The First Use of an ICBM in War – November 21, 2024

By Tim McGuinness, Ph.D., DFin, MCPO, MAnth – Senior Fellow, Emeritus Council

The First Combat Use of an ICBM: A Dangerous Precedent and the Risks of Escalation

The reported use of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) by Russia against the Ukrainian city of Dnipro on November 21, 2024, represents an alarming escalation in modern warfare. For the first time in history, an ICBM—a weapon historically reserved for nuclear deterrence—has been employed in active combat. While initial reports suggest the missile carried a conventional payload, this event sets a dangerous precedent, reshaping the global security landscape and raising grave questions about the future of warfare.

The Signal to Rogue States: ICBMs as Acceptable Weapons

The use of an ICBM in a conventional attack sends a troubling signal to nations such as Iran and North Korea, which possess or aspire to possess similar capabilities. Historically, ICBMs have been viewed as strategic deterrent tools rather than battlefield weapons, primarily due to their association with nuclear warheads and the catastrophic consequences of their use. However, by deploying an ICBM in combat, Russia may have inadvertently (or intentionally) lowered the threshold for the use of these weapons.

Rogue states could interpret this as a green light to utilize their missile capabilities in conflicts without the fear of crossing a red line. For example:

Iran, with its advanced ballistic missile program, could see this as justification to employ such weapons in regional conflicts or as a show of strength against adversaries in the Middle East.

North Korea, known for its provocative missile tests, might use ICBMs or similar platforms as tools for intimidation or actual strikes against perceived enemies, escalating tensions in East Asia.

This shift risks normalizing the use of ICBMs in conventional conflicts, eroding long-standing norms that have helped prevent their deployment for decades.

The Ambiguity of ICBM Payloads: A Recipe for Catastrophe

One of the most perilous consequences of using an ICBM in a non-nuclear role is the ambiguity it introduces. Traditionally, the launch of an ICBM has been synonymous with a nuclear attack, triggering immediate high-alert responses from military and political leadership. The recent event complicates this calculus:

Inability to Differentiate Payloads: From the moment of launch, there is no way to determine whether an ICBM carries a conventional warhead, a nuclear device, or something else. This uncertainty forces decision-makers to either:

Assume the worst-case scenario and potentially escalate the situation to nuclear proportions.

Wait for the missile to strike and confirm its nature, risking catastrophic consequences if it does carry a nuclear payload.

Destabilizing Global Security: The ambiguity of ICBM use undermines the principle of mutual assured destruction (MAD), which relies on clear deterrence and immediate responses. Now, adversaries must contend with the possibility of “testing” responses by launching ICBMs with conventional payloads.

This situation introduces the risk of miscalculation or accidental escalation. A nation detecting an ICBM launch may feel compelled to respond preemptively with nuclear weapons, believing itself under existential threat, even if the missile ultimately carries a non-nuclear warhead.

The “One Nuke” Doctrine: A Dangerous Gamble

Compounding these concerns is the so-called “One Nuke” doctrine—the idea that a country can use a single nuclear weapon without triggering a full-scale nuclear retaliation. This doctrine is predicated on the belief that no rational actor would escalate to an all-out nuclear war in response to a limited strike. Russia’s recent actions may embolden this dangerous theory:

Russia and Ukraine: By introducing ICBMs into the conflict, Russia might calculate that the use of a single tactical nuclear weapon could cripple Ukraine’s resistance without provoking direct Western retaliation. The fear of global nuclear war could deter NATO and other allies from responding in kind, leaving Ukraine to bear the brunt of such an attack.

Implications for Global Security: If this doctrine is tested and no nuclear retaliation follows, it could encourage other nuclear-armed states to consider limited nuclear strikes as viable strategic options. This erodes the decades-old taboo against the use of nuclear weapons and opens the door to a new era of nuclear brinkmanship.

The Need for a Global Response Now!

The international community must act decisively to address this dangerous precedent.

Key steps include:

Reinforcing Norms Against ICBM Use: Diplomatic efforts must stress that the use of ICBMs in any capacity, nuclear or conventional, is unacceptable and destabilizing.

Improving Missile Defense: Nations must accelerate the development and deployment of missile defense systems capable of intercepting ICBMs, reducing the strategic utility of such weapons.

Establishing Clear Deterrence Policies: Clarity in deterrence doctrine is essential. Nations must communicate that the use of ICBMs or nuclear weapons—even in limited scenarios—will result in severe consequences.

Promoting Arms Control Agreements: Reviving and expanding arms control treaties is critical to limiting the proliferation and potential misuse of ICBMs and other strategic weapons.

Reinforcing Norms Against ICBM Use: Preventing a Dangerous Precedent

Reinforcing the global norms against the use of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) is essential to maintaining international stability and deterring further misuse of these strategic weapons. Historically, ICBMs have been viewed as tools of nuclear deterrence, with their use signaling the potential for catastrophic escalation. Russia’s deployment of an ICBM with a conventional payload undermines this norm, requiring a coordinated global response to prevent the erosion of long-standing principles governing the use of such weapons.

Diplomatic Condemnation and Accountability

Unified International Response: Governments, international organizations, and coalitions such as NATO and the United Nations must unequivocally condemn the use of ICBMs in combat, regardless of their payload. This collective denunciation sends a clear message that the misuse of these weapons is unacceptable and carries severe consequences.

Holding Violators Accountable: Violators of ICBM norms, such as Russia in this instance, should face concrete consequences, including diplomatic isolation, sanctions, and restrictions on arms trading. Accountability mechanisms demonstrate that such actions will not be tolerated and discourage other nations from following suit.

Reinforcing Arms Control Frameworks

Strengthening Existing Treaties: Efforts to reinforce and expand arms control agreements, such as the New START Treaty, should explicitly address the misuse of ICBMs with non-nuclear payloads. Including provisions that prohibit the deployment of ICBMs in conventional roles can help restore the boundary between tactical and strategic weapons.

Developing New Agreements: The international community should pursue new multilateral agreements to address emerging threats, such as the use of ICBMs for conventional attacks or as intimidation tools. Such treaties could include verification measures, limits on missile testing, and restrictions on warhead ambiguity.

Elevating the Role of International Institutions

United Nations Oversight: The UN can take a leading role in establishing norms against ICBM use. Resolutions condemning the weaponization of ICBMs for conventional purposes, along with the creation of monitoring mechanisms, can strengthen the global consensus.

Involving Regional Alliances: Regional organizations, such as the European Union or the ASEAN Regional Forum, can work collaboratively to advocate for and enforce norms against ICBM use, especially in regions prone to conflict escalation.

Educating and Engaging the Public

Raising Awareness: Public campaigns highlighting the dangers of normalizing ICBM use can build pressure on governments to adhere to international norms. Educating the public about the catastrophic potential of ICBM misuse reinforces the urgency of maintaining these weapons as strictly deterrent tools.

Advocating for Nuclear Non-Proliferation: Advocacy groups and think tanks should engage policymakers and the public to emphasize the connections between ICBM norms, nuclear non-proliferation, and global security. Demonstrating how the erosion of one norm endangers broader frameworks can galvanize support for strict adherence to ICBM restrictions.

Establishing Clear Red Lines

Policy Statements from Major Powers: Nuclear-armed states and their allies should issue clear, coordinated policy statements defining the unacceptable uses of ICBMs. These statements should outline the consequences for violations and reaffirm the role of ICBMs as deterrent-only weapons.

Creating Crisis Communication Mechanisms: To prevent miscalculation during future ICBM launches, nations should establish or strengthen direct communication channels, such as hotlines, between major powers. These mechanisms ensure rapid clarification of intentions and reduce the risk of escalation stemming from ambiguous launches.

The Global Stakes

Failing to reinforce norms against ICBM use risks normalizing their deployment in conflicts, encouraging rogue states and destabilizing the international order. The introduction of ambiguity in ICBM payloads further complicates strategic decision-making, increasing the likelihood of accidental escalation or miscalculation. By reaffirming and strengthening global standards, the international community can prevent a dangerous precedent from taking root and protect the stability that has underpinned nuclear deterrence frameworks for decades.

The Turning Point

The use of an ICBM in the Russo-Ukrainian War marks a turning point in military history, with far-reaching implications for global security. The normalization of ICBM use, the ambiguity of their payloads, and the dangerous allure of the “One Nuke” doctrine create a volatile mix that could destabilize international relations and heighten the risk of catastrophic conflict. To prevent further escalation, the global community must reaffirm its commitment to the norms and principles that have thus far averted the use of these devastating weapons. The stakes could not be higher.

Improving Missile Defense: A Critical Response to this Changing Threat Landscape

The recent deployment of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with a conventional payload underscores the urgent need to enhance missile defense systems globally. The evolving nature of missile threats—ranging from payload ambiguity to the potential for rogue states or non-state actors to exploit such capabilities—necessitates a robust, multilayered missile defense strategy. By improving missile detection, interception, and response mechanisms, nations can mitigate the risks associated with ICBM misuse and strengthen global security.

Strengthening Early Detection and Tracking

Enhancing Space-Based Systems

Expanding satellite constellations equipped with advanced infrared sensors can improve the ability to detect ICBM launches in real-time. Space-based early warning systems provide a global view, reducing blind spots and enabling faster threat assessment.

Emerging technologies, such as low-Earth orbit satellites, offer higher-resolution data and faster refresh rates, which are critical for tracking unpredictable missile trajectories.

Improved Ground and Sea-Based Radar

Upgrading radar systems to detect and track smaller, faster, and more maneuverable missiles is essential. Modern radar technologies, such as active electronically scanned arrays (AESA), offer enhanced sensitivity and coverage.

Naval assets equipped with advanced radar, such as the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, can extend detection capabilities in maritime regions.

Integrated Detection Networks

Coordinating detection assets across nations and regions can create a seamless early warning network. Integrating radar, satellite, and ground-based systems ensures comprehensive coverage and rapid information sharing.

Developing Advanced Interception Technologies

Layered Missile Defense

Deploying a combination of terminal, mid-course, and boost-phase interception capabilities creates a multilayered defense that increases the likelihood of neutralizing a threat. Systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) are examples of such layered approaches.

Directed Energy Weapons

Investing in laser-based missile defense technologies can offer cost-effective, rapid-response interception options. These systems, capable of targeting missiles during their boost phase, prevent payload deployment and reduce collateral damage risks.

Hypersonic Interceptor Development

As ICBMs and other missile threats evolve to include hypersonic speeds and unpredictable flight paths, interceptors must match or exceed these capabilities. Research and development into hypersonic kill vehicles and interceptors are critical to addressing this challenge.

Addressing Payload Ambiguity

Improving Discrimination Technologies

Advanced radar and sensor technologies capable of distinguishing between nuclear, conventional, or decoy payloads are vital. Improved discrimination ensures that defensive responses are proportional and accurate.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) Integration

AI and machine learning can analyze vast amounts of data from detection systems to predict payload characteristics and missile trajectories more accurately. These technologies reduce decision-making time in high-stakes scenarios.

Expanding Regional Missile Defense Networks

Allied Collaboration

Collaborative missile defense initiatives among allied nations can extend the protective umbrella to vulnerable regions. Systems like NATO’s Ballistic Missile Defense and the U.S.-Japan missile defense partnership serve as models for global cooperation.

Sharing missile defense technology, training, and resources enhances the collective capability to respond to threats.

Forward-Deployed Assets

Stationing missile defense systems closer to potential launch sites can intercept missiles earlier in their trajectory. Forward-deployed assets, such as Aegis-equipped ships, provide flexible and mobile defense options.

Europe and the UK: The Need for a Combined ‘Iron Dome’ System

Given the escalating missile and drone threats across the globe, Europe and the UK must consider a combined air defense strategy modeled after Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ system. The ‘Iron Dome’ is renowned for its ability to intercept short-range rockets and drones with exceptional precision, offering a robust shield against aerial threats. For Europe and the UK, such a system would provide an integrated layer of defense capable of neutralizing conventional missile strikes, UAV attacks, and other emerging threats. The proliferation of advanced missile technology among rogue states and non-state actors has highlighted vulnerabilities in European airspace, making it imperative to deploy a system that can rapidly respond to high-intensity barrages. A combined effort, pooling resources and expertise, would ensure cost efficiency and operational synergy, while demonstrating unity in addressing shared security challenges. A European adaptation of the ‘Iron Dome’ could serve as a cornerstone for regional security, protecting critical infrastructure, urban centers, and civilian lives from an increasingly volatile threat landscape.

The Case for a Comprehensive U.S. ‘Iron Dome’ Solution

Now that the use of ICBM missile technology has been used in war, and is increasingly accessible to both rogue states and non-state actors, the United States urgently needs to implement a complete, continent-wide missile defense system akin to Israel’s ‘Iron Dome.’ However, given the scale of North America and the complexity of modern threats, this system must go beyond interception. It should include a fully automated response capability that not only neutralizes incoming threats but also ensures the destruction of enemy launch facilities immediately upon detection. This approach would eliminate the delays caused by political decision-making, providing a swift and decisive deterrent against any actor contemplating an attack on the United States or its territories.

A comprehensive system would require a network of advanced radar detection, interceptors, and automated response mechanisms capable of covering all of North America, including U.S. territories in the Pacific. Such a system would address a range of threats, from intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) to long-range drones and hypersonic missiles. The Pacific territories, often overlooked in strategic planning, are particularly vulnerable given their proximity to potential adversaries like North Korea and China. Ensuring their protection would reinforce the security of critical military and civilian assets.

The inclusion of automatic retaliation mechanisms is crucial in a modern threat environment. By removing the decision to retaliate from the hands of politicians, who may face delays due to bureaucracy, political calculations, or indecision, the system ensures an immediate and proportionate response. This not only deters future attacks but also sends a clear message to adversaries: any launch against the U.S. will result in the swift destruction of their launch capabilities, reducing the likelihood of escalation.

Developing and deploying this comprehensive system would require significant investment and international collaboration. However, the cost of inaction is far greater, as the increasing normalization of missile attacks, highlighted by recent global conflicts, demonstrates. By implementing an advanced ‘Iron Dome’ solution tailored to the unique challenges faced by the U.S., the nation can secure its territory, safeguard its citizens, and maintain its position as a global leader in defense technology and strategy.

Adapting Policies and Protocols

Real-Time Decision Frameworks

The ambiguity of ICBM payloads necessitates updated protocols for determining defensive responses. A real-time decision framework should balance caution with swift action, prioritizing human oversight and minimizing reliance on automated systems for launch authorization.

International Norms for Missile Use

Engaging with global powers to establish or reaffirm norms prohibiting the use of ICBMs for non-nuclear purposes can reduce ambiguity and discourage misuse. This complements defense efforts by addressing the root cause of the threat.

Public and Private Sector Innovation

Incentivizing Defense Research

Governments should partner with private sector innovators like never before to accelerate the development of next-generation missile defense technologies. Working with smaller, more rapidly innovating companies will be the key. Offering funding, tax incentives, or grants can spur breakthroughs in detection and interception.

Cybersecurity Enhancements

Missile defense systems are reliant on digital infrastructure, making them vulnerable to cyberattacks. Strengthening cybersecurity measures across detection and interception systems ensures their resilience against potential sabotage.

This is No Longer an Optional Security Measure

Improving missile defense is no longer an optional security measure; it is an imperative in the face of evolving threats, including the recent misuse of ICBMs with conventional payloads. By enhancing detection capabilities, advancing interception technologies, and fostering international collaboration, nations can safeguard against the risks posed by missile ambiguity and rogue state aggression. A robust missile defense framework not only deters potential adversaries but also reinforces global stability in an increasingly volatile security landscape.