Search This Blog

Monday, September 4, 2023

Indigenous education

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Na Schoolyard.
Principal Sha (also 6th grade teacher) of the Yangjuan Primary School in Yanyuan County, Sichuan looks over his student's essays about the schoolyard.

Indigenous education specifically focuses on teaching Indigenous knowledge, models, methods, and content within formal or non-formal educational systems. The growing recognition and use of Indigenous education methods can be a response to the erosion and loss of Indigenous knowledge through the processes of colonialism, globalization, and modernity.

Indigenous peoples' right to education is recognized in Article 14 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples makes particular reference to the educational rights of Indigenous peoples in Article 14. It emphasizes the responsibility of states to adequately provide access to education for Indigenous people, particularly children, and when possible, for education to take place within their own culture and to be delivered in their own language.

Cultural context of Indigenous learning in the Americas

A growing body of scientific literature has described Indigenous ways of learning, in different cultures and countries. Learning in Indigenous communities is a process that involves all members in the community.

The learning styles that children use in their Indigenous schooling are the same ones that occur in their community context. These Indigenous learning styles often include: observation, imitation, use of narrative/storytelling, collaboration, and cooperation, as seen among American Indian, Alaska Native and Latin American communities. This is a hands on approach that emphasizes direct experience and learning through inclusion.The child feels that they are a vital member of the community, and they are encouraged to participate in a meaningful way by community members. Children often effectively learn skills through this system, without being taught explicitly or in a formal manner. This differs from Western learning styles, which tend to include methods such as explicit instruction in which a figure of authority directs the learner's attention, and testing/ quizzing. Creating an educational environment for Indigenous children that is consistent with upbringing, rather than an education that follows a traditionally Western format, allows for a child to retain knowledge more easily, because they are learning in a way that was encouraged from infancy within their family and community.

Robinson further said that traditional Western methods of education generally disregard the importance Indigenous cultures and environmental contributions, which results in a lack of relevance for students of aboriginal backgrounds. Modern schools have a tendency to teach skills stripped of context which has a detrimental impact on Indigenous students because they thrive off educational environments in which their cultures and languages are respected and infused in learning. Various aspects of Indigenous culture need to be considered when discussing Indigenous learning, such as: content (how culture is portrayed in text and through language), social culture/ interactions (relations between class interactions and interactions within Indigenous communities), and cognitive culture (differences in worldview, spiritual understandings, practical knowledge, etc.).

Classroom structure

According to Akhenoba Robinson (2019), the structure of Indigenous American classrooms that reflect the organization of Indigenous communities eliminates the distinction between the community and classroom and makes it easier for students to assimilate the material. Effective classrooms modeled off of the social structure of Indigenous communities are typically focused on group or cooperative learning that provide an inclusive environment. Between traditional Aboriginal education and the western system of education. A key factor for successful Indigenous education practices is the student-teacher relationship. Classrooms are socially constructed in a way that the teacher shares the control of the classroom with the students. Rather than taking an authoritative role, the teacher is viewed as a co-learner to the students, and they maintain a balance between personal warmth and demand for academic achievement. In Mexico, teachers have been observed to let their students move freely about the classroom while working in order to consult with other students, as well as using their instructors for occasional guidance.

Teachers in Indigenous classrooms in a community in Alaska rely on group work, encourage the students to watch each other as a way to learn, and avoid singling out students for praise, criticism, or recitation. Praise, by Western standards, is minimal in Indigenous classrooms, and when it is given it is for effort, not for providing a correct answer to a question. Classroom discourse in Indigenous classrooms is an example of how the teacher shares control with the students. Observations in the Yup'ik and Mazahua communities show that Indigenous teachers are less likely to solicit an answer from an individual student, but rather encourage all of the students to participate in classroom discourse. In the Yup'ik classroom, direct questions are posed to the group as whole, and the flow of the discussion is not the sole responsibility of the teacher. Classrooms in Indigenous communities that incorporate Indigenous ways of learning utilize open-ended questioning, inductive/analytical reasoning, and student participation and verbalization, in group settings.

Escuela Unitaria (one-room one-teacher)

In 2019, A. Robinson wrote that Escuela Unitaria is a one-room one-teacher style of schooling that is used in some rural communities, which utilizes ways of learning common in some Indigenous or Indigenous-heritage communities in the Americas. The school serves up to six grades in a single classroom setting with smaller groups (divided by grade level) in the classroom. Community involvement is strongly implemented in the management of the school. Learning activities are not just inside the classroom but also outside in the agricultural environment. Children are self-instructed and the content involves the students' rural community and family participation. The school is structured to meet cultural needs and match available resources. This classroom setting allows for a collaborative learning environment that includes the teacher, the students, and the community. Integration of cultural knowledge within the curriculum allows students to participate actively and to have a say in the responsibilities for classroom activities.

Spirituality

Indigenous students make meaning of what they learn through spirituality. Spirituality in learning involves students making connections between morals, values and intellect rather than simply acquiring knowledge. Knowledge to Indigenous people is personal and involves emotions, culture, traditional skills, nature, etc. For this reason, Indigenous students need time to make connections in class, and often benefit from a safe and respectful environment that encourages discussions among students.

Gilliard and Moore (2007) presented the experiences of eight Native American educators, focusing on the impact of having family and community culture included in the curriculum. Typically, tribal K-12 schools on the reservation have majority European American teachers. This study differs in that sense by studying educators who are all of Native American background and their interactions with students and families. These educators reported that their interactions with families stem from respect and understanding. There were three categories that surfaced when understanding and defining culture; (1) respect of children, families, and community, (2) building a sense of belonging and community through ritual, and (3) the importance of family values and beliefs.

  1. Respect of children, families, and community; educators approached interactions in a reflective and respectful way when talking with children, families, and the community. Educators accepted practices concerning death in individual families. Educators made it a point to be aware of curricular activities that may offend certain tribes. Lastly, educators spoke in a soft, quiet, and gentle way to the children.
  2. Building a sense of belongingness and community through ritual; specific to the tribe on Flathead Reservation, powwows are a community ritual that bring together families and community. Educators worked with families and their children to make moccasins, ribbon shirts and dresses, and shawls prior to the powwow, and included elements of a powwow into their classroom. For example, they keep a drum in the classroom to use for drumming, singing, and dancing.
  3. Importance of family values and beliefs; educators give the opportunity to parent's to be involved in the day-to-day activities in and around the classroom. Such as, meal times, play time, holidays, and celebrations. Educators collaborate with parents regarding curriculum around holidays and cultural celebrations, reinforced importance of speaking their tribal languages, and clarified with parents what their home language is, and had respectful discussions around traditional values and beliefs that led to compromise, not isolation or separation.

The educators in this study worked on a daily basis to respect, plan, and learn about parent beliefs and values so they can create a community culture linked to school curriculum.

Similar to the previous study mentioned, Vaughn (2016) conducted a multiple case study of four Native American teachers and two European American teachers at Lakeland Elementary. The participants were asked to draw from influences, relationships, and resources of the local tribe, local and state practices, and knowledge of effective pedagogies to co-construct knowledge.

At the time this study was conducted, Lakeland Elementary was failing to meet No Child Left Behind's yearly progress in reading. State officials would come to observe teachers, unannounced, to make sure they were teaching the mandated literacy curriculum. This required the teachers to follow the literacy program, even though the curriculum seldom met the individual and specific linguistic and cultural needs of the majority of Native American students at the school.

So the researcher focused on two questions. The first one being, “In what ways did these teachers approach developing a curriculum to support their students’ social, cultural, and linguistic needs?” One theme that came up was “pedagogical re-envisioning”, which are pedagogies and understandings of culturally responsive teaching to address writing and understand that each student has individual needs. With understanding this, teachers are able to give students the opportunity to include oral storytelling so students have their own personal twist on their learning. The second question was “What shifts in teachers’ pedagogical practices resulted from this collaboration?" Four themes came up; cultural resources, working with community, multimodal approaches, and integrating students’ experiences and interests from their lives outside of school into the curriculum. By addressing these four themes, teachers were able to re-envision how curriculum can meet individual needs for many Native American students without leaving out their interests, culture, or resources.

Holistic approach to learning

Holistic education focuses on the "whole picture" and how concepts and ideas are interrelated, then analyzes and makes meaning of certain ideas. This form of education is beneficial for all students, especially Indigenous students. Traditionally, Indigenous forms of learning were/are holistic in nature, focusing on interconnections with context (especially culture, nature, and experiences).

According to a study by Stevenson et al. (2014), challenges that arise with using technology consistently can stem from a weak relationship between spending time outdoors and environmental knowledge and behavior in middle school aged students in North Carolina. This weak relationship may be due to a change in relationship between children and nature. Instead of children having a natural interaction with nature, outdoor activities are based on organized sport or technology. Inclusion of Arts education constitutes a big part of student learning, it's an activity-based experiential subject

Middle school aged Native American students reported higher levels of environmental behavior than Caucasian students, urging environmental education professionals to continue to close achievement gaps in classrooms. Environmental education professionals continue to ensure that the same factors creating inequity don't affect environmental knowledge. Along with creating a classroom that strives to include environmental knowledge, promoting outdoor activities, and direct interaction with nature gives a chance for Native American students to voice their knowledge to the teacher, and to their peers.

Another form of holistic approach to learning includes parental and community advocacy. As reported by Pedro (2015), parents of students expressed concern that the high school their children attended neglected their children's voices, knowledge, and perspectives in the school. The school districts diversity specialist sought advice to construct a curriculum that would validate, teach, and support the perspective of Native American peoples of the Southwest United States. This team constructed a curriculum based on three ideas; (1) Native American students are harmed when their curriculum is void of knowledge that reflect their identity, culture, and heritage, (2) students who are not Native American are harmed as they learn about narrowed and historicized depictions of Indigenous peoples of the United States, and (3) teaching knowledge from a variety of perspectives should be fundamental to any learning environment.

Pedro suggested, with the foundation of parents’ values, that students are able to engage in conversation, in their mind, through critical dialogic listening in silence. Just because students weren't engaging verbally in the discussion, didn't mean students weren't receptive to the points being made by other students who were verbally engaged. Students can share their beliefs and identities through meta-conversations in connection with the voiced realities between other students. After hearing different sides of other students’ stories, they were able to construct their own identities and understandings into the debate, silently.

To validate the silence, the teacher in this instance, writes down quotes and questions students had asked in small and whole group conversations. At the end of each unit, the teacher would use these quotes and questions to ask students to reflect upon their writings, using notes they took and readings/handouts given to them. Through this option, students were able to contribute their identities, knowledge, and understandings into the classroom space. This process was called Literacy Events, in which students were given the opportunity to absorb and make sense of different perspectives and ideas from verbal discussions in class and readings. Silence helped the students relate internally, and through writing, their perspectives became known. Essentially, in the end, their stories were in their minds and contributing to the conversation as they chose whose ideas to accept and reject or a combination of both. Parents advocated for their children, so next time a student chooses silence, it might not mean that they are disengaged or uninterested. Instead, give them another avenue to express their thoughts.

Indigenous American ways of learning

Indigenous education involves oral traditions (such as listening, watching, imitating), group work, apprenticeship, and high levels of cultural context. Additionally, knowledge to Indigenous people is sacred, centers on the idea that each student constructs knowledge individually, and is rooted in experience and culture. Learning is believed to be life-long and involves a unique sense of self-identity and passion, as well as focuses on the importance of community survival and contributions to life and community sustainability. The Indigenous ways of learning occur when diverse perspectives are interconnected through spiritual, holistic, experiential and transformative methods. The optimal learning environment for Indigenous students incorporates: the land (and traditional skills), Indigenous languages, traditions, cultures, people (self, family, elders, and community), and spirituality.

Active participation

In many Indigenous communities of the Americas, children often begin to learn through their eagerness to be active participants in their communities. Through this, children feel incorporated as valued members when given the opportunity to contribute to everyday social and cultural activities. For example, in a traditional village in Yucatán, Mexico, great importance is placed on engaging in mature activities to help children learn how to participate and contribute appropriately. Adults rarely force children to contribute; rather, they provide children with a great range of independence in deciding what to do with their time. Therefore, children are likely to demonstrate that they want to be a productive member of the community because they have been a part of a social, collaborative culture that views everyday work as something that everyone can partake and help in.

A main model of learning is to incorporate children in various activities where they are expected to be active contributors. The different forms of activities can vary from momentary interactions to broad societal foundations and how those complement their community's traditions. In Maya Belize culture, girls as young as four can work alongside their mothers when washing clothes in the river – rather than being given verbal instructions, they observe keenly, imitate to the best of their ability, and understand that their inclusion is crucial to the community. Rather than being separated and directed away from the mature work and the Indigenous heritage, children are expected to observe and pitch in.

Indigenous communities in the Americas emphasize the ability for community members of all ages to be able to collaborate. In this kind of environment, children learn not only how to participate alongside others, but are also likely to demonstrate an eagerness to contribute as a part of their community. Integration of younger and older children provides the opportunity for different levels of observation, listening, and participation to occur [Rogoff et al. (2010)]. Soon after or even during an activity, children are often seen to take it upon themselves to participate in the same previous social and cultural activities that they observed and participated in. By encouraging child immersion in activities rather than specifically asking for their participation, children have the freedom to construct their own knowledge with self-motivation to continue cultural practices alongside others.

Children in many Indigenous cultures of the Americas actively participate and contribute to their community and family activities by observing and pitching in (link to LOPI page Archived 14 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine) while informally learning to socialize and gaining a sense of responsibility amongst other skills. A mother reported that being an active participant in everyday activities provides children with the opportunity to gain direction in learning and working that other environments may not provide. For instance, 15-year-old Josefina and her family own a small restaurant in an Indigenous community in Nocutzepo, Mexico where the entire family collaborates to ensure the restaurant functions smoothly. This includes everyone from the grandmother who tends to the fire for cooking to 5-year-old Julia who contributes by carrying the pieces of firewood. Josefina is one of the seven family members that pitches in towards the family food stand. Through observation and listening, she learned that the food stand was the family's main source of income. Overtime, Josefina took it upon herself to pitch in and take over the food stand, thus learning responsibility, cooperation, and commitment. Nobody instructed or demanded her to help with the family business, but she learned the community's expectations and way of living. The inclusive and welcoming environment of the marketplace setting encourages children to participate in everyday social practices and take initiative to learn about their culture, facilitating communal collaboration.

Motivation

In Indigenous American communities, the inclusion of children in communal activities motivates them to engage with their social world, helping them to develop a sense of belonging. Active participation involves children undertaking initiative and acting autonomously. Similarly, Learning by Observing and Pitching In (LOPI) supports informal learning which generates self-sovereignty. The combination of children's inclusion, development of independence, and initiative for contribution are common elements identified in Indigenous American ways of learning.

Education in Indigenous communities is primarily based on joint engagement in which children are motivated to "pitch-in" in collective activities through developing solidarity within family, resulting in reciprocal bonds. Learning is viewed as an act of meaningful and productive work, not as a separate activity. When asked to self-report about their individual contributions, Indigenous Mexican heritage children placed emphasis on the community rather than on individual role. Their contributions emphasized collaboration and mutual responsibility within the community. A study was conducted with children who had immigrated from Indigenous communities in rural Mexico. The children were less likely to view activities that Westernized culture regarded as "chores" to be a type of work. These children felt that activities such as taking care of siblings, cooking, and assisting in cleaning were activities that help the family. When asked how they viewed participation in household work, children from two Mexican cities reported they contribute because it is a shared responsibility of everyone in the family. They further reported that they want to pitch in to the work because helping and contributing allows them to be more integrated in ongoing family and community activities. Many Mexican-heritage children also reported being proud of their contributions, while their families reported the contributions of children are valued by everyone involved.

Learning through collaborative work is often correlated with children learning responsibility. Many children in Indigenous Yucatec families often attempt and are expected to help around their homes with household endeavors. It is common to see children offer their help of their own accord, such as Mari, an 18-month-old child from an Indigenous family who watched her mother clean the furniture with a designated cleaning leaf. Mari then took it upon herself to pick a leaf from a nearby bush and attempt to scrub the furniture as well. Although Mari was not using the proper type of leaf, by attempting to assist in cleaning the furniture, she demonstrated that she wanted to help in a household activity. Mari's mother supported and encouraged Mari's participation by creating an environment where she is able to pitch in, even if not in a completely accurate manner. Parents often offer guidance and support in Indigenous American cultures when the child needs it—as they believe this encourages children to be self-motivated and responsible.

Children from Indigenous communities of the Americas are likely to pitch in and collaborate freely without being asked or instructed to do so. For example, P'urepecha children whose mothers followed more traditional Indigenous ways of living demonstrated significantly more independent collaboration when playing Chinese checkers than middle-class children whose mothers had less involvement in Indigenous practices of the Americas. Similarly, when mothers from the Mayan community of San Pedro were instructed to construct a 3-D jigsaw puzzle with their children, mothers who practiced traditional Indigenous culture showed more cooperative engagements with their children than mothers with less traditional practices. These studies exemplify the idea that children from families that practice traditional Indigenous American cultures are likely to exhibit a motivation to collaborate without instruction. Therefore, being in an environment where collaboration is emphasized, serves as an example for children in Indigenous American communities to pitch in out of their own self-motivation and eagerness to contribute.

Assessment

In many Indigenous communities of the Americas children rely on assessment to master a task. Assessment can include the evaluation of oneself as well as evaluation from external influences like parents, family members, or community members. Assessment involves feedback given to learners from their support; this can be through acceptance, appreciation or correction. The purpose of assessment is to assist the learner as they actively participate in their activity. While contributing in the activity, children are constantly evaluating their learning progress based on the feedback of their support. With this feedback, children modify their behavior in mastering their task. 

In the Mexican Indigenous heritage community of Nocutzepo, there is available feedback to a learner by observing the results of their contribution and by observing if their support accepted or corrected them. For example, a 5-year-old girl shapes and cooks tortillas with her mother, when the girl would make irregular tortilla shapes her mother would focus her daughter's attention to an aspect of her own shaping. By doing this, the young girl would imitate her mother's movements and improve her own skills. Feedback given by the mother helped the young girl evaluate her own work and correct it.

In traditional Chippewa culture, assessment and feedback are offered in variety of ways. Generally, Chippewa children are not given much praise for their contributions. On occasion, the parents offer assessment through rewards given to the child. These rewards are given as feedback for work well done, and come in the form of a toy carved out of wood, a doll of grass, or maple sugar. When children do not meet expectations, and fail in their contributions, Chippewa parents make sure not to use ridicule as a means of assessment. The Chippewa also recognize the harmful effects of excessive scolding to a child's learning process. Chippewa parents believes that scolding a child too much would "make them worse", and holds back the child's ability to learn. 

For the Chillihuani community in Peru, parents bring up children in a manner that allows them to grow maturely with values like responsibility and respect. These values ultimately influence how children learn in this community. Parents from the Chillihuani community offer assessment of their children through praise, even if the child's contribution is not perfect. Additionally, feedback can come in the form of responsibility given for a difficult task, with less supervision. This responsibility is an important aspect of the learning process for children in Chillihuani because it allows them advance their skills. At only five years old, children are expected to herd sheep, alpaca and llamas with the assistance of an older sibling or adult relative. By age 8, children take on the responsibility of herding alone even in unfavorable weather conditions. Children are evaluated in terms of their ability to handle difficult tasks and then complemented on a job well done by their parents. This supports the learning development of the child's skills, and encourages their continued contributions.

Criticisms of the Western educational model

Omitting indigenous knowledge amounts to cultural assimilation. The government stigmatizes indigenous learning, culture, and language to assimilate indigenous peoples and create a more homogenized country. A study on Malaysian post secondary students found that indigenous children struggled with social and academic adaptation as well as self-esteem. The study also found that indigenous students had much more difficulty transitioning to university and other new programs compared to non-indigenous students. These challenges are rooted in the fact that indigenous students are underrepresented in higher education and face psychological challenges, such as self-esteem.

Globally, there is a large gap in educational attainment between indigenous and non-indigenous people. A study in Canada found that this gap is widened by the residential school system and traditionally Eurocentric curriculum and teaching methods. Stemming from the negative psychological impacts of attending residential schools in 1883, which were heavily influenced by Christian missionaries and European ideals and customs, a feeling of distrust towards Canadian schools has been passed down through generations. As a result of experiencing racism, neglect, and forced assimilation, the cycle of distrust has pervaded children and grandchildren, and so on. There is a continued lack of teaching of indigenous knowledge, perspective, and history.

As mentioned above, there has been a modern-day global shift towards recognizing the importance of Indigenous education. One reason for this current awareness is the rapid spread of Western educational models throughout the world. Critics of the Western educational model believe that due to colonial histories and lingering cultural ethnocentrism, the Western model can not substitute for an Indigenous education. Throughout history, Indigenous Peoples have experienced, and continue many negative interactions Western society (for example, the Canadian Residential School System), which has led to the oppression and marginalization of Indigenous people. The film "Schooling the World: The White Man's Last Burden" addresses this issue of modern education and its destruction of unique, Indigenous cultures and individuals' identities. Shot in the Buddhist culture of Ladakh in the northern Indian Himalayas, the film fuses the voices of the Ladakhi people and commentary from an anthropologist/ethnobotanist, a National Geographical Explorer-in-Residence, and an architect of education programs. In essence, the film examines the definitions of wealth and poverty, in other words, knowledge and ignorance. Furthermore, it reveals the effects of trying to institute a global education system or central learning authority, which can ultimately demolish "traditional sustainable agricultural and ecological knowledge, in the breakup of extended families and communities, and in the devaluation of ancient spiritual traditions." Finally, the film promotes a deeper dialogue between cultures, suggesting that there is no single way to learn. No two human beings are alike because they develop under different circumstances, learning, and education.

The director and editor of the film Carol Black writes, "One of the most profound changes that occurs when modern schooling is introduced into traditional societies around the world is a radical shift in the locus of power and control over learning from children, families, and communities to ever more centralized systems of authority." Black continues by explaining that in many non-modernized societies, children learn in a variety of ways, including free play or interaction with multiple children, immersion in nature, and directly helping adults with work and communal activities. "They learn by experience, experimentation, trial and error, by independent observation of nature and human behavior, and through voluntary community sharing of information, story, song, and ritual." Most importantly, local elders and traditional knowledge systems are autonomous in comparison to a strict Western education model. Adults have little control over children's "moment-to-moment movements and choices." Once learning is institutionalized, both the freedom of the individual and his/her respect for the elder's wisdom are ruined. "Family and community are sidelined…The teacher has control over the child, the school district has control over the teacher, the state has control over the district, and increasingly, systems of national standards and funding create national control over states." When Indigenous knowledge is seen as inferior to a standard school curriculum, an emphasis is placed on an individual's success in a broader consumer culture instead of on an ability to survive in his/her own environment. Black concludes with a comment, "We assume that this central authority, because it is associated with something that seems like an unequivocal good – 'education' – must itself be fundamentally good, a sort of benevolent dictatorship of the intellect." From a Western perspective, centralized control over learning is natural and consistent with the principles of freedom and democracy; and yet, it is this same centralized system or method of discipline that does not take into account the individual, which in the end stamps out local cultures.

Colonialism and Western methods of learning

The education system in the Americas reinforces western cultures, prior knowledge and learning experiences which leads to the marginalization and oppression of various other cultures. Teaching students primarily through European perspectives results in non-European students believing that their cultures have not contributed to the knowledge of societies. Often, Indigenous students resist learning because they do not want to be oppressed or labeled as 'incapable of learning' due to neo-colonial knowledge and teaching. The act of decolonization would greatly benefit Indigenous students and other marginalized students because it involves the deconstruction of engagement with the values, beliefs and habits of Europeans.

Pedagogical approaches to Indigenous education

Decentralization requires a shift in education that steps away from Western practices. The following are pedagogical approaches aimed at empowering Indigenous students and Indigenous communities through education that does not rely on western culture.

Culturally relevant pedagogy

Culturally relevant pedagogy involves curriculum tailored to the cultural needs of students and participants involved. Culture is at the core of CRP and teachers and educators aim for all students to achieve academic success, develop cultural competence, and develop critical consciousness to challenge the current social structures of inequality that affect Indigenous communities in particular. Culturally relevant pedagogy also extends to culturally sustaining and revitalizing pedagogy which actively works to challenge power relations and colonization by reclaiming, through education, what has been displaced by colonization and recognizing the importance of community engagement in such efforts.

Critical Indigenous pedagogy

Critical Indigenous pedagogy focuses on resisting colonization and oppression through education practices that privilege Indigenous knowledge and promote Indigenous sovereignty. Beyond schooling and instruction, CIP is rooted in thinking critically about social injustices and challenging those through education systems that empower youth and teachers to create social change. The goal of teachers and educators under CIP is to guide Indigenous students in developing critical consciousness by creating a space for self-reflection and dialogue as opposed to mere instruction. This form of pedagogy empowers Indigenous youth to take charge and responsibility to transform their own communities.

Under critical Indigenous pedagogy, schools are considered sacred landscapes since they offer a sacred place for growth and engagement. Western-style schooling is limited in engaging Indigenous knowledge and languages but schools that embrace critical Indigenous pedagogy recognize Indigenous knowledge and epistemologies which is why Indigenous schools should be considered sacred landscape.

Land-based pedagogy

Land as pedagogy recognizes colonization as dispossession and thus aims to achieve decolonization through education practices that connect Indigenous people to their native land and the social relations that arise from those lands. Land-based pedagogy encourages Indigenous people to center love for the land and each other as the core of education in order to contest oppression and colonialism that is aimed at deterring Indigenous people from their land.

Land-based pedagogy has no specific curriculum because education and knowledge come from what the land gives. Unlike western practices with a standard curriculum, land-based pedagogy is based on the idea of abstaining from imposing an agenda to another living being. Intelligence is considered a consensual engagement where children consent to learning and having a set curriculum is thought to normalize dominance and non-consent within schooling and inevitably extended to societal norms. Western style education is seen as coercive because in order to achieve something, one must follow the set guidelines and curriculum enforced by educators. Individuals show interest and commitment on their own thus achieving self-actualization and sharing their knowledge with others through modeling and “wearing their teachings.” The values of land-based pedagogy are important to Indigenous people groups who believe that “raising Indigenous children in a context where their consent, physically and intellectually, is not just required but valued, goes a long way to undoing the replication of colonial gender violence” (Simpson, 31)

Community-based pedagogy

Community-based education is central to the revival of Indigenous cultures and diverse languages. This form of pedagogy allows community members to participate and influence the learning environment in local schools. Community-based education embraces the ideas of Paolo Freirie who called for individuals to “become active participants in shaping their own education” (May, 10).

The main effects of instilling community-based pedagogy in schools are as follows:

  • Parent involvement in decision making encourages children to become closer to their teachers
  • Indigenous parents themselves gain confidence and positively impacts their children's learning
  • Teacher-parent collaboration eliminates stereotypes non-Indigenous teachers may have about Indigenous people.
  • Communities collectively gain self-respect and achieve political influence as they take responsibility for their local schools

The school environment under a community-based education system requires communication and collaboration between the school and the community. The community must share leadership within the schools and must be involved in decision-making, planning, and implementation. Children learn through the guidance rather than determinants of their teachers or elders and are taught skills of active participation. Out of community-based education arises community-based participatory research (CBPR), an approach to research that facilitates co-learning co-partnership between researchers and community members to promote community-capacity building. CBPR requires having youth-researcher partnerships, youth action-groups, and local committees made up of youth, tribal leaders, and elders. This approach to research builds strength and empowers community members.

Culturally sustaining and revitalizing pedagogy

McCarty and Lee (2014) express that tribal sovereignty (Indigenous people's as peoples, not populations or national minorities), must include education sovereignty. The authors report that Culturally Sustaining and Revitalizing Pedagogy (CSRP) is necessary in education, based on three items; (1) asymmetrical power relations and the goal of transforming legacies of colonization, (2) reclaim and revitalize what has been disrupted and displaced by colonization, and (3) the need for community-based accountability.

CSRP is meant to off balance dominant policy dialogue. This research follows two case studies at two different schools, one in Arizona and one in New Mexico. Tiffany Lee reports for Native American Community Academy (NACA) in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The core values for the school include; respect, responsibility, community service, culture, perseverance, and reflection. These core values reflect tribal communities as well. NACA offers three languages; Navajo, Lakota, and Tiwa, and the school also seeks outside resources to teach local languages. This study emphasizes that teaching language is culturally sustaining and revitalizing; which creates a sense of belonging and strengthens cultural identities, pride, and knowledge. At NACA, teachers know they possess inherent power as Indigenous education practitioners. They make a difference in revitalizing Native languages through culturally sustaining practices. The second case study was reported by Teresa McCarty at Puente de Hozho (PdH), that language has a different role for members of various cultural communities. At PdH, the educators reflect parents’ influence (Dine and Latino/a) for culturally sustaining and revitalizing education. The goal is to heal forced linguistic wounds and convey important cultural and linguistic knowledge that connects to the school's curriculum and pedagogy.

Balancing academic, linguistic, and cultural interests is based on accountability to Indigenous communities. The authors describe the need for linguistic teachings as a “fight for plurilingual and pluricultural education.” Educators can attempt to balance state and federal requirements with local communities and Indigenous nations.

Language revitalization efforts

Many Native American and Indigenous communities in the United States are working to revitalize their Indigenous languages. These language revitalization efforts often take place in schools, via language immersion programs. In Guatemala, teachers have had a sense of agency to teach students' the Indigenous language as well as about Indigenous culture in order to prevent language loss and maintain cultural identity.

Importance

Researchers have brought up the importance of language revitalization efforts to preserve Native culture. The extinction of Native languages has been brought up as one of the reasons that revitalization efforts are necessary and McCarty, Romero, and Zepeda have noted that “84% of all Indigenous languages in the United States and Canada have no new speakers to pass them on." Native language is seen as a path to preserving Native heritage such as “knowledge of medicine, religion, cultural practices and traditions, music, art, human relationships and child-rearing practices, as well as Indigenous ways of knowing about the sciences, history, astronomy, psychology, philosophy, and anthropology.” “Duane Mistaken Chief, a member of the Blackfeet tribe, explains that American Indians use words and phrases to reconstruct their cultures and to heal themselves. By studying the Indian words, they learn to respect themselves. From the Indian point of view, the traditional language is a sacred gift, the symbol of one’s identity, the embodiment of one’s culture and traditions, a means for expressing inner thoughts and feelings, and the source of ancestral wisdom." Additionally, linguists and community members believe in the importance of revitalizing Native languages because “it is at once a direction for research, action, and documentation." Finally, it has been suggested that it is especially important to recognize Native languages in school settings because this leads to teachers recognizing the people, which leads to self-esteem and academic success for the students.

School Based Language-Immersion Models

Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) compared case studies of three different language-immersion programs in schools in Alaska, Hawaii, and the Navajo Nation. They examined evidence from prior research studies, examined descriptive documents from the study participants, conducted phone interviews and email exchanges with executive directors and school district administrators, and utilized other research on language-immersion models. In addition to qualitative evidence, they analyzed quantitative data such as school test scores and demographic.

Through their comparison of test data, Aguilera and LeCompte found that there was an increase in performance on state benchmark exam scores by the Ayaprun- and Dine’- immersion students. On the flip side, there was lower performance in these schools on the norm-referenced tests. However, the researchers note that these tests are often biased, negatively impacting Indigenous students. Ultimately, the researchers did not find that one immersion model had a higher academic achievement impact on Native students than the other studies. However, they “agree with language experts that total immersion is a more effective approach to achieving proficiency in a Native language."

Through their study, Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) examined the language nest and two-way immersion models. Another researcher, Lee (2007), examined “compartmentalizing” through both quantitative and qualitative measures. Quantitatively, Lee examined language levels, language usage, and lifespan experiences of Navajo students. Qualitatively, Lee interviewed Navajo students to learn more about their feelings and opinions on learning the Navajo language. Below are descriptions of the three school models used in the studies by Aguilera, LeCompte, and Lee.

  • Language nest – This model is used by the Native Hawaiian Aha Punana Leo consortium and begins in preschools. “In the language nest preschools, the Indigenous language is considered the student’s first language, and children converse and study in that language, every day and all day." These students are taught in English only after they are literate in their Indigenous language.
  • Two-Way Language-Immersion Model – In this model, maintenance of the Native language is promoted, while students also learn a second language. This model typically lasts from five to seven years. One form of a two-way language immersion model is the 50-50 model, in which students use English half of the class time and the target Native language the other half of the class time. The other model is a 90-10 model, in which students use the target Native language 90% of the time beginning in kindergarten. These students then increase the use of English “by 10% annually until both languages are used equally—a 50-50 split by fourth grade.”
  • Compartmentalizing— Schools that do not have full immersion programs often use compartmentalizing. Compartmentalizing refers to the Indigenous language being taught as a separate topic of study as opposed to having students instructed in the Native language for their academic content areas. According to Lee (2007), compartmentalizing is the most common approach for teaching Navajo language in schools today.

Through her study, Lee (2007) concluded that “Navajo-language use in the home was the strongest influence over the students’ current Navajo-language level and Navajo-language use." She noted that “schools need to become more proactive in language revitalization” and shared that she found the compartmentalizing language-immersion programs in her study “modest” and “the language was mostly taught as though all the students were monolingual English speakers." Ultimately, the researcher asserts that in order for language-immersion programs to be done well, schools need to invest in more resources, improved teaching pedagogy, and the development of students’ critical thinking and critical consciousness skills."

Difficulties of Implementation

Despite much interest in language revitalization efforts in Native communities, it can be challenging when it comes to program implementation. Research suggests several factors in the United States that make it difficult to implement language immersion programs in schools.

Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) found the following difficulties in their study:

  • An “overwhelming pressure to teach English, especially due to the “recent emphasis on high-stakes testing in English"
  • “Lack of importance given to cultural aspects of language by non-native educators and policymakers”
  • Lack of family participation, due to parents’ fears that their children will not learn English or be successful if they participate in an immersion program
  • Securing long term funding to sustain programs

Other studies found additional difficulties in implementation:

  • Hostile Policies: McCarty and Nicholas (2014) conducted qualitative research on language revitalization efforts for the Mohawk, Navajo, Hawaiian, and Hopi people and found one difficulty in implementation was hostile policies toward bi/multilingual education efforts.
  • Scarcity of Indigenous Staff and Resources: Mary Hermes opened Waadookodaading, a language immersion school centered around the Ojibwe language. The school is located near a reservation of about 3,000 enrolled members, but as of 2007, there were only approximately 10 fluent speakers. Because of massive language loss among Indigenous groups, it can be difficult to find fluent native speakers. It is necessary to have high language proficiency in order to teach in an immersion school. Not only do immersion teachers need to be fluent in the language, but they also need to be skilled in pedagogy which presents additional challenges. Requirements from the NCLB state that paraprofessionals need to have at least an associate degree, and those working in the primary grades to have early childhood education coursework. Oftentimes, the people who would serve in these positions in language immersion schools are elders, and they do not have these requirements. Additionally, a lack of materials in Indigenous languages results in a demand on educators to produce the materials along the way.
  • Conflicting Perspectives: Ngai (2008) conducted qualitative research on Salish language revitalization efforts by speaking with 89 participants through 101 interviews in three different school districts on the Flathead Indian Reservation. His goal through his research was to produce a framework that could be used for Native language education in districts that had a mix of Native and non-Native students. Ngai found that, “Language revitalization is particularly challenging in school districts with a mix of AI/AN and non-Native populations because of the co-existence of diverse and often conflicting perspectives."

Helpful Factors in Implementation

Despite the challenges of creating and maintaining immersion programs, there are many schools in existence today. Researchers suggest the following factors as helpful in leading to implementation of immersion models.

  • Leadership and community activism – Aguilera and LeCompte (2007) noted in their study that having Indigenous leaders who are invested in implementing these models is critical. In another study, Ngai (2008) notes that, “In public schools, the continuation of Salish language instruction since the 1970s can be attributed to the efforts of Salish-language teachers who are willing to step into a traditionally hostile setting in order to pass the language on to the young.”
  • School Autonomy – Many schools have applied for charter status in order to protect language-immersion schools from being closed by school members who object to the programs. Charter status also allows schools the flexibility to gain more funding.
  • Partnerships with higher education systems—In order to implement a language immersion model, schools must have trained teachers. Several of the communities where language immersion models have been successful are, “situated in communities where there is access to higher education degree programs, and some of these postsecondary institutions offer Native language classes."

Benefits

For Indigenous learners and instructors, the inclusion of these methods into schools often enhances educational effectiveness by providing an education that adheres to an Indigenous person's own inherent perspectives, experiences, language, and customs, thereby making it easier for children to transition into the realm of adulthood. For non-Indigenous students and teachers, such an education often has the effect of raising awareness of individual and collective traditions surrounding Indigenous communities and peoples, thereby promoting greater respect for and appreciation of various cultural realities.

In terms of educational content, the inclusion of Indigenous knowledge within curricula, instructional materials, and textbooks has largely the same effect on preparing students for the greater world as other educational systems, such as the Western model.

There is value in including Indigenous knowledge and education in the public school system. Students of all backgrounds can benefit from being exposed to Indigenous education, as it can contribute to reducing racism in the classroom and increase the sense of community in a diverse group of students. There are a number of sensitive issues about what can be taught (and by whom) that require responsible consideration by non-Indigenous teachers who appreciate the importance of interjecting Indigenous perspectives into standard mainstream schools. Concerns about misappropriation of Indigenous ways of knowing without recognizing the plight of Indigenous Peoples and "giving back" to them are legitimate. Since most educators are non-Indigenous, and because Indigenous perspectives may offer solutions for current and future social and ecological problems, it is important to refer to Indigenous educators and agencies to develop curriculum and teaching strategies while at the same time encouraging activism on behalf of Indigenous Peoples. One way to bring authentic Indigenous experiences into the classroom is to work with community elders. They can help facilitate the incorporation of authentic knowledge and experiences into the classroom. Teachers must not shy away from bringing controversial subjects into the classroom. The history of Indigenous people should be delved into and developed fully. There are many age appropriate ways to do this, including the use of children's literature, media, and discussion. Individuals are recommended to reflect regularly on their teaching practice to become aware of areas of instruction in need of Indigenous perspectives.

21st century skills

Incorporating Indigenous ways of learning into educational practices has potential to benefit both Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners. The 21st century skills needed in modern curriculum include: collaboration, creativity, innovation, problem-solving, inquiry, multicultural literacy, etc. Indigenous ways of learning incorporate all these skills through experiential and holistic methods. Additionally, aboriginal education styles align with 21st century skills though involving teachers and students as co-constructors of education, and by valuing the interconectidness of content and context.

Educational gap

Some Indigenous people view education as an important tool to improve their situation by pursuing economic, social and cultural development; it provides them with individual empowerment and self-determination. Education is also a means for employment; it is a way for socially marginalized people to raise themselves out of poverty. However, some education systems and curricula lack knowledge about Indigenous peoples ways of learning, causing an educational gap for Indigenous people. Factors for the education gap include lower school enrollments, poor school performance, low literacy rates, and higher dropout rates. Some schools teach Indigenous children to be "socialized" and to be a national asset to society by assimilating, "Schooling has been explicitly and implicitly a site of rejection of Indigenous knowledge and language, it has been used as a means of assimilating and integrating Indigenous peoples into a 'national' society and identity at the cost of their Indigenous identity and social practices". Intercultural learning is an example of how to build a bridge for the educational gap.

Other factors that contribute to the education gap in Indigenous cultures are socioeconomic disadvantage, which includes access to healthcare, employment, incarceration rates, and housing. According to the Australian Government Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in their 2015 Closing the Gap Report, the country was not on track to halve the gap in reading, writing and numeracy achievements for Indigenous Australian students. The government reported that there had been no overall improvement in Indigenous reading and numeracy since 2008.

Importance

Indigenous knowledge is particularly important to modern environmental management in today's world. Environmental and land management strategies traditionally used by Indigenous peoples have continued relevance. Indigenous cultures usually live in a particular bioregion for many generations and have learned how to live there sustainably. In modern times, this ability often puts truly Indigenous cultures in a unique position of understanding the interrelationships, needs, resources, and dangers of their bioregion. This is not true of Indigenous cultures that have been eroded through colonialism or genocide or that have been displaced.

The promotion of Indigenous methods of education and the inclusion of traditional knowledge also enables those in Western and post-colonial societies to re-evaluate the inherent hierarchy of knowledge systems. Indigenous knowledge systems were historically denigrated by Western educators; however, there is a current shift towards recognizing the value of these traditions. The inclusion of aspects of Indigenous education requires us to acknowledge the existence of multiple forms of knowledge rather than one, standard, benchmark system.

A prime example of how Indigenous methods and content can be used to promote the above outcomes is demonstrated within higher education in Canada. Due to certain jurisdictions' focus on enhancing academic success for Aboriginal learners and promoting the values of multiculturalism in society, the inclusion of Indigenous methods and content in education is often seen as an important obligation and duty of both governmental and educational authorities.

Many scholars in the field assert that Indigenous education and knowledge has a "transformative power" for Indigenous communities that can be used to foster "empowerment and justice." The shift to recognizing Indigenous models of education as legitimate forms is therefore important in the ongoing effort for Indigenous rights, on a global scale.

Implications for teachers

Educators need to foster a respectful learning environment that promotes confidence and openness as well as an authentic dialogue to help students come to understand content through spirituality and cultural infusion. It is also important for educators to realize that time is crucial for students to connect intellect, spirituality and their understanding of the physical world. Many educators have stated that educational programs do not prepare them with enough support and materials for effectively teaching Indigenous students. Therefore, it is important for educators to seek out ongoing teach development programs directed toward improving teaching so that marginalized groups do not suffer.

Challenges (as seen with the Na)

There are numerous practical challenges to the implementation of Indigenous education. Incorporating Indigenous knowledge into formal Western education models can prove difficult. However, the discourse surrounding Indigenous education and knowledge suggests that integrating Indigenous methods into traditional modes of schooling is an "ongoing process of 'cultural negotiation.'"

Indigenous education often takes different forms than a typical Western model, as the practices of the Na ethnic group of southwest China illustrate. Because Na children learn through example, traditional Na education is less formal than the standard Western model. In contrast to structured hours and a classroom setting, learning takes places throughout the day, both in the home and in adults' workplaces. Based on the belief that children are "fragile, soulless beings", Na education focuses on nurturing children rather than on punishing them. Children develop an understanding of cultural values, such as speech taboos and the "reflection" of individual actions "on the entire household." Playing games teaches children about their natural surroundings and builds physical and mental acuity. Forms of Indigenous knowledge, including weaving, hunting, carpentry, and the use of medicinal plants, are passed on from adult to child in the workplace, where children assist their relatives or serve as apprentices for several years.

However, increasing modernity is a challenge to such modes of instruction. Some types of Indigenous knowledge are dying out because of decreased need for them and a lack of interest from youth, who increasingly leave the village for jobs in the cities. Furthermore, formal Chinese state schooling "interferes with informal traditional learning." Children must travel a distance from their villages to attend state schools, removing them from traditional learning opportunities in the home and workplace. The curriculum in state schools is standardized across China and holds little relevance to the lives of the Na. Na children are required to learn Mandarin Chinese, Chinese and global history, and Han values, as opposed to their native language, local history, and Indigenous values. Methods of instruction rely on rote learning rather than experiential learning, as employed in Na villages.

Several individuals and organizations pay for children's school fees and build new schools in an attempt to increase village children's access to education. Yet such well-intended actions do not affect the schools' curriculum, which means there is no improvement in the sustainability of the children's native cultures. As a result, such actions may actually "be contributing to the demise of the very culture" they are trying to preserve.

Organizations

Many organizations work to promote Indigenous methods of education. Indigenous peoples have founded and actively run several of these organizations. On a global scale, many of these organizations engage in active knowledge transfer in an effort to protect and promote Indigenous knowledge and education modes.

One such organization, the Indigenous Education Institute (IEI), aims to apply Indigenous knowledge and tradition to a contemporary context, with a particular focus on astronomy and other science disciplines.

Another such organization is the World Indigenous Nations Higher Education Consortium (WINHEC), which was launched during the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education (WIPCE) at Delta Lodge, Kananakis Calgary in Alberta, Canada in August 2002. The founding members were Australia, Hawai'i, Alaska, the American Indian Higher Education Consortium of the United States, Canada, the Wänanga of Aotearoa (New Zealand), and Saamiland (North Norway). The stated aims of WINHEC include the provision of an international forum for Indigenous peoples to pursue common goals through higher education.

Missile defense

Missile defense is a system, weapon, or technology involved in the detection, tracking, interception, and also the destruction of attacking missiles. Conceived as a defense against nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), its application has broadened to include shorter-ranged non-nuclear tactical and theater missiles.

China, France, India, Iran, Israel, Italy, Russia, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States have all developed such air defense systems.

Missile defense categories

India's Advanced Air Defense (AAD) endo-atmospheric anti-ballistic missile

Missile defense can be divided into categories based on various characteristics: type/range of missile intercepted, the trajectory phase where the intercept occurs, and whether intercepted inside or outside the Earth's atmosphere:

Type/range of missile intercepted

These types/ranges include strategic, theater and tactical. Each entails unique requirements for intercept, and a defensive system capable of intercepting one missile type frequently cannot intercept others. However, there is sometimes overlap in capability.

Strategic

Targets long-range ICBMs, which travel at about 7 km/s (15,700 mph). Examples of currently active systems: Russian A-135 system which defends Moscow, and the U.S. Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system that defends the United States from missiles launched from Asia. Geographic range of strategic defense can be regional (Russian system) or national (U.S. system).

Theater

Targets medium-range missiles, which travel at about 3 km/s (6,700 mph) or less. In this context, the term "theater" means the entire localized region for military operations, typically a radius of several hundred kilometers. Defense range of theater defensive systems is usually on this order. Examples of deployed theater missile defenses: Israeli Arrow missile, American THAAD, and Russian S-400.

Tactical

Targets short-range tactical ballistic missiles, which usually travel at less than 1.5 km/s (3,400 mph). Tactical anti-ballistic missiles (ABMs) have short ranges, typically 20–80 km (12–50 miles). Examples of currently-deployed tactical ABMs: American MIM-104 Patriot and Russian S-300V.

Trajectory phase

Trajectory phases

Ballistic missiles can be intercepted in three regions of their trajectory: boost phase, midcourse phase, or terminal phase.

Boost phase

Intercepting the missile while its rocket motors are firing, usually over the launch territory.

Advantages:

  • Bright, hot rocket exhaust makes detection and targeting easier.
  • Decoys cannot be used during boost phase.
  • At this stage, the missile is full of flammable propellant, which makes it very vulnerable to explosive warheads.

Disadvantages:

  • Difficult to geographically position interceptors to intercept missiles in boost phase (not always possible without flying over hostile territory).
  • Short time for intercept (typically about 180 seconds).

Mid-course phase

Intercepting the missile in space after the rocket burns out (example: American Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Chinese SC-19 & DN-series missiles, Israeli Arrow 3 missile).

Advantages:

  • Extended decision/intercept time (the coast period through space before reentering the atmosphere can be several minutes, up to 20 minutes for an ICBM).
  • Very large geographic defensive coverage; potentially continental.

Disadvantages:

  • Requires large, heavy anti-ballistic missiles and sophisticated powerful radar which must often be augmented by space-based sensors.
  • Must handle potential space-based decoys.

Terminal phase

Intercepting the missile after it reenters the atmosphere (examples: American Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System, Chinese HQ-29, American THAAD, American Sprint, Russian ABM-3 Gazelle)

Advantages:

  • Smaller, lighter anti-ballistic missile is sufficient.
  • Balloon decoys do not work during reentry.
  • Smaller, less sophisticated radar required.

Disadvantages:

  • Very short intercept time, possibly less than 30 seconds.
  • Less defended geographic coverage.
  • Possible blanketing of target area with hazardous materials in the case of detonation of nuclear warhead(s).

Intercept location relative to the atmosphere

Missile defense can take place either inside (endoatmospheric) or outside (exoatmospheric) the Earth's atmosphere. The trajectory of most ballistic missiles takes them inside and outside the Earth's atmosphere, and they can be intercepted in either place. There are advantages and disadvantages to either intercept technique.

Some missiles such as THAAD can intercept both inside and outside the Earth's atmosphere, giving two intercept opportunities.

Endoatmospheric

Endoatmospheric anti-ballistic missiles are usually shorter ranged (e.g., American MIM-104 Patriot, Indian Advanced Air Defence).

Advantages:

  • Physically smaller and lighter
  • Easier to move and deploy
  • Endoatmospheric intercept means balloon-type decoys won't work

Disadvantages:

  • Limited range and defended area
  • Limited decision and tracking time for the incoming warhead

Exoatmospheric

Exoatmospheric anti-ballistic missiles are usually longer-ranged (e.g., American GMD, Ground-Based Midcourse Defense).

Advantages:

  • More decision and tracking time
  • Fewer missiles required for defense of a larger area

Disadvantages:

  • Larger/heavier missiles required
  • More difficult to transport and place compared to smaller missiles
  • Must handle decoys

Countermeasures to missile defense

Given the immense variety by which a defense system can operate (targeting nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), tactical, and theater missiles), there are some unarguably effective exoatmospheric (outside the Earth's atmosphere) countermeasures an attacking party can use to deter or completely defend against certain types of defense systems, ranges of ACBM's, and intercept locations. Many of defenses to these countermeasures have been implemented and taken into account when constructing missile defense systems, however, it does not guarantee their effectiveness or success. The U.S. Missile Defense Agency has received scrutiny in regards to their lack of foresight of these countermeasures, causing many scientists to perform various studies and data analysis as to the true effectiveness of these countermeasures.

Decoys

A common countermeasure that attacking parties use to disrupt the efficacy of Missile Defense Systems are the simultaneous launching of decoys from the primary launch site or from the exterior of the main attacking missile itself. These decoys are usually small, lightweight dud rockets that take advantage of the interceptor sensors tracking and fool it by making many different targets available in an instant. This is accomplished via the releasing of decoys in certain phases of flight. Because objects of differing weights follow the same trajectory when in space, decoys released during the midcourse phase can prevent interceptor missiles from accurately identifying the warhead. This could force the defense system to attempt to destroy all incoming projectiles, which masks the true attacking missile and lets it slip by the defense system.

Common types of decoys

Since there can be many forms of this type of deception of a missile system, different categorizations of decoys have developed, all of which operate and are designed slightly different. Details of these types of decoys and their effectiveness were provided in a report by a variety of prominent scientists in 2000.

Replica decoys

This categorization of decoy is the most similar to the standard understanding of what a missile decoy is. These types of decoys attempt to mask the attacking ICBM via the release of many similar missiles. This type of decoy confuses the missile defense system by the sudden replication and the sheer number of similar targets. Knowing that no defense system is 100% reliable, this confusion within the targeting of the defense system would cause the system to target each decoy with equal priority and as if it was the actual warhead, allowing the real warheads chance of passing through the system and striking the target to increase drastically.

Decoys using signature diversity

Similar to replica decoys, these types of decoys also take advantage of the limitations in number within the missile defense systems targeting. However, rather than using missiles of similar build and trace to the attacking warhead, these types of decoys all have slightly different appearances from both each other and the warhead itself. This creates a different kind of confusion within the system; rather than creating a situation where each decoy (and the warhead itself) appears the same and is therefore targeted and treated exactly like the "real" warhead, the targeting system simply does not know what is the real threat and what is a decoy due to the mass amount of differing information. This creates a similar situation as the result of the replica decoy, increasing the chance that the real warhead passes through the system and strikes the target.

Decoys using antisimulation

This type of decoy is perhaps the most difficult and subversive for a missile defense system to determine. Instead of taking advantage of the missile defense system's targeting, this type of decoy intends to fool the operation of the system itself. Rather than using sheer quantity to overrun the targeting system, an anti-simulation decoy disguises the actual warhead as a decoy, and a decoy as the actual warhead. This system of "anti-simulation" allows the attacking warhead to, in some cases, take advantage of the "bulk-filtering" of certain missile defense systems, in which objects with characteristics of the warhead poorly matching those expected by the defense are either not observed because of sensor filters, or observed very briefly and immediately rejected without the need for a detailed examination. The actual warhead may simply pass by undetected, or rejected as a threat.

Cooled shrouds

Another common countermeasure used to fool missile defense systems are the implementation of cooled shrouds surrounding attacking missiles. This method covers the entire missile in a steel containment filled with liquid oxygen, nitrogen, or other sub-zero coolants that prevent the missile from being easily detected. Because many missile defense systems use infrared sensors to detect the heat traces of incoming missiles, this capsule of extremely cold liquid either renders the incoming missile entirely invisible to detection or reduces the system's ability to detect the incoming missile fast enough.

Other types of infrared stealth

Another commonly applied countermeasure to missile defense is the application of various low-emissivity coatings. Similar to cooled shrouds, these warheads are fully coated with infrared reflective or resistant coatings that allow similar resistance to infrared detection that cooled shrouds do. Because the most effective coating discovered so far is gold, though, this method is often overstepped by cooled shrouds.

Biological/chemical weapons

This is perhaps the most extreme approach to countering missile defense systems that are designed to destroy ICBMs and other forms of nuclear weaponry. Rather than using many missiles equipped with nuclear warheads as their main weapon of attack, this idea involves the release of biological or chemical sub-munition weapons/agents from the missile shortly after the boost phase of the attacking ICBM. Because missile defense systems are designed with intent to destroy main attacking missiles or ICBMs, this system of sub-munition attack is too numerous for the system to defend against while also distributing the chemical or biological agent across a large area of attack. There is currently no proposed countermeasure to this type of attack except through diplomacy and the effective banning of biological weaponry and chemical agents within war. However, this does not guarantee that this countermeasure to missile defense system will not be abused via extremists/terrorists. An example of this severe threat can be further seen in North Korea's testing of anthrax tipped ICBMs in 2017.

Dynamic trajectories

Countries including Iran and North Korea may have sought missiles that can maneuver and vary their trajectories in order to evade missile defense systems.

In March 2022, when Russia used a hypersonic missile against Ukraine, Joe Biden characterized the weapon as "almost impossible to stop". Boost-glide hypersonic weapons shift trajectory to evade current missile-defense systems.

Glide Phase Interceptor (GPI) will provide defense against maneuvering hypersonic weapons.

Multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles

Another way to counter an ABM system is to attach multiple warheads that break apart upon reentry. If the ABM is able to counter one or two of the warheads via detonation or collision the others would slip through radar either because of limitations on ABM firing speeds or because of radar blackout caused by plasma interference. The first MRV was the Polaris A-3 which had three warheads and was launched from a submarine. Before regulations on how many warheads could be stored in a MIRV, the Soviets had up to twenty to thirty attached to ICBMs.

Jammers

Jammers use radar noise to saturate the incoming signals to the point where the radar cannot discern meaningful data about a target's location with meaningless noise. They can also imitate the signal of a missile to create a fake target.  They are usually spread over planned missile paths to enemy territory to give the missile a clear path to their target. Because these jammers take relatively little electricity and hardware to operate, they are usually small, self-contained, and easily dispersible.

Command and Control

127th Command and Control Squadron - Distributed Common Ground System

Command and control, battle management, and communications (C2BMC)

Command and control, battle management, and communications (C2BMC) systems are hardware and software interfaces that integrate a multitude of sensory information at a centralized center for the ballistic missile defense system (BMDS). The command center allows for human management in accordance to the incorporated sensory information- BMDS status, system coverage, and ballistic missile attacks. The interface system helps build an image of the battle scenario or situation which enables the user to select the optimal firing solutions.

Seal of the United States Strategic Command
USCG Command Control and Communications

The first C2BMC system became operational in 2004. Since then, many elements have been added to update the C2BMC, which act to provide further sensory information and allow for enhanced communications between combatant commanders. A C2BMC is even capable of initiating live planning system before any engagement has even started.

GMD fire control and communication

The function of ground-based midcourse defense (GMD) systems is to provide combatants the ability to seek and destroy intermediate- and long-range ballistic missiles en route to the US homeland. Data are transmitted from the defense satellite communication system, and compiles an image using the coordinated information. The system is able to relay real-time data once missiles have been launched. The GMD can also work to receive information from the C2BMC, which allows Aegis SPY-1, and TPY-2 to contribute to the defense system.

A problem with GMD is that the ground systems have increasingly becoming obsolete as the technology was initially installed as early as the 1990s. So, the ground sensors had been replaced sometime in 2018. The update was to add the capability of handling up to 44 systems; it would also reduce overlapping redundancies and inefficiencies.

Link-16

Link-16 is a data link that connects communication between land, air, and sea forces to support joint operations and improve operability. The system is intended to improve the interoperability for joint operations of NATO and coalition forces. Link-16 is also used by the U.S. Army and Navy for air and sea operations. An important feature of Link-16 is its ability to broadcast information simultaneously to as many users as needed. Another feature of Link-16 is its ability to act as nodes, which allows for a multitude of distributed forces to operate cohesively.

The newest generation of Link-16 is the multifunctional information distribution system low-volume terminal (MIDS LVT). It is a much smaller unit that can be fitted on air, ground, and sea units to incorporate data. The MIDS LVT terminals are installed on most bombers, aircraft, UAVs, and tankers, allowing for the incorporation of most air defense systems.

Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System

The Integrated Air and Missile Defense Battle Command System (IBCS) is an unified command and control network developed by the U.S. Army. It is designed to integrate data relay between weapon launchers, radars, and the operators, which allows air-defense units to fire interceptors with information being relayed among radars. The advantage of such a system is it can increase the area an air unit can defend and reduce interceptor spending by ensuring than no other air defense unit would engage the same target. The IBCS will be able to integrate with air defense networks of foreign military as the global C2BMC system.

Missile Defense Agency logo

IBCS engagement stations will integrate raw data from multiple sensors and process it into a single air picture, and choose elect different weapons and launcher locations depending on the detected threat instead of being limited to particular unit capabilities.

The IBCS system is intended to be operational in 2019; between 2016 and 2017, implementation of IBCS had to be put on hold due to software issues with the system. In 2021, F-35 sensor data were linked via airborne gateway to ground-based IBCS, to conduct a simulated Army fires exercise, for future Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2).

History

The problem was first studied during the last year of the Second World War. The only countermeasure against the V-2 missile that could be devised was a massive barrage of anti-aircraft guns. Even if the missile's trajectory were accurately calculated, the guns would still have a small probability of destroying it before impact with the ground. Also, the shells fired by the guns would have caused more damage than the actual missile when they fell back to the ground. Plans for an operational test began anyway, but the idea was rendered moot when the V-2 launching sites in the Netherlands were captured.

In the 1950s and 1960s, missile defense meant defense against strategic (usually nuclear-armed) missiles. The technology mostly centered around detecting offensive launch events and tracking inbound ballistic missiles, but with limited ability to actually defend against the missile. The Soviet Union achieved the first nonnuclear intercept of a ballistic missile warhead by a missile at the Sary Shagan antiballistic missile defense test range on 4 March 1961. Nicknamed the "Griffon" missile system, it would be installed around Leningrad as a test.

Nike Hercules missiles

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the United States Project Nike air defense program focused initially on targeting hostile bombers before shifting focus to targeting ballistic missiles. In the 1950s, the first United States anti-ballistic missile system was the Nike Hercules, which had the ability to intercept incoming short-range ballistic missiles, but not intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) or ICBMs. This was followed by the Nike Zeus, which was capable of intercepting ICBMs by using a nuclear warhead, upgraded radar systems, faster computers, and control systems that were more effective in the upper atmosphere. However it was feared the missile's electronics may be vulnerable to x-rays from a nuclear detonation in space. A program was started to devise methods of hardening weapons from radiation damage. By the early 1960s the Nike Zeus was the first anti-ballistic missile to achieve hit-to-kill (physically colliding with the incoming warhead).

In 1963, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara diverted funds from the Zeus missile program, and instead directed that funding to the development of the Nike-X system, which utilized the high-speed, short-range Sprint missile. These missiles were meant to intercept incoming warheads after they had descended from space and were only seconds from their targets. To accomplish this, Nike-X required advances in missile design to make the Sprint missile quick enough to intercept incoming warheads in time. The system also included advanced active electronically scanned array radar systems and a powerful computer complex.

During the development of Nike-X, controversy over the effectiveness of anti-ballistic missile systems became more prominent. Critiques of the Nike-X included an estimate that the anti-ballistic missile system could be defeated by Soviets manufacturing more ICBMs, and the cost of those additional ICBMs needed to defeat Nike-X would also cost less than what the United States would spend on implementing Nike-X. Additionally, McNamara reported that a ballistic missile system would save American lives at the cost of approximately $700 per life, compared to a shelter system that could save lives at a lower cost of approximately $40 per life. As a result of these estimations, McNamara opposed implementation of Nike-X due to the high costs associated with construction and perceived poor cost-effectiveness of the system, and instead expressed support for pursuing arms limitations agreements with the Soviets. After the Chinese government detonated their first hydrogen bomb during Test No. 6. in 1967, McNamara modified the Nike-X program into a program called Sentinel. This program's goal was to protect major U.S. cities from a limited ICBM attack, especially on one from China. This would be done by building fifteen sites across the continental US, and one site in each of Alaska and Hawaii. This in turn reduced tensions with the Soviet Union, which retained the offensive capability to overwhelm any U.S. defense. McNamara favored this approach as deploying the Sentinel program was less costly than a fully implemented Nike-X program, and would reduce Congressional pressures to implement an ABM system. In the months following the announcements regarding the Sentinel program, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara stated: "Let me emphasize—and I cannot do so too strongly—that our decision to go ahead with a limited ABM deployment in no way indicates that we feel an agreement with the Soviet Union on the limitation of strategic nuclear offensive and defensive forces is in any way less urgent or desirable.

With the conclusion of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from their strategic positions in Cuba, the USSR to begin thinking about a missile defense systems. A year after the crisis in 1963 the Soviets created the SA-5. Unlike its predecessors like the SA-1 or Griffon systems, this system was able to fly much higher and further  and was fast enough to intercept some missiles however its main purpose was to intercept the new XB-70 supersonic aircraft the U.S was planning to make. However, since these types of aircraft never went into production in the U.S, the project was abandoned, and the Soviets reverted to the slower, low altitude SA-2 and SA-3 systems. In 1964 the Soviets publicly unveiled their newest interceptor missile named the "Galosh" which was nuclear armed and was meant for high altitude, long range interception. The Soviet Union began installing the A-35 anti-ballistic missile system around Moscow in 1965 using these "Galosh" missiles and would become operational by 1971. It consisted of four complex around Moscow each with 16 launchers and two missile tracking radars. Another notable feature of the A-35 was that it was the first monopulse radar. Developed by OKB 30, the Russian Special Design Bureau, the effort design to create a monopulse radar started in 1954. This was used to conduct the first successful intercept in 1961. There were known flaws with the design such as an inability to defend against MIRV and decoy style weapons.The reason for this was because the detonation of a nuclear interceptor missile like the "Galosh" creates a cloud of plasma that temporarily impairs radar readings around the area of the explosion limiting these kinds of systems to a one-shot capacity. This means that with MIRV style attacks the interceptor would be able to take out one or two but the rest would slip though. Another issue with the 1965 model was that it consisted of 11 large radar stations at six locations on the borders of Russia. These bases where visible to the US and could be taken out easily leaving the defense system useless in a concentrated and coordinated attack. Finally, the missiles that could be held on each base was limited by the ABM treaty to only 100 launchers maximum, meaning that in a massive attack they would be depleted quickly. During installation, a Ministry of Defense commission concluded that the system should not be fully implemented, reducing the capabilities of the completed system. That system was later upgraded to the A-135 anti-ballistic missile system and is still operational. This upgrade period started in 1975 and was headed by Dr. A.G. Basistov. When it was completed in 1990, the new A-135 system had a central control multifunctional radar called the "Don" and 100 interceptor missiles. Another improvement was the layering of interceptor missiles where high acceleration missiles are being added for low flying targets and the "Galosh" style missiles where improved further for high altitude targets. All of these missiles where moved underground into silos to make them less vulnerable, which was a flaw of the previous system.

As part of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972, all radars for detecting missiles were placed on the edges of the territory and faced outward.

The SALT I talks began in 1969, and led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972, which ultimately limited the U.S. and U.S.S.R. to one defensive missile site each, with no more than 100 missiles per site. This included both ABM interceptor missiles as well as launchers. Originally, the agreement made by the Nixon administration and the Soviet Union stated that both of the two nations were each allowed to have two ABM defensive systems present in their own countries. The goal was to effectively have one ABM defense system located near each nation's capital city as well as another ABM defense system placed near the nation's most important or strategical ICBM field. This treaty allowed for an effective form of deterrence for both sides as if either side were to make an offensive move, the other side would be capable of countering that move. However, a few years later in 1974 both sides reworked the treaty to include only one ABM defensive system present around an ICBM launch area or the nation's capital city. This occurred once both sides determined the other side was not going to construct a second ABM defensive system. Along with limiting the amount of ballistic missile defense systems each nation could have, the treaty also stated if either country desired to have a radar for incoming missile detection, the radar system must be located on the outskirts of the territory and must be aligned in the opposite direction of one's own country. This treaty would end up being the precedent set for future missile defense programs, as any systems that were not stationary and land-based were a violation of the treaty.

As a result of the treaty and of technical limitations, along with public opposition to nearby nuclear-armed defensive missiles, the U.S. Sentinel program was re-designated the Safeguard Program, with the new goal of defending U.S. ICBM sites, not cities. The U.S. Safeguard system was planned to be implemented in various sites across the US, including at Whiteman AFB in Missouri, Malmstrom AFB in Montana, and Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 placed a limit of two ABM systems within the US, causing the work site in Missouri to be abandoned, and the partially-completed Montana site was abandoned in 1974 after an additional agreement between the US and USSR that limited each country to one ABM system. As a result, the only Safeguard system that was deployed was to defend the LGM-30 Minuteman ICBMs near Grand Forks, North Dakota. However, it was deactivated in 1976 after being operational for less than four months due to a changing political climate plus concern over limited effectiveness, low strategic value, and high operational cost.

An artist's concept of a Space Laser Satellite Defense System as a part of the Strategic Defense Initiative

In the early 1980s, technology had matured to consider space based missile defense options. Precision hit-to-kill systems more reliable than the early Nike Zeus were thought possible. With these improvements, the Reagan Administration promoted the Strategic Defense Initiative, an ambitious plan to provide a comprehensive defense against an all-out ICBM attack. In pursuit of that goal, the Strategic Defense Initiative investigated a variety of potential missile-defense systems, which included systems utilizing ground-based missile systems and space-based missile systems, as well as systems utilizing lasers or particle beam weapons. This program faced controversy over the feasibility of the projects it pursued, as well as the substantial amount of funding and time required for the research to develop the requisite technology. The Strategic Defense Initiative earned the nickname "Star Wars" due to criticism from Senator Ted Kennedy in which he described the Strategic Defense Initiative as "reckless Star Wars schemes." Reagan established the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) to oversee the development of the program's projects. Upon request by the SDIO, the American Physical Society (APS) performed a review of the concepts being developed within SDIO and concluded that all of the concepts pursuing use of Directed Energy Weapons were not feasible solutions for an anti-missile defense system without decades of additional research and development. Following the APS's report in 1986, the SDIO switched focus to a concept called the Strategic Defense System, which would utilize a system of space-based missiles called Space Rocks which would intercept incoming ballistic missiles from orbit, and would be supplemented by ground-based missile defense systems. In 1993, the SDIO was closed and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) was created, which focuses on ground-based missile defense systems utilizing interceptor missiles. In 2002, BMDO's name was changed to its current title, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). See National Missile Defense for additional details. In the early 1990s, missile defense expanded to include tactical missile defense, as seen in the first Gulf War. Although not designed from the outset to intercept tactical missiles, upgrades gave the Patriot system a limited missile defense capability. The effectiveness of the Patriot system in disabling or destroying incoming Scuds was the subject of Congressional hearings and reports in 1992.

Various ICBMs utilized by varying countries.

In the time following the agreement of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, it was becoming increasingly more and more difficult for the United States to create a new missile defense strategy without violating the terms of the treaty. During the Clinton administration, the initial goal the United States had interest in, was to negotiate with the former Soviet Union, which is now Russia, and hopefully agree to a revision to the treaty signed a few decades prior. In the late 1990s the United States had interest in an idea termed NMD or National Missile Defense. This idea essentially would allow the United States to increase the number of ballistic missile interceptors that would be available to missile defense personnel at the Alaska location. While the initial ABM treaty was designed primarily to deter the Soviet Union and help create a period of détente, the United States was primarily fearing other threats such as Iraq, North Korea, and Iran. The Russian government was not interested in making any sort of modification to the ABM treaty that would allow for technology to be developed that was explicitly banned when the treaty was agreed upon. However, Russia was interested in revising the treaty in such a way that would allow for a more diplomatic approach to potential missile harboring countries. During this period, the United States was also seeking assistance for their ballistic missile defense systems from Japan. Following the testing of the Taepo Dong missile by the North Korean government, the Japanese government became more concerned and inclined to accept a partnership for a BMD system with the United States. In late 1998, Japan and the United States agreed to the Naval Wide Theater system which would allow the two sides to design, construct, and test ballistic missile defense systems together. Nearing the end of Clinton's time in office, it had been determined that the NMD program was not as effective as the United States would have liked, and the decision was made to not employ this system while Clinton served out the rest of his term. The decision on future of the NMD program was going to be given to the next president in line, who ultimately would end up being George W. Bush.

In the late 1990s, and early 2000s, the issue of defense against cruise missiles became more prominent with the new Bush Administration. In 2002, President George W. Bush withdrew the US from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, allowing further development and testing of ABMs under the Missile Defense Agency, as well as deployment of interceptor vehicles beyond the single site allowed under the treaty. During the Bush's time in office, the potentially threatening countries to the United States included North Korea as well as Iran. While these countries might not have possessed the weaponry that many countries containing missile defense systems had, the Bush administration expected an Iranian missile test within the next ten years. In order to counter the potential risk of North Korean missiles, the United States Department of Defense desired to create missile defense systems along the west coast of the United States, namely in both California and Alaska.

A NORAD Distant Early Warning Line (DEW) station in western Greenland is visible in the distance beyond the snow-drifted equipment pallets in the foreground of this photograph. The DEW Line was designed to track inbound ballistic missiles.

There are still technological hurdles to an effective defense against ballistic missile attack. The United States National Ballistic Missile Defense System has come under scrutiny about its technological feasibility. Intercepting midcourse (rather than launch or reentry stage) ballistic missiles traveling at several miles per second with a "kinetic kill vehicle" has been characterized as trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. Despite this difficulty, there have been several successful test intercepts and the system was made operational in 2006, while tests and system upgrades continue. Moreover, the warheads or payloads of ballistic missiles can be concealed by a number of different types of decoys. Sensors that track and target warheads aboard the kinetic kill vehicle may have trouble distinguishing the "real" warhead from the decoys, but several tests that have included decoys were successful. Nira Schwartz's and Theodore Postol's criticisms about the technical feasibility of these sensors have led to a continuing investigation of research misconduct and fraud at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In February 2007, the U.S. missile defense system consisted of 13 ground-based interceptors (GBIs) at Fort Greely, Alaska, plus two interceptors at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. The U.S. planned to have 21 interceptor missiles by the end of 2007. The system was initially called National Missile Defense (NMD), but in 2003 the ground-based component was renamed Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD). As of 2014, the Missile Defense Agency had 30 operational GBIs, with a total 44 GBIs in the missile fields in 2018. In 2021 an additional 20 GBIs of 64 total were planned, but not yet fielded. They are tasked with meeting more complex threats than those met by the EKV.

Defending against cruise missiles is similar to defending against hostile, low-flying crewed aircraft. As with aircraft defense, countermeasures such as chaff, flares, and low altitude can complicate targeting and missile interception. High-flying radar aircraft such as AWACS can often identify low flying threats by using doppler radar. Another possible method is using specialized satellites to track these targets. By coupling a target's kinetic inputs with infrared and radar signatures it may be possible to overcome the countermeasures.

In March 2008, the U.S. Congress convened hearings to re-examine the status of missile defense in U.S. military strategy. Upon taking office, President Obama directed a comprehensive review of ballistic missile defense policy and programs. The review's findings related to Europe were announced on 17 September 2009. The Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) Report was published in February 2010.

NATO missile defense system

HMS Diamond firing an Aster missile for the first time in 2012.

Mechanisms

The Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) is the senior NATO committee which acts as the tasking authority for the theater missile defense program. The ALTBMD Program Management Organization, which comprises a steering committee and a program office hosted by the NATO C3 Agency, directs the program and reports to the CNAD. The focal point for consultation on full-scale missile defense is the Reinforced Executive Working Group. The CNAD is responsible for conducting technical studies and reporting the outcome to the Group. The NRC Ad hoc Working Group on TMD is the steering body for NATO-Russia cooperation on theater missile defense.

In September 2018, a consortium of 23 NATO nations met to collaborate on the Nimble Titan 18 integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) campaign of experimentation.

Missile defense

By early 2010, NATO will have an initial capability to protect Alliance forces against missile threats and is examining options for protecting territory and populations. This is in response to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, including missiles of all ranges. NATO is conducting three missile defense–related activities:

Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense System capability

Active Layered Theater Ballistic Missile Defense System is "ALTBMD" for short.

As of early 2010, the Alliance has an interim capability to protect troops in a specific area against short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles (up to 3,000 kilometers).

The end system consists of a multi-layered system of systems, comprising low- and high-altitude defenses (also called lower- and upper-layer defenses), including Battle Management Command, Control, Communications and Intelligence (BMC3I), early warning sensors, radar, and various interceptors. NATO member countries provide the sensors and weapon systems, while NATO has developed the BMC3I segment and facilitate the integration of all these elements.

Missile Defense for the protection of NATO territory

A Missile Defense Feasibility Study was launched after NATO's 2002 Prague summit. The NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A) and NATO's Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD) were also involved in negotiations. The study concluded that missile defense is technically feasible, and it provided a technical basis for ongoing political and military discussions regarding the desirability of a NATO missile defense system.

During the 2008 Bucharest summit, the alliance discussed the technical details as well as the political and military implications of the proposed elements of the U.S. missile defense system in Europe. Allied leaders recognized that the planned deployment of European-based U.S. missile defense assets would help protect North American Allies, and agreed that this capability should be an integral part of any future NATO-wide missile defense architecture. However, these opinions are in the process of being reconstructed given the Obama administration's decision in 2009 to replace the long-range interceptor project in Poland with a short/medium range interceptor.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has stated that NATO's pattern of deployment of Patriot missiles indicates that these will be used to defend against Iranian missiles in addition to the stated goal of defending against spillover from the Syrian civil war.

Aegis-based system

In order to accelerate the deployment of a missile shield over Europe, Barack Obama sent ships with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System to European waters, including the Black Sea as needed.

In 2012 the system will achieve an "interim capability" that will for the first time offer American forces in Europe some protection against IRBM attack. However, these interceptors may be poorly placed and of the wrong type to defend the United States, in addition to American troops and facilities in Europe.

The Aegis ballistic missile defense-equipped SM-3 Block II-A missile demonstrated it can shoot down an ICBM target on 16 Nov 2020.

ACCS Theatre Missile Defense 1

According to BioPrepWatch, NATO has signed a 136 million euro contract with ThalesRaytheonSystems to upgrade its current theatre missile defense program.

The project, called ACCS Theatre Missile Defense 1, will bring new capabilities to NATO's Air Command and Control System, including updates for processing ballistic missile tracks, additional satellite and radar feeds, improvements to data communication and correlation features. The upgrade to its theatre missile defense command and control system will allow for NATO to connect national sensors and interceptors in defense against short and medium-range ballistic missiles. According to NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Defense Investment Patrick Auroy, the execution of this contract will be a major technical milestone forward for NATO's theatre missile defense. The project was expected to be complete by 2015. An integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) capability will be delivered to the operational community by 2016, by which time NATO will have a true theatre missile defense.

Defense systems and initiatives

Lie point symmetry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie_point_symmetry     ...