{ "id": "R43116", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43116", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 440010, "date": "2015-04-03", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T19:17:14.014180", "title": "Ballistic Missile Defense in the Asia-Pacific Region: Cooperation and Opposition", "summary": "The growing number and modernization of ballistic missiles in the Asia-Pacific region poses a security challenge for the United States and its allies and is thus a concern for many in Congress. The United States has made ballistic missile defense (BMD) a central component of protection for forward-deployed U.S. forces and extended deterrence for allied security. The configuration of sensors, command-and-control centers, and BMD assets in the region has slowly evolved with contributions from treaty allies, primarily Japan, Australia, and South Korea.\nObservers believe that North Korea has an arsenal of hundreds of short-range ballistic missiles and likely dozens of medium-range Nodong missiles; the extended-range Nodongs are considered capable of reaching Japan and U.S. bases there. Longer-range North Korean missiles appear to be under development but remain unreliable, with only one successful test out of five in the past 15 years. The U.S. intelligence community has not yet concluded that North Korea can build nuclear warheads small enough to put on ballistic missiles, but there is significant debate among experts on this question.\nCongress has maintained a strong interest in the ballistic missile threat from both North Korea and Iran and in BMD systems to counter those threats. The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2013 noted that East Asian allies have contributed to BMD in various ways, and it called on the Department of Defense (DOD) to continue efforts to develop and formalize regional BMD arrangements. Similarly, the FY2014 NDAA and FY2015 NDAA encourage the United States to cooperate with regional allies on BMD issues to enhance the security of all partners.\nThe United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region have responded to the North Korean missile threat by deploying BMD assets and increasing international BMD cooperation. The United States and Japan have deployed Aegis-equipped destroyers with Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) interceptors, Patriot Advanced Capability 3 (PAC-3) batteries, early warning sensors, and advanced radars to meet the threat. South Korea and Australia have relatively basic BMD capabilities with plans to improve those in the near future. Cooperation on BMD follows the hub-and-spokes model of U.S. bilateral alliance relationships in the region; the multilateralism that underpins the European BMD arrangement is largely absent. Working-level coordination is especially close among the United States, Japan, and Australia, but senior U.S. defense officials have called for greater integration of U.S. and allied BMD efforts in East Asia to improve effectiveness.\nThe stated focus of U.S. BMD policy is to defend against limited missile strikes from rogue states, not to alter the balance of strategic nuclear deterrence with the major nuclear-armed states. Nonetheless, Russia and China have strongly criticized U.S. BMD deployments as a threat to their nuclear deterrents, and thus a danger to strategic stability. Chinese officials and scholars make several other criticisms: that BMD is antagonizing North Korea and thus undermining regional stability; that the United States is using BMD to strengthen its alliance relationships, which could be turned against China; and that BMD is undermining China\u2019s conventional missile deterrent against Taiwan, and thus emboldening those on Taiwan who want to formalize the island\u2019s separation from China.\nSpecific issues for Congress raised by BMD cooperation in the Asia-Pacific include\nappropriations for BMD programs; \nthe potential for Foreign Military Sales financing of BMD technology to allies;\nthe role of BMD cooperation in shaping alliance relationships and overall U.S. strategy in the region; \nthe effect of U.S. BMD cooperation on U.S. relations with China, North Korea, and Russia; and \nthe possible role of U.S. BMD cooperation in shaping military developments in those countries.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43116", "sha1": "62dc5a4845f4b68a3d00b66606255f13c462dd07", "filename": "files/20150403_R43116_62dc5a4845f4b68a3d00b66606255f13c462dd07.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43116", "sha1": "aa32ac6978905a826eca354301195c5524d90572", "filename": "files/20150403_R43116_aa32ac6978905a826eca354301195c5524d90572.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 278, "name": "China, Taiwan, and Mongolia" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 280, "name": "Korean Peninsula and Japan" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3407, "name": "Asian Regionalism" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc813545/", "id": "R43116_2013Jun24", "date": "2013-06-24", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "Ballistic Missile Defense in the Asia-Pacific Region: Cooperation and Opposition", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20130624_R43116_17753cb79af412468badaa8eed276c0dce6c422e.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20130624_R43116_17753cb79af412468badaa8eed276c0dce6c422e.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Appropriations", "Economic Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "National Defense" ] }