Editing Anti-ballistic missile (section)

===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>