on 6 December 2010. Retrieved 8 February 2011. A total of 30 interceptors are planned for deployment by the end of 2010.
  • PBS. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer . A Viable Defense? Archived 27 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine . 28 January 1999.
  • Hildreth, Steven A.; Ek, Carl (28 December 2010). “Missile Defense and NATO’s Lisbon Summit”. UNT Digital Library. Retrieved 11 May 2022.
  • U.S. Army announces successful test of U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocket Archived 9 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine accessdate=2017-01-08.
  • Richard F. Pittenger and Robert B. Gagosian (Dec 2003) Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the Military Archived 6 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine “Military planners should begin to consider potential abrupt climate change scenarios and their impacts on national defense.”
  • David Vergun (22 April 2021) Defense Secretary Calls Climate Change an Existential Threat.
  • Chris D’Angelo and Alexander C. Kaufman (01/18/2019) Pentagon Confirms Climate Change Is A National Security Threat, Contradicting Trump Archived 27 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine 79 Military installations; " ‘Air Force’s $1 billion radar installation on a Marshall Islands atoll ‘is projected to be underwater within two decades’.”
  • Scott Waldman, E&E News (1 March 2018) Key Missile Defense Installation Will be Uninhabitable in Less Than 20 Years Archived 27 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine : Rising seas will ruin Kwajalein Atoll site where 1,300 work and live.
  • “Jason Cutshaw (24 February 2021) Army’s Reagan Test Site supports missile test”. 24 February 2021.
  • Bowman, Bradley (23 November 2020). “Successful SM-3 weapons test offers missile defense opportunity”. defensenews.com. Retrieved 25 November 2020.

General sources

  • Murdock, Clark A. (1974), Defense Policy Formation: A Comparative Analysis of the McNamara Era. SUNY Press.

Further reading

  • Laura Grego and David Wright, “Broken Shield: Missiles designed to destroy incoming nuclear warheads fail frequently in tests and could increase global risk of mass destruction”, Scientific American , vol. 320, no. no. 6 (June 2019), pp. 62–67. “Current U.S. missile defense plans are being driven largely by technology , politics and fear . Missile defenses will not allow us to escape our vulnerability to nuclear weapons . Instead large-scale developments will create barriers to taking real steps toward reducing nuclear risks —by blocking further cuts in nuclear arsenals and potentially spurring new deployments.” (p. 67.)

  • Wikimedia Commons has media related to Anti-ballistic missiles .

  • Article on Missile Threat Shift to the Black Sea region

  • Video of the Endo-Atmospheric Interceptor missile system test by India Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine

  • Video of the Exo-Atmospheric interceptor missile system test by India

  • Center for Defense Information

  • Federation of American Scientists

  • MissileThreat.com

  • Stanley R. Mickelson Safeguard complex

  • History of U.S. Air Defense Systems

v t e

Types of missile

By platform

By target type

By guidance

Lists

See also: Sounding rocket

Authority control databases National

  • United States
  • France
  • BnF data
  • Japan
  • Israel

Other

  • Yale LUX