Editing Anti-ballistic missile (section)

==History ==

===1940s and 1950s===
[[File:Wizard missile concept.jpg|thumb|right|1946 [[Project Wizard]] missile]]
[[File:NIKE Zeus.jpg|thumb|right|Launch of a [[US Army]] [[Nike Zeus]] missile, the first ABM system to enter widespread testing.]]

The idea of destroying rockets before they can hit their target dates from the first use of modern missiles in warfare, the German [[V-1 (flying bomb)|V-1]] and [[V-2 rocket|V-2]] program of [[World War II]].

British fighters destroyed some V-1 "buzz bombs" in flight, although concentrated barrages of heavy anti-aircraft artillery had greater success. Under the lend-lease program, 200 US [[90 mm Gun M1/M2/M3|90 mm AA]] guns with [[SCR-584 radar]]s and [[Western Electric]]/[[Bell Labs]] computers were sent to the UK. These demonstrated a 95% success rate against V-1s that flew into their range.<ref name=cav>Gregory Canavan, [http://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20030000-Heritage-canavan.pdf "Missile Defense for the 21st Century"] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150713192027/http://missilethreat.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/20030000-Heritage-canavan.pdf |date=13 July 2015 }}, Heritage Foundation, 2003, p.3</ref>

The V-2, the first true ballistic missile, has no known record of being destroyed in the air. SCR-584's could be used to plot the trajectories of the missiles and provide some warning, but were more useful in backtracking their ballistic trajectory and determining the rough launch locations. The Allies launched [[Operation Crossbow]] to find and destroy V-2s before launch, but these operations were largely ineffective. In one instance a Spitfire happened upon a V-2 rising through the trees, and fired on it with no effect.<ref name=cav/> This led to allied efforts to capture launching sites in Belgium and the Netherlands.

A wartime study by Bell Labs into the task of shooting down ballistic missiles in flight concluded it was not possible. In order to intercept a missile, one needs to be able to steer the attack onto the missile before it hits. A V-2's speed would require guns of effectively instantaneous reaction time,{{dubious|date=September 2019}} or some sort of weapon with ranges on the order of dozens of miles, neither of which appeared possible. This was, however, just before the emergence of high-speed computing systems. By the mid-1950s, things had changed considerably, and many forces worldwide were considering ABM systems.<ref name="Ramsey">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=aUk5DAAAQBAJ&q=By+the+mid-1950s,+things+had+changed+considerably,+and+many+forces+worldwide+were+considering+ABM+systems.&pg=PT28|title=Tools of War: History of Weapons in Modern Times|last=Ramsey|first=Syed|date=2016-05-12|publisher=Vij Books India Pvt Ltd|isbn=9789386019837|language=en}}</ref>

The American armed forces began experimenting with anti-missile missiles soon after World War II, as the extent of German research into rocketry became clear. [[Project Wizard]] began in 1946, with the aim of creating a missile capable of intercepting the V-2.

But defences against Soviet long-range bombers took priority until 1957, when the Soviet Union demonstrated its advances in ICBM technology with the launch of [[Sputnik program|Sputnik]], the Earth's first artificial satellite. The [[US Army]] accelerated development of their [[LIM-49 Nike Zeus]] system in response. Zeus was criticized throughout its development program, especially from those within the [[US Air Force]] and nuclear weapons establishments who suggested it would be much simpler to build more nuclear warheads and guarantee [[mutually assured destruction]]. Zeus was eventually cancelled in 1963.

In 1958, the U.S. sought to explore whether airbursting nuclear weapons might be used to ward off ICBMs. It conducted several test explosions of low-yield [[nuclear weapon]]s – 1.7kt boosted fission [[W25 (nuclear warhead)|W25 warheads]] – launched from ships to very high altitudes over the southern Atlantic Ocean.<ref>Nuclear Weapon Archive.org. [http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Argus.html Argus] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060911023819/http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Argus.html |date=11 September 2006 }}.</ref> Such an explosion releases a burst of [[X-ray]]s in the Earth's atmosphere, causing secondary showers of charged particles over an area hundreds of miles across. These can become trapped in the Earth' magnetic field, creating an artificial radiation belt. It was believed that this might be strong enough to damage warheads traveling through the layer. This proved not to be the case, but [[Operation Argus|Argus]] returned key data about a related effect, the [[nuclear electromagnetic pulse]] (NEMP).

===Canada===
Other countries were also involved in early ABM research. A more advanced project was at [[DRE Valcartier|CARDE]] in Canada, which researched the main problems of ABM systems. A key problem with any radar system is that the signal is in the form of a cone, which spreads with distance from the transmitter. For long-distance interceptions like ABM systems, the inherent inaccuracy of the radar makes an interception difficult. CARDE considered using a [[terminal guidance]] system to address the accuracy concerns, and developed several advanced [[infrared]] detectors for this role. They also studied a number of missile airframe designs, a new and much more powerful solid rocket fuel, and numerous systems for testing it all. After a series of drastic budget reductions during the late 1950s the research ended. One offshoot of the project was [[Gerald Bull]]'s system for inexpensive high-speed testing, consisting of missile airframes shot from a [[sabot (firearms)|sabot]] round, which would later be the basis of [[Project HARP]]. Another was the [[CRV7]] and [[Black Brant (rocket)|Black Brant]] rockets, which used the new solid rocket fuel.

===Soviet Union===
[[File:V-1000 ABM prototype.svg|thumb|V-1000]]
The Soviet military had requested funding for ABM research as early as 1953, but were only given the go-ahead to begin deployment of such a system on 17 August 1956. Their test system, known simply as System A, was based on the V-1000 missile, which was similar to the early US efforts. The first successful test interception was carried out on 24 November 1960, and the first with a live warhead on 4 March 1961. In this test, a dummy warhead was released by a [[R-12 (missile)|R-12]] [[ballistic missile]] launched from the [[Kapustin Yar]],<ref name=gobarev>{{cite journal |last1=Gobarev |first1=Victor |year=2001 |title=The early development of Russia's ballistic missile defense system |journal=The Journal of Slavic Military Studies |volume=14 |issue=2 |pages=29–48|doi=10.1080/13518040108430478|s2cid=144681318 }} Viewed 26 May 2012.</ref> and intercepted by a V-1000 launched from [[Sary-Shagan]]. The dummy warhead was destroyed by the impact of 16,000 [[tungsten-carbide]] spherical impactors 140 seconds after launch, at an altitude of {{convert|25|km|ft|abbr=on}}.<ref name="Karpenko1999">{{Cite journal| first = A| last = Karpenko| year = 1999| title = ABM AND SPACE DEFENSE| journal = Nevsky Bastion| volume = 4| pages = 2–47| url = https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/990600-bmd-rus.htm| access-date = 18 October 2015| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160303165344/http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/soviet/990600-bmd-rus.htm| archive-date = 3 March 2016| url-status = live}}</ref>

The V-1000 missile system was nonetheless considered not reliable enough and abandoned in favour of nuclear-armed ABMs. Retired V-1000 was used to develop 1Ya2TA [[sounding rocket]], capable of launching 520&nbsp;kg scientific payload to an altitude of 400&nbsp;km.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Krebs |first=Gunter Dirk |title=1Ya2TA |url=https://space.skyrocket.de/doc_lau/1ya2ta.htm |access-date=2024-11-12 |website=Gunter's Space Page}}</ref> A much larger missile, the [[ABM-1 Galosh|Fakel 5V61]] (known in the west as Galosh), was developed to carry the larger warhead and carry it much further from the launch site. Further development continued, and the [[A-35 anti-ballistic missile system]], designed to protect Moscow, became operational in 1971. A-35 was designed for exoatmospheric interceptions, and would have been highly susceptible to a well-arranged attack using multiple warheads and radar black-out techniques.

A-35 was upgraded during the 1980s to a two-layer system, the [[A-135 anti-ballistic missile system|A-135]]. The Gorgon (SH-11/ABM-4) long-range missile was designed to handle intercepts outside the atmosphere, and the [[53T6|Gazelle (SH-08/ABM-3)]] short-range missile endoatmospheric intercepts that eluded Gorgon. The A-135 system is considered to be technologically equivalent to the United States Safeguard system of 1975.<ref>GlobalSecurity.org. [http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/abm3.htm -135 anti-ballistic missile system] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071015034259/http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/abm3.htm |date=15 October 2007 }}.</ref>

===American Nike-X and Sentinel===
[[Nike Zeus]] failed to be a credible defense in an era of rapidly increasing ICBM counts due to its ability to attack only one target at a time. Additionally, significant concerns about its ability to successfully intercept warheads in the presence of high-altitude nuclear explosions, including its own, lead to the conclusion that the system would simply be too costly for the very low amount of protection it could provide.

By the time it was cancelled in 1963, potential upgrades had been explored for some time. Among these were radars capable of scanning much greater volumes of space and able to track many warheads and launch several missiles at once. These, however, did not address the problems identified with radar blackouts caused by high-altitude explosions. To address this need, a new missile with extreme performance was designed to attack incoming warheads at much lower altitudes, as low as 20&nbsp;km. The new project encompassing all of these upgrades was launched as [[Nike-X]].

The main missile was [[LIM-49 Spartan]]—a Nike Zeus upgraded for longer range and a much larger 5 megaton warhead intended to destroy enemy's warheads with a burst of x-rays outside the atmosphere. A second shorter-range missile called [[Sprint (missile)|Sprint]] with very high acceleration was added to handle warheads that evaded longer-ranged Spartan. Sprint was a very fast missile (some sources{{who|date=March 2015}} claimed it accelerated to 8,000&nbsp;mph (13&nbsp;000&nbsp;km/h) within 4 seconds of flight—an average acceleration of ''90 [[g-force|g]]'') and had a smaller W66 [[Neutron bomb|enhanced radiation]] warhead in the 1–3 kiloton range for in-atmosphere interceptions.

The experimental success of Nike X persuaded the [[Lyndon B. Johnson]] administration to propose a thin ABM defense, that could provide almost complete coverage of the United States. In a September 1967 speech, Defense Secretary [[Robert McNamara]] referred to it as "[[Sentinel program|Sentinel]]". McNamara, a private ABM opponent because of cost and feasibility (see [[cost-exchange ratio]]), claimed that Sentinel would be directed not against the Soviet Union's missiles (since the [[Soviet Union|USSR]] had more than enough missiles to overwhelm any American defense), but rather against the potential nuclear threat of the People's Republic of China.

In the meantime, a public debate over the merit of ABMs began. Difficulties that had already made an ABM system questionable for defending against an all-out attack. One problem was the [[Fractional Orbital Bombardment System]] (FOBS) that would give little warning to the defense. Another problem was high altitude EMP (whether from offensive or defensive nuclear warheads) which could degrade defensive radar systems.

When this proved infeasible for economic reasons, a much smaller deployment using the same systems was proposed, namely Safeguard (described later).

===Defense against MIRVs===
[[File:Peacekeeper-missile-testing.jpg|thumb|right|Testing of the [[LGM-118A Peacekeeper]] re-entry vehicles, all eight shot from only one missile. Each line is the path of a warhead which, were it live, would detonate with the explosive power of twenty-five [[Little Boy|Hiroshima-style]] weapons.]]

ABM systems were developed initially to counter single warheads launched from large [[intercontinental ballistic missile]]s (ICBMs). The economics seemed simple enough; since rocket costs increase rapidly with size, the price of the ICBM launching a large warhead should always be greater than the much smaller interceptor missile needed to destroy it. In an arms race the defense would always win.<ref name="Ramsey" />{{rp|p=18}}

In addition to the blast effect, the detonation of nuclear devices against attacking intercontinental ballistic missiles produces a neutron kill effect from the strong radiation emitted, and this neutralizes the warhead, or warheads, of the attacking missile.<ref>{{cite book |title=A Dictionary of Aviation |first=David W. |last=Wragg |isbn=9780850451634 |edition=first |publisher=Osprey |date=1973 |page=200 }}</ref> Most A.B.M. devices depend on neutron kill for their effectiveness.

In practice, the price of the interceptor missile was considerable, due to its sophistication. The system had to be guided all the way to an interception, which demanded guidance and control systems that worked within and outside the atmosphere. Due to their relatively short ranges, an ABM missile would be needed to counter an ICBM wherever it might be aimed. That implies that dozens of interceptors are needed for every ICBM since warhead's targets couldn't be known in advance.  This led to intense debates about the "[[cost-exchange ratio]]" between interceptors and warheads.

Conditions changed dramatically in 1970 with the introduction of [[multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle]] (MIRV) warheads. Suddenly, each launcher was throwing not one warhead, but several. These would spread out in space, ensuring that a single interceptor would be needed for each warhead. This simply added to the need to have several interceptors for each warhead in order to provide geographical coverage. Now it was clear that an ABM system would always be many times more expensive than the ICBMs they defended against.<ref name="Ramsey"/>

===Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972===
{{main|Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty}}
Technical, economic and political problems described resulted in the [[Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty|ABM treaty]] of 1972, which restricted the deployment of strategic (not tactical) anti-ballistic missiles.

By the ABM treaty and a 1974 revision, each country was allowed to deploy a mere 100 ABMs to protect a single, small area. The Soviets retained their Moscow defences. The U.S. designated their ICBM sites near Grand Forks Air Force Base, North Dakota, where Safeguard was already under advanced development. The radar systems and anti-ballistic missiles were approximately 90 miles north/northwest of Grand Forks AFB, near Concrete, North Dakota. The missiles were deactivated in 1975. The main radar site (PARCS) is still used as an early warning ICBM radar, facing relative north. It is located at Cavalier Air Force Station, North Dakota.

===Brief use of Safeguard in 1975/1976===
The U.S. [[Safeguard Program|Safeguard]] system, which utilized the nuclear-tipped [[LIM-49A Spartan]] and [[Sprint (missile)|Sprint]] missiles, in the short operational period of 1975/1976, was the second counter-ICBMs system in the world. Safeguard protected only the main fields of US ICBMs from attack, theoretically ensuring that an attack could be responded to with a US launch, enforcing the [[mutually assured destruction]] principle.

===SDI experiments in the 1980s===
{{main|Strategic Defense Initiative}}
The [[Ronald Reagan|Reagan]]-era [[Strategic Defense Initiative]] (often referred to as "Star Wars"), along with research into various energy-beam weaponry, brought new interest in the area of ABM technologies.

SDI was an extremely ambitious program to provide a total shield against a massive Soviet ICBM attack. The initial concept envisioned large sophisticated orbiting laser battle stations, space-based relay mirrors, and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites. Later research indicated that some planned technologies such as X-ray [[laser]]s were not feasible with then-current technology. As research continued, SDI evolved through various concepts as designers struggled with the difficulty of such a large complex defense system. SDI remained a research program and was never deployed. Several post-SDI technologies are used by the present [[Missile Defense Agency]] (MDA).

Lasers originally developed for the SDI plan are in use for astronomical observations. Used to ionize gas in the upper atmosphere, they provide telescope operators with a target to calibrate their instruments.<ref>{{cite journal|title=Military Magic Boosts Astronomy : Declassified technology enhances celestial knowledge|journal=Astronomy|date=January 2001|volume=29|issue=1|page=48|url=https://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=d2b37e4a-4a62-4a05-8cc7-7521f023995e%40sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=edsgcl.75029301&db=edsgbc|access-date=26 January 2018}}{{Dead link|date=August 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>

===Tactical ABMs deployed in 1990s===
The Israeli [[Arrow (Israeli missile)|Arrow missile]] system was tested initially during 1990, before the [[Gulf War|first Gulf War]]. The Arrow was supported by the United States throughout the 1990s.

The [[Patriot missile|Patriot]] was the first deployed tactical ABM system, although it was not designed from the outset for that task and consequently had limitations. It was used during the 1991 Gulf War to attempt to intercept Iraqi [[Scud]] missiles. Post-war analyses show that the Patriot was much less effective than initially thought because of its radar and control system's inability to discriminate warheads from other objects when the Scud missiles broke up during reentry.

<!--[https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/index.html FAS] also has a time line for ABM/NMB/TBMD starting in [https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/milestone.htm Missile Defense Milestones]-->
Testing ABM technology continued during the 1990s with mixed success. After the Gulf War, improvements were made to several U.S. air defense systems. A new Patriot, [[PAC-3]], was developed and tested—a complete redesign of the PAC-2 deployed during the war, including a totally new missile. The improved guidance, radar and missile performance improves the probability of kill over the earlier PAC-2. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, Patriot batteries engaged 100% of enemy [[Tactical ballistic missile|TBMs]] within their engagement territory. Of these engagements, 8 of them were verified as kills by multiple independent sensors; the remaining was listed as a probable kill due to lack of independent verification. Patriot was involved in three [[friendly fire]] incidents: two incidents of Patriot shootings at coalition aircraft and one of U.S. aircraft shooting at a Patriot battery.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Defense Science Board Task Force |url=http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf |title=Patriot system performance – report summary |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060226111836/http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-01-Patriot_Report_Summary.pdf |archive-date=26 February 2006 |date=January 2005}}</ref>

A new version of the Hawk missile was tested during the early to mid-1990s and by the end of 1998 the majority of US Marine Corps Hawk systems were modified to support basic theater anti-ballistic missile capabilities.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=FAS |url=https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk.htm |title=Hawk |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20151015200451/http://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/hawk.htm |archive-date=15 October 2015}}</ref> The [[MIM-23 Hawk]] missile is not operational in U.S. service since 2002, but is used by many other countries.

[[File:Navy Theater Ballistic Missile Defense.JPG|thumb|right|Developed in the late 1990s, the Lightweight Exo-Atmospheric Projectile attaches to a modified [[RIM-156 Standard|SM-2 Block IV missile]] used by the [[United States Navy|U.S. Navy]]]]
Soon after the Gulf War, the [[Aegis Combat System]] was expanded to include ABM capabilities. The [[RIM-156 Standard|Standard missile]] system was also enhanced and tested for ballistic missile interception. During the late 1990s, SM-2 block IVA missiles were tested in a theater ballistic missile defense function.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sm2.htm |title=Navy Area Defense (NAD) |publisher=FAS |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070812145613/https://fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sm2.htm|archive-date=12 August 2007}}</ref> [[RIM-161 Standard missile 3|Standard Missile 3 (SM-3)]] systems have also been tested for an ABM role. In 2008, an SM-3 missile launched from the {{sclass|Ticonderoga|cruiser|2}} {{USS|Lake Erie|CG-70|6}}, successfully intercepted [[USA-193|a non-functioning satellite]].<ref>{{cite press release|title=DoD Succeeds in Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite|url=http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11704|date=20 February 2008|number=No. 0139-08|publisher=U.S. Department of Defense|access-date=20 February 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080226105236/http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=11704| archive-date= 26 February 2008 | url-status= live}}</ref><ref>{{cite press release|title= Navy Succeeds in Intercepting Non-Functioning Satellite|url=http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35114|publisher=U.S. Navy|date=20 February 2008|number=NNS080220-19|access-date=20 February 2008| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20080225234718/http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=35114| archive-date= 25 February 2008 | url-status= dead}}</ref>

===Brilliant Pebbles concept===
Approved for acquisition by the Pentagon during 1991 but never realized, [[Brilliant Pebbles]] was a proposed space-based anti-ballistic system that was meant to avoid some of the problems of the earlier SDI concepts. Rather than use sophisticated large laser battle stations and nuclear-pumped X-ray laser satellites, Brilliant Pebbles consisted of a thousand very small, intelligent orbiting satellites with kinetic warheads. The system relied on improvements of computer technology, avoided problems with overly centralized command and control and risky, expensive development of large, complicated space defense satellites.
It promised to be much less expensive to develop and have less technical development risk.

The name Brilliant Pebbles comes from the small size of the satellite interceptors and great computational power enabling more autonomous targeting. Rather than rely exclusively on ground-based control, the many small interceptors would cooperatively communicate among themselves and target a large swarm of ICBM warheads in space or in the late boost phase. Development was discontinued later in favor of a limited ground-based defense.

===Transformation of SDI into MDA, development of NMD/GMD===
While the Reagan era Strategic Defense Initiative was intended to shield against a massive Soviet attack, during the early 1990s, President [[George H. W. Bush]] called for a more limited version using rocket-launched interceptors based on the ground at a single site. Such system was developed since 1992, was expected to become operational in 2010<ref>{{cite web|title=Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD)|url=http://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html|publisher=MDA|access-date=8 February 2011|quote="A total of 30 interceptors are planned for deployment by the end of 2010. "|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101206200507/http://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html|archive-date=6 December 2010}}</ref> and capable of intercepting small number of incoming ICBMs. First called the National Missile Defense (NMD), since 2002 it was renamed [[Ground-Based Midcourse Defense]] (GMD). It was planned to protect all 50 states from a rogue missile attack. The Alaska site provides more protection against North Korean missiles or accidental launches from Russia or China, but is likely less effective against missiles launched from the Middle East. The Alaska interceptors may be augmented later by the naval Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System or by ground-based missiles in other locations.

During 1998, Defense Secretary [[William Cohen]] proposed spending an additional $6.6 billion on intercontinental ballistic missile defense programs to build a system to protect against attacks from North Korea or accidental launches from Russia or China.<ref>PBS. [[The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer]]. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/nmd_1-28a.html A Viable Defense?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110127132413/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/nmd_1-28a.html |date=27 January 2011 }}. 28 January 1999.</ref>

In terms of organization, during 1993 SDI was reorganized as the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization. In 2002, it was renamed to [[Missile Defense Agency]] (MDA).

===21st century===
On 13 June 2002, the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and recommenced developing missile defense systems that would have formerly been prohibited by the bilateral treaty. The action was stated as needed to defend against the possibility of a missile attack conducted by a [[rogue state]]. The next day, the Russian Federation dropped the [[START II]] agreement, intended to completely ban [[MIRV]]s.

[[2010 Lisbon summit|The Lisbon Summit of 2010]] saw the adoption of a [[NATO]] program that was formed in response to the threat of a rapid increase of [[ballistic missile]]s from potentially unfriendly regimes, though no specific region, state, or country was formally mentioned. This adoption came from the recognition of territorial missile defense as a core alliance objective. At this time, Iran was seen as the likely aggressor that eventually led to the adoption of this ABM system, as Iran has the largest missile arsenal of the Middle East, as well as a space program. From this summit, [[NATO]]'s ABM system was potentially seen as a threat by Russia, who felt that their ability to retaliate any perceived nuclear threats would be degraded. To combat this, Russia proposed that any ABM system enacted by NATO must be universal to operate, cover the entirety of the European continent, and not upset any nuclear parity. The United States actively sought NATO involvement in the creation of an ABM system, and saw an Iranian threat as a sufficient reason to warrant its creation. The United States also had plans to create missile defense facilities, but [[NATO]] officials feared that it would have provided protection to Europe, it would have detracted from the responsibility of [[NATO]] for collective defense. The officials also argued the potential prospect of U.S-commanded operation system that would work in conjunction with the [[North Atlantic Treaty|Article 5]] defense of [[NATO]].<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Hildreth |first1=Steven A. |last2=Ek |first2=Carl |date=2010-12-28 |title=Missile Defense and NATO's Lisbon Summit |url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc491310/ |access-date=2022-05-11 |website=UNT Digital Library |language=English}}</ref>

On 15 December 2016, the US Army [[SMDC]] had a successful test of a U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocket, to be used as a target for exercising various anti-ballistic missile scenarios. The rocket was launched as part of NASA's [[sounding rocket]] program, at White Sands Missile Range.<ref>[https://www.army.mil/article/179788/us_army_announces_successful_test_of_us_army_zombie_pathfinder_rocket U.S. Army announces successful test of U.S. Army Zombie Pathfinder rocket] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170109113728/https://www.army.mil/article/179788/us_army_announces_successful_test_of_us_army_zombie_pathfinder_rocket |date=9 January 2017 }} accessdate=2017-01-08</ref>

In November 2020, the US successfully destroyed a dummy ICBM. The ICBM was launched from [[Kwajalein Atoll]]<ref name=in20years>[http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf  Richard F. Pittenger and Robert B. Gagosian (Dec 2003) Global Warming Could Have a Chilling Effect on the Military] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210506004712/https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/weather/climatechange/ADA422382.pdf |date=6 May 2021 }} "Military planners should begin to consider potential abrupt
climate change scenarios and their impacts on national defense."
*[https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/2582051/defense-secretary-calls-climate-change-an-existential-threat/ David Vergun (22 April 2021) Defense Secretary Calls Climate Change an Existential Threat] 
*[https://www.huffpost.com/entry/defense-department-climate-change-national-security-threat_n_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f Chris D’Angelo and Alexander C. Kaufman (01/18/2019)  Pentagon Confirms Climate Change Is A National Security Threat, Contradicting Trump] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427135218/https://www.huffpost.com/entry/defense-department-climate-change-national-security-threat_n_5c420386e4b027c3bbc1713f |date=27 April 2021 }} 79 Military installations; " 'Air Force's $1 billion radar installation on a Marshall Islands atoll 'is projected to be underwater within two decades'."
*[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/key-missile-defense-installation-will-be-uninhabitable-in-less-than-20-years/  Scott Waldman, E&E News (1 March 2018) Key Missile Defense Installation Will be Uninhabitable in Less Than 20 Years] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210427134105/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/key-missile-defense-installation-will-be-uninhabitable-in-less-than-20-years/ |date=27 April 2021 }}:Rising seas will ruin Kwajalein Atoll site where 1,300 work and live</ref><ref name=reaganTestSite >{{cite web| url = https://www.army.mil/article/243648/armys_reagan_test_site_supports_missile_test| title = Jason Cutshaw (24 February 2021) Army's Reagan Test Site supports missile test}}</ref> in the general direction of Hawaii, triggering a satellite warning to a Colorado Air Force base, which then contacted the {{USS|John Finn}}. The ship launched a [[SM-3|SM-3 Block IIA]] missile to destroy the US dummy, still outside the atmosphere.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bowman |first1=Bradley |title=Successful SM-3 weapons test offers missile defense opportunity |url=https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/11/21/successful-sm-3-weapons-test-offers-missile-defense-opportunity/ |website=defensenews.com |date=23 November 2020 |access-date=25 November 2020}}</ref>