• Research
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie India logoCarnegie lettermark logo
AI
{
  "authors": [
    "Vipin Narang",
    "Ankit Panda"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Korean Peninsula"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "East Asia",
    "North Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Deadly Overconfidence: Trump Thinks Missile Defenses Work Against North Korea, and That Should Scare You

Could a president’s overconfidence in U.S. defensive systems lead to deadly miscalculation and nuclear armageddon? Yes, it could.

Link Copied
By Vipin Narang and Ankit Panda
Published on Oct 17, 2017

Source: War on the Rocks

Could a president’s  overconfidence in U.S. defensive systems lead to deadly miscalculation and nuclear armageddon? Yes. Yes, it could. Last Wednesday, referring to potential American responses to North Korea’s missile and nuclear program, President Donald Trump told Sean Hannity “We have missiles that can knock out a missile in the air 97 percent of the time, and if you send two of them it’s gonna get knocked out.” If Trump believes — or is being told — that American missile defenses are that accurate, not only is he factually wrong, he is also very dangerously wrong. This misperception could be enough to lead the United States into a costly war with devastating consequences.

Here’s why: If Trump believes U.S. missile defenses work this effectively, he might actually think a first strike attempt to disarm North Korea of its missile and nuclear forces would successfully spare U.S. cities from North Korean nuclear retaliation. They probably wouldn’t. Believing that each ground-based midcourse missile defense (GMD) interceptor can provide anything close to a 97 percent interception rate against retaliation raises the temptation to attempt a so-called “splendid first strike” based on the assumption that missile defenses can successfully intercept any leftover missiles North Korea could then fire at the United States.

In this article, we first lay out the complexity of American missile defenses and explain why it’s way off the mark to believe U.S. ground-based missile defense interceptors are even close to as effective as Trump suggested. We then explain how overconfidence in national missile defense may tempt the president to consider a first strike with no actual guarantee that it can spare an American city — or multiple cities — from potential North Korean thermonuclear retaliation. For a president who has already expressed an inclination to visit “fire and fury” on Kim Jong Un and threatened to “totally destroy” his country, we’re obligated to take Trump’s misplaced confidence in GMD very seriously. His attraction to attempting a first strike will only grow if he is blind to an important gap in U.S. defenses. Not only might he still want to denuclearize North Korea by force, he might think it is actually possible to do so without putting the U.S. homeland at risk.

This article was originally published in War on the Rocks

Read the article

About the Authors

Vipin Narang

Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program

Vipin Narang was a nonresident scholar in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Ankit Panda

Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Ankit Panda is the Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Authors

Vipin Narang
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Ankit Panda
Stanton Senior Fellow in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Ankit Panda
Nuclear PolicyEast AsiaNorth Korea

Carnegie India does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie India

  • Commentary
    On Thin Ice: Bhutan’s Diplomatic Challenge Amid the India-China Border Dispute

    This piece examines the strategic implications of Bhutan’s diplomatic efforts amid its border dispute with China, highlighting the thin ice it walks on to achieve a resolution without compromising its vital relationships.

      Shibani Mehta

  • Commentary
    A Quad Initiative on Digital Public Infrastructure

    With India set to host the sixth Quad Leaders' Summit in 2024, there is every opportunity for this minilateral to not only develop a DPI initiative but also execute pilots in the Indo-Pacific. This essay shares a rationale for how the four Quad countries could achieve this goal.

      Rudra Chaudhuri, Aadya Gupta

  • Commentary
    India’s Quest for Advanced Technology in the Era of Export Controls

    How can India navigate export control measures at a time when it is also entering into technology-centric partnerships with other nations to secure enhanced access to advanced technology?

      Konark Bhandari

  • Article
    Impasse at the LAC: An Examination of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 Standoffs

    This article examines the significance of the 2013, 2014, and 2015 border standoffs between India and China. It presents a detailed account of the border crises and how the two countries tried to manage them.

      Shibani Mehta

  • Commentary
    China and India Aren’t Reaching a Strategic Détente

    Contrary to some recent analyses, this commentary explains why a strategic détente between India and China is unlikely.

      Saheb Singh Chadha

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
Carnegie India logo, white
Unit C-4, 5, 6, EdenparkShaheed Jeet Singh MargNew Delhi – 110016, IndiaPhone: 011-40078687
  • Research
  • About
  • Experts
  • Projects
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie India
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.