Military & Aerospace

Ballistic Missile Defences in 2030
Star Rating Loader Please wait...

Future Scenarios

Determining the role or relevance of missile defences for global security by 2030 could be an uphill task, with possibilities of near-certain inaccuracies. The decades from now could witness massive changes in the global security environment along with a natural progressive evolution of technological forces. There are potential for great power rivalries, peace dividends and strategic stalemates.

While Russia would attempt to prefect its BMD planning and deploy systems such as S”‘400 and S”‘500, other nations pursuing BMD capability such as India and China could be expected to develop and deploy their new systems during this period.

War could also possibly move to retrograde levels involving lower levels of conflict where technology might not be a saviour or balancer. Considering these eventualities, a handful of scenarios could be envisioned for the period based on the trends derived by the above-given postulations.

Scenario I:

Politically Driven Slow-paced Technological Progress

A probable scenario will be the continuation of the existing security environment, without major transformations, and a handful of technological templates being pursued in consonance with existing demands with the political drivers exercising varying influence on the nature of the technological innovations. In such a scenario, many of the projects currently envisaged might move from conceptualization or development stages to maturity and deployment. This could mean that many of the US BMD programmes currently under development might reach deployment during 2025–30. Many of the current variants could undertake natural upgrades and augmentations. While Russia would attempt to prefect its BMD planning and deploy systems such as S‑400 and S‑500, other nations pursuing BMD capability such as India and China could be expected to develop and deploy their new systems during this period.

The rise in instances of proliferation and concomitant challenges from a belligerent North Korea or a nuclear-armed Iran might endow further shifts in the political environment, which will be reflected in the US BMD postures through more foreign deployments and extended coverage. Countries such as Japan, Australia and Israel could host theatre-level and exo-atmospheric US BMD systems in their regions while Europe might be expected to be covered by an extended US shield. The rise of new BMD-armed nations such as India and China might complicate the nuclear deterrence equation in Asia. On the other hand, a push for space-based systems might happen, propelling increased competition in this domain. However, the momentum against space militarization might be a spoil the attempts for maximum exploitation of this domain. Thereby, the nature of BMDs by 2030 would be an imaginable extreme of the technologies envisioned today based on a hand-to-mouth requirement, and strongly driven by political push-and-pull factors.

Scenario II:

Peace Dividend

Another possible scenario could be the dramatic change in the nature of BMD development through the benefits of a peace dividend, derived from the momentum in favour of nuclear disarmament. The Obama administration’s declared intent to work towards total elimination of nuclear weapons and curb proliferation through enhanced nuclear security has raised hopes of reversing the armament drive, with lesser incentives for proliferation and arms races. This could favour a preferential leap towards defensive postures, which will be reflected in the BMD landscape, as a phased reduction of nuclear warheads and delivery systems will ultimately diminish the political utility of missile defences.

Also read: Taiwan’s courtship with India

However, their role as a stabilizer in the phased reduction process could also be valued if the nuclear weapon states decided on parity in BMD systems to balance the deterrence equations on the route to total elimination. If this momentum is initiated and sustained in the next two decades through a strengthened Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) or a stand-alone treaty, it could lead to reversal of funding and lesser emphasis for military technological innovations, thus facilitating a decline even in BMDs. However, the risks of proliferation, especially among threshold states, which could misuse the reduction process among the nuclear weapon states, could be a spoiler. In such scenarios, BMDs might exist as a shield against limited missile and nuclear threats.

Missile defences by and large could remain an irrevocable phenomenon, even if a peace dividend gradually emerges on the scene.

If the peace dividend fructifies, the period around 2030 might see a slide towards formidable reductions both of offensive and defensive missiles. However, going by the lukewarm response to the Obama pacifism and with possibilities of security deficits likely to continue along with enhanced military competition among major powers, this scenario might not be a sustainable proposition.

Scenario III:

Great-power Competition and Technological Revolutions

The third potential scenario, and a more realistic one, is the expected dynamism in BMD development that could be generated through heightened competition between the major military powers to gain strategic depth along with a double-edged deterrent capability. The mere fact that various systems are currently under development and that newer technological templates are emerging indicates the potential for a technological competition that could generate a domino impact, in the process triggering and consolidating a new arms race. This impact chain could start with the US BMD expansion that would influence the security calculus of second-tier powers like Russia and China, which in turn will flow down to the third tier of technology-developers like India, Pakistan and Iran, among others.

The US would be propelled to provide missile defence umbrellas to its allies in strategic zones like East Asia and the Middle East, which would create a security deficit in these regions. A complicated nuclear equation would thus be the most potent political driver for BMD expansion. An inherent asymmetry endowed by the US technological supremacy would be a pushing factor for other countries to embark further on this technological domain.

Conclusion

As the scenarios show, missile defences by and large could remain an irrevocable phenomenon, even if a peace dividend gradually emerges on the scene. However, considering the contemporary and past history, such dividends might not be sustainable and could only be the beginning of a new era of power competitions, strategic rivalries and resultant instabilities. As a defensive mechanism, missile defences could have a brighter scope of endurance. Even for wild card scenarios of great wars, missile defences might be the trump card against total annihilation. Beyond all, there are not visible political contingencies expected to such potent level that can reverse this trend.

Book_Asia_2030Just like technologies have evolved into an infinite process, BMDs might be at the central of future burgeoning of military technologies. This is inevitable, considering the current revolution in military affairs (RMA) and the expected revolution in military and dual-use technologies. Ballistic missile defences, needless to say, will be a major component of this evolving technological paradigm. Though there would be increasing opportunities for strategic stability among BMD-armed nations, the innovations in technology could inevitably generate competition among the major powers, potentially creating a new complex strategic environment by 2030.

1 2 3 4 5
Rate this Article
Star Rating Loader Please wait...
The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions or policies of the Indian Defence Review.

About the Author

A Vinod Kumar

is Associate Fellow at Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, New Delhi

More by the same author

Post your Comment

Comments are closed.