• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "James M. Acton"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "U.S. Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "North America",
    "United States"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

U.S. National Missile Defense Policy

U.S. missile defense policy has been remarkably stable since the end of the Cold War. This consensus represents an equilibrium between external threats, domestic politics, and technological and financial realities.

Link Copied
By James M. Acton
Published on Sep 17, 2015
Program mobile hero image

Program

Nuclear Policy

The Nuclear Policy Program aims to reduce the risk of nuclear war. Our experts diagnose acute risks stemming from technical and geopolitical developments, generate pragmatic solutions, and use our global network to advance risk-reduction policies. Our work covers deterrence, disarmament, arms control, nonproliferation, and nuclear energy.

Learn More

Source: Regional Missile Defense from a Global Perspective

In its February 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, the administration of President Barack Obama identified two fundamental policy goals:

First, the United States will continue to defend the homeland from limited ballistic missile attack. These efforts are focused on protecting the homeland from a ballistic missile attack by a regional actor such as North Korea or Iran. . . . Second, the United States will defend U.S. deployed forces from regional missile threats while also protecting our allies and partners and enabling them to defend themselves.1

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, every U.S. administration has articulated similar objectives. This continuity may seem unremarkable. But it stands in stark contrast to the Cold War, which saw the United States adopt almost every policy on ballistic missile defense (BMD) imaginable, ranging from not having a policy to outright opposition to complete support to the qualified endorsement of limited defenses.

This post–Cold War consensus has not been absolute. Inevitably, each administration has created its own distinctive policy formulation, and some differences in basic goals have emerged—most notably over the right balance between homeland defense and forward defense (in particular, for much of his time in office President William Clinton opposed the deployment of homeland defenses). But these policy changes have been modest compared to those during the Cold War, and the shifts in missile defense technology pursued by different administrations are largely reflective of disagreements over means, not ends.

This consensus represents an equilibrium between three different forces: external threats, domestic politics, and technological and financial realities. The first two forces have tended to put “upward pressure” on BMD programs (even if the magnitude of this pressure has ebbed and flowed over time). The scale of U.S. ambitions has, however, been kept in check by the cost and technical complexity of developing and deploying defenses....

Notes

1 U.S. Department of Defense, Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report, February 2010, 11.
 

The chapter “U.S. National Missile Defense Policy” was originally published in the book Regional Missile Defense from a Global Perspective. More information about the book can be found here.

About the Author

James M. Acton

Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program

Acton holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Unpacking Trump’s National Security Strategy
      • Cecily Brewer
      • +18

      James M. Acton, Saskia Brechenmacher, Cecily Brewer, …

  • Commentary
    Trump Has an Out on Nuclear Testing. He Should Take It.

      James M. Acton

James M. Acton
Jessica T. Mathews Chair, Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
James M. Acton
Nuclear PolicyNorth AmericaUnited States

Carnegie 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 Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Diwan
    Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks

    Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.  

      Michael Young

  • Fire damage is pictures as US President Joe Biden (out of frame) visits to an area devastated by wildfires in Lahaina, Hawaii on August 21, 2023.
    Article
    The United States Has an Internal Displacement Problem

    By reorganizing federal disaster policy around the rights of displaced people, the United States could unlock additional federal resources, accelerate the rebuilding of lives and livelihoods, and reduce suffering and economic disruption.

      • Kayly Ober

      Kayly Ober

  • flood wall
    Commentary
    Emissary
    BRIC Is Critical for U.S. National Security. After a Yearlong Legal Battle, It’s Back.

    Its reinstatement should be celebrated, but it retains some major shortcomings.

      Leonardo Martinez-Diaz

  • Man standing next to a pile of burned cars
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Myriad Problems With the Iran Ceasefire

    Four Middle East experts analyze the region’s reactions and next steps.

      • Andrew Leber
      • Eric Lob
      • +1

      Amr Hamzawy, Andrew Leber, Eric Lob, …

  •  A machine gun of a Houthi soldier mounted on a police vehicle next to a billboard depicting the U.S. president Donald Trump and Mohammed Bin Salman, the Crown Prince and Prime Minister of Saudi Arabia, during a protest staged to show support to Iran against the U.S.-Israel war on March 27, 2026 in Sana'a, Yemen.
    Collection
    The Iran War’s Global Reach

    As the war between the United States, Israel, and Iran continues, Carnegie scholars contribute cutting-edge analysis on the events of the war and their wide-reaching implications. From the impact on Iran and its immediate neighbors to the responses from Gulf states to fuel and fertilizer shortages caused by the effective shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, the war is reshaping Middle East alliances and creating shockwaves around the world. Carnegie experts analyze it all.

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600Fax: 202 483 1840
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.