President Bush came to office promising that he would build a nationwide missile defense system to protect the US. He has slowly, but steadily, moved towards that objective. The US formally withdrew from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in 2001, paving the way for a unrestricted ballistic missile defense program. The US has ordered the deployment of six interceptors for Fort Greely in Alaska, and four for Vandenberg Air Force Base in California as part of its first phase missile defense system in 2004 fiscal year. The 2005 budget allows for ten more interceptors in Alaska. Thereafter, the US will deploy a sea-based anti-missile system capable of protecting allied and US troop deployments abroad. Negotiations are currently on about radar sites and missile defense emplacements with several European countries.

Though relatively few experts believe in the feasibility of a fool-proof defense shield, this idea acquired sufficient bureaucratic and technological momentum after Reagan's conceiving the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) that it continued to survive after his Administration. In 1998, a bipartisan commission headed by Donald Rumsfeld concluded that "rogue states" like Iran and North Korea could develop and deploy long-range ballistic missiles in five years with little or no warning and made a strong case for deployment of a ballistic missile defense system.

Support for missile defense gained greater strength after North Korea test-fired a three-stage ballistic missile out over the Pacific and it became difficult for even the Democrats to dissociate themselves from this program. The Clinton Administration signed a legislation in 1999 promising the deployment of a missile defense system when it became technologically feasible. The Bush Administration came to office with a 'gung ho' approach towards missile defenses and 9/11 further consolidated the consensus in their favour.

The conventional wisdom always looked at US attempts to develop a ballistic missile defense system as a movement away from 'mutual assured destruction' (MAD), whereby the two superpowers allowed themselves to remain vulnerable to preserve strategic stability. Recent scholarship on US and Soviet nuclear policies makes it clear that this was never really the case. Despite a declaratory nuclear policy consistent with MAD, policymakers in both states actually embraced a counterforce posture and strategy. The Reagan Administration took counterforce to its extreme limits by pursuing effective strategic defenses under the SDI and offensive counterforce programs like acceleration of the Trident D-5 program and building new bombers. The current US emphasis on missile defenses is not as radical a departure therefore from its previous nuclear policy as is being made out.

Moreover, while the debate on missile defenses has been couched in terms of defending the US from external threats, it is clear that the program would not be entirely defensive. A missile defense system would enable the US to place weapons in space to gain control over it. This will provide it with tremendous offensive capabilities. There is an emerging consensus that the US should use space to underpin a broader strategy for exercising US economic, military and technological hegemony.

Despite the Bush Administration's attempts to tout its missile defense plan as a great achievement, many problems haunt the program. Even after spending about 130 billion dollars, its current effectiveness is as low as 20 percent. The Pentagon's chief weapons evaluator has declined to provide a confident evaluation of its viability. Hence the administration's decision to deploy an incomplete and untested system seems driven by immediate political considerations. Various retired US generals and admirals called upon the President earlier this year to stop the deployment of the missile defense system and, instead, spend money more wisely on securing nuclear facilities and bolstering the borders and ports that terrorists might target.

How far can an untested and unreliable missile defense system enhance US security? It is clear however that the strategic landscape will change with this deployment, and states in the international system, including India, will have to adjust to this new reality.