Defense Priorities Defense Priorities
  • Policy Topics
    • Israel-Iran
    • Ukraine-Russia
    • NATO
    • China
    • Syria
  • Research
    • Briefs
    • Explainers
    • Reports
  • Programs
    • Grand Strategy Program
    • Military Analysis Program
    • Asia Program
    • Middle East Program
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Media
  • About
    • Mission & Vision
    • People
    • Jobs
    • Contact
  • Donate
Select Page
Home / Asia / The century’s first missile crisis is coming in Asia
Asia, China, Global posture, Military analysis, Nuclear weapons

February 18, 2025

The century’s first missile crisis is coming in Asia

By Jennifer Kavanagh

Missiles are at the center of global conflicts today. Much of 2024 was spent debating the escalation risks of allowing Ukraine to fire its U.S.-made longer-range missiles at targets inside Russia. In the Middle East, Iran’s high-risk missile attacks on Israeli soil and Israel’s dramatic counterstrike overshadowed—but did not slow—the Yemeni Houthis’ near-daily missile barrages against ships in the Red Sea.

While attention has focused on these lethal standoffs, the most serious missile threat to U.S. national security is unfolding in Asia. There, the Aug. 2, 2019, end of the 1987 U.S.-Soviet Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty—which barred the United States and Soviet Union from fielding any nuclear or nonnuclear ground-launched missiles with ranges between 500 kilometers (310 miles) and 5,500 kilometers (3,418 miles)—has sparked a quiet arms race in a region already on edge. As it embarks on its review of U.S. national defense, the administration of President Donald Trump should pay attention.

Under former President Joe Biden, the U.S. military moved eagerly to seize the opportunities that the INF Treaty’s demise has opened in Asia by developing, testing, and fielding new ground-launched missiles that previously would have been prohibited.

But as new missiles begin arriving in the region, they bring with them many unappreciated risks. Countervailing reactions from adversaries, potentially including nuclear escalation, could leave the United States and its allies less safe even if the longer-range systems would prove useful in a future clash with China.

Read at Foreign Policy

Author

Jennifer
Kavanagh

Senior Fellow & Director of Military Analysis

Defense Priorities

More on Asia

ExplainerMilitary analysis, Air power, Basing and force posture, Land power, Naval power

Aligning global military posture with U.S. interests

By Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

In the mediaGrand strategy, Asia

‘Restrainers’ propose slashing U.S. troop numbers in South Korea, Okinawa

Featuring Jennifer Kavanagh and Dan Caldwell

July 9, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, Americas, China, Great power competition

What is Trump’s “new realism” in foreign policy?

By Lyle Goldstein

July 4, 2025

In the mediaChina, Asia, Taiwan

American bombs in Iran also reverberate in China and North Korea

Featuring Lyle Goldstein

July 4, 2025

op-edNATO, Alliances, Asia

Why America’s East Asian allies skipped the NATO summit

By Lyle Goldstein

July 2, 2025

op-edGrand strategy, China, Iran, North Korea, Russia

There is no ‘axis of autocracy’

By Daniel DePetris

July 1, 2025

Events on Asia

See All Events
virtualGreat power competition, Balance of power, China, Grand strategy, Middle East

Past Virtual Event: U.S.-China competition and the value of Middle East influence

June 10, 2025
virtualChina, Alliances, Balance of power, Diplomacy, Grand strategy, Russia

Past Virtual Event: China-Russia: Cooperation or a no-limits alliance?

April 3, 2025
virtualAsia, Basing and force posture, Burden sharing, China, Grand strategy

Past Virtual Event: Rethinking U.S. strategy in East Asia: do more bases mean more deterrence?

January 24, 2024

Receive expert foreign policy analysis

Join the hub of realism and restraint

Expert updates and analysis to enhance your understanding of vital U.S. national security issues

Defense Priority Mono Logo

Our mission is to inform citizens, thought leaders, and policymakers of the importance of a strong, dynamic military—used more judiciously to protect America’s narrowly defined national interests—and promote a realistic grand strategy prioritizing restraint, diplomacy, and free trade to ensure U.S. security.

  • About
  • For Media
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Contact
© 2025 Defense Priorities All Right Reserved