25 March 2008: Twenty-five years ago, then-President Ronald Reagan sat in the Oval Office and addressed the citizens of the United States, proffering an audacious plan: “[t]hat we embark on a program to counter the awesome Soviet missile threat with measures that are defensive. Let us turn to the very strengths in technology that spawned our great industrial base and that have given us the quality of life we enjoy today.”

His idea was to build a system that that would “intercept and destroy strategic ballistic missiles before they reached our own soil.”

This program—dubbed “Star Wars”—has evolved and grown over the years. Following the fall of the Iron Curtain, there was little development on this front as the threat of nuclear attack receded. But the U.S.’s missile defense shield has seen a revival under the Bush Administration with the aim of protecting the U.S. against the threat of rogue states.

Recent efforts to expand this system have centered on Europe, where the U.S. plans to establish tracking systems and interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic.

This proposal has upset Russia, largely because the Kremlin believes that the U.S. is encroaching on its traditional sphere of influence. The result has been a dramatic worsening in Russo-American relations over the past two years, which has coincided with Moscow’s efforts to reassert its authority on the international stage.

Since this program was announced, Russia has resumed its practice of sending its bombers on patrols—something that it had not done for 15 years (in part because of cost concerns).

The U.S.’s missile defense efforts have sparked concern among other nations as well, particularly China, who saw the shooting down of an American satellite by a U.S. ship in order to test the missile defense system as a belligerent and hypocritical act. Washington was among those who criticized Beijing’s decision to shoot down one of its own satellites early last year.

China is becoming increasingly active in outer space in an attempt to catch-up and eclipse the U.S.’s current lead in the space race. According to Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator, China’s space program to send humans into space employs more than twice as many people as its American counterpart. The threat of being outclassed in the space arena is a major problem for the U.S. and its military, which rely heavily on satellites for intelligence gathering and communications, among other things.

The impetus for Washington’s renewed efforts in this area? Iran. President George W. Bush has asserted that a nuclear-armed Tehran is seen as a real threat to the U.S. and its allies around the world, thus: “The need for missile defense in Europe is real, and I believe it’s urgent.”

These developments show how complex the world of international relations has become in this day and age. Just as technological advances and global communications are intertwining countries and peoples, so too, they are affecting the power dynamic in this increasingly multi-polar world. The “very strengths in technology,” which Reagan spoke of, no longer exist as America’s rivals have invested heavily in this area. Washington might simply be looking to neutralize the threat from rogue states like Iran and North Korea, but re-emerging powers like Russia and China are taking notice—and have the technology to react accordingly.

Finally, when President Reagan spoke all those years ago he summarized U.S. defense policy thusly: “The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression—to preserve freedom and peace.” I would venture a guess and say that President Bush would argue that his predecessor’s maxim still stands today.

However, with the erosion of the U.S.’s monopoly on power, can the “strength for peace” argument still hold in this multi-polar world—if it ever held at all? Also, the greatest danger facing the U.S.’s citizens and its interests comes not from air-born missiles, but from terrorists with low-tech weapons; a missile shield cannot be seen as an effective deterrent or defense again this threat.

Consequently, has the U.S.’s missile defense efforts strengthened Washington’s position vis-à-vis its enemies or simply piqued its adversaries?

Send us your thoughts.