The great American missile defense debates since the nineteen sixties

The United States has considered the question of national missile defense three times in the last forty years, a national debate beginning in the sixties and ending in the early years of the twenty-first century. The first of these debates took place during the 1960's and early 70's, a struggle that ended with a decision by the Nixon administration to eschew missile defense in favor of the Antiballistic Missile Missile Treaty of 1972. The second debate occurred during the 1980's prompted by Ronald Reagan's attempt to break out of the nuclear dilemma via new technologies to be developed through the Strategic Defense Initiative. This debate ended inconclusively, largely as a result of the decline of the Soviet Union and the waning interest of the first Bush administration. The performance of the Patriot missile in the Gulf War of 1991, however, began a third and final debate on missile defense which effectively ended with the deployment of a limited system of missile defense by the United States in 2004.; This thesis contends that the great missile defense debates in the United States were essentially elitist in nature, with the American public largely ignorant of the most important aspects of the controversy. For the most part, these debates were confined to groups within the government, academic circles and the media with both sides forging rationales for and against missile defense. Throughout these debates, both the question and the individuals aligned on each side of the issue remained unchanged, though the arguments employed by each side were altered substantially depending on the time and circumstances surrounding each debate. This thesis also contends that both sides have consistently failed to present the question of missile defense to the electorate in clear, concise terms, resulting in a public that is still largely confused about the state of missile defense.