Describe the Cold War approach to reducing nuclear threats. How do ballistic missile defense (BMD) systems offer an alternative approach? Who have been the strongest advocates for BMD systems?

Question

What is the main weakness of the Cold War approach in today's political environment? Should the United States further develop BMD systems, or should nuclear threats be address in some other way?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Answer:
An ideal response will:
1. Identify the Cold War approach to reducing nuclear threats as deterrence, which is the belief that having a strong nuclear capacity (including second-strike capacity) will deter a rational enemy from attacking the United States.
2. Describe how BMD systems provide a second layer of defense against nuclear threats beyond simply relying on deterrence. BMD systems use technology to strike down incoming nuclear warheads in case deterrence doesn't work.
3. Identify Ronald Reagan as a strong advocate for BMD systems, while also noting that other presidents have supported various BMD systems.
4. Identify the main weakness of deterrence in today's political environment is that today's nuclear threat is more likely to come from irrational terrorists who may not be deterred by the United States' second-strike capacity.
5. Argue for either further reliance on BMD systems or for taking an entirely difference approach. Advocates for BMD systems may argue such systems use U.S. technological strength to protect us from incoming nuclear warheads. Advocates for other ways to address nuclear threats may note that reliable BMD systems may be too difficult to create and that other approaches (such as treaties, foreign aid, sanctions, etc.) may be better options.