An interview by Dr. Adrian Leonard Mociulschi
Few developments illustrate today's changing security environment more clearly than the renewed prominence of ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, hypersonic technologies and missile defence. Once associated primarily with the Cold War, these issues have returned to the centre of strategic debate.
Lieutenant General (Ret.) Corneliu Postu, a Romanian former Director of the Defence Staff and specialist in air and missile defence, discusses the realities behind these technologies and their implications for deterrence, security and military planning.
Adrian Leonard Mociulschi: General, discussions of deterrence, escalation and strategic stability have once again moved to the forefront of international affairs. Ballistic missiles remain at the centre of these debates, despite decades of technological change and evolving forms of warfare.
From a military perspective, what distinguishes a ballistic missile from other long-range strike systems, and why does it continue to occupy such a central place in strategic thinking?
General Corneliu Postu: The fact that ballistic missiles have returned so prominently to public discussion is, in itself, a reflection of the security challenges facing today's world. We are witnessing active conflicts, regional crises and growing geopolitical tensions, all of which have brought questions of deterrence and strategic defence back into focus.
We should also remember that we live in an age of intense information flows. Not everything that appears in public debate or in media coverage necessarily reflects the full reality of a situation. A proper assessment of the security environment requires a broader perspective and consideration of factors that are often less visible to the general public.
As for ballistic missiles themselves, they are rocket-propelled weapons designed to deliver one or more warheads, whether conventional or nuclear, against a predetermined target. What distinguishes them from other missile systems is their ballistic trajectory. After an initial powered phase, they continue much of their flight along a predetermined path before descending toward the target at very high speed.
These characteristics make ballistic missiles particularly challenging to intercept. Their altitude, speed and flight profile remain among the reasons why they continue to play an important role in military planning and strategic deterrence.
It is also worth noting that ballistic missiles are not a new technology. Their origins can be traced to the German V-2 programme of the Second World War. Since then, both the technology and the range of these systems have evolved considerably. Today, ballistic missiles are generally classified as short-range, medium-range, intermediate-range and intercontinental systems.
In my view, their continued strategic relevance rests on two fundamental factors: their ability to carry nuclear warheads and their capacity to strike targets at very long distances. Together, these characteristics make them one of the principal instruments of modern deterrence.
Adrian Leonard Mociulschi: General, if ballistic missiles remain strategically relevant largely because of their association with nuclear deterrence, then understanding the logic of nuclear weapons becomes essential to understanding the broader security environment.
Concepts such as tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons and the nuclear umbrella have re-emerged in policy discussions across Europe and beyond. How do military professionals distinguish between these categories, and why does the notion of a nuclear umbrella remain a central feature of contemporary deterrence?
General Corneliu Postu: I think your question is important because the renewed focus on ballistic missiles inevitably brings us back to the broader issue of nuclear deterrence and the concepts that have shaped the international security order for decades.
When people hear terms such as tactical nuclear weapons, strategic nuclear weapons or nuclear umbrella, they often assume that these are clearly defined categories. In reality, the distinction is not always absolute. Much depends on intended use, military doctrine and strategic context.
At its core, a nuclear weapon is an explosive device whose destructive power derives from four principal effects: the blast wave, thermal radiation, ionizing radiation and residual radiation. The distinction between tactical and strategic nuclear weapons is generally linked to how those weapons are intended to be employed.
Tactical nuclear weapons are primarily associated with battlefield operations and more limited military objectives. Strategic nuclear weapons, by contrast, are intended to hold at risk targets of national or strategic significance, including major population centres, command structures, military infrastructure, industrial facilities and critical energy or transportation networks.
The distinction also extends to delivery systems and yield. Tactical weapons are commonly associated with shorter-range delivery systems, while strategic weapons are typically linked to aircraft and medium- or long-range missile forces. Likewise, their explosive power can differ significantly.
This brings us naturally to the concept of the nuclear umbrella. In essence, it is a security arrangement through which a nuclear-armed state extends deterrence guarantees to allied states that do not possess nuclear weapons themselves. More broadly, it forms part of a wider framework of political, military and strategic commitments designed to strengthen collective security.
In today's security environment, these concepts are not merely theoretical. They remain central to alliance structures, deterrence policies and the way many states think about their own security.
Yet there is an even more important point. Regardless of category, yield or delivery system, nuclear weapons have already demonstrated the scale of human suffering they can inflict. The lessons of Hiroshima and Nagasaki remain relevant today, and any serious discussion of nuclear weapons should begin with an understanding of those consequences.
Adrian Leonard Mociulschi: While ballistic missiles remain a central element of strategic deterrence, recent years have seen growing attention devoted to hypersonic weapons, frequently described as one of the most significant developments in modern military technology.
How should we understand the relationship between these two categories of systems? What makes hypersonic missiles different, and do they represent a genuine shift in the strategic balance?
General Corneliu Postu: Much of the attention surrounding hypersonic weapons stems from the perception that they could challenge some of the assumptions on which existing missile-defence architectures have been built.
In simple terms, a hypersonic missile is a weapon capable of travelling at speeds exceeding Mach 5, or more than five times the speed of sound, while also retaining a degree of manoeuvrability during flight. This combination of speed and manoeuvrability is what distinguishes hypersonic systems from more traditional ballistic missiles.
It is also important to mention hypersonic glide vehicles. These systems are initially accelerated by a rocket but subsequently travel through the atmosphere at very high speeds, following a flight profile that can be more difficult to predict than that of a conventional ballistic missile.
From a military perspective, this is where the strategic significance of these weapons lies. Modern missile-defence systems rely heavily on the ability to detect, track and predict a threat's trajectory. A weapon capable of manoeuvring at hypersonic speeds inevitably complicates that process and reduces the defender's reaction time.
For this reason, I believe the attention devoted to hypersonic systems is justified. Whether they represent a complete revolution in military affairs is a matter for continued debate, but there is little doubt that they introduce new challenges for planners responsible for deterrence, early warning and missile defence.
If we also consider their potential to carry nuclear warheads, it becomes clear why these systems have attracted such intense interest among major military powers. Their significance extends beyond technology alone; they are increasingly part of the broader discussion about strategic stability and the future of deterrence in the twenty-first century.
Adrian Leonard Mociulschi: Much of our discussion has focused on offensive capabilities and the evolution of strategic strike systems. Yet the other side of the equation is missile defence.
As states invest heavily in ballistic and hypersonic weapons, they are also investing in increasingly sophisticated interception technologies. This raises a fundamental question about the balance between offence and defence in the twenty-first century.
How effective are modern missile-defence systems in practice, and to what extent can a ballistic missile realistically be intercepted once it has been launched?
General Corneliu Postu: One of the most persistent misconceptions in public discussions about missile defence is the assumption that technological progress can eventually produce a system capable of guaranteeing complete protection. From a military perspective, that assumption is unrealistic. No missile-defence system is one hundred percent effective, and no responsible military professional would claim otherwise.
The challenge is inherent in the nature of the problem itself. Missile defence is not simply about launching an interceptor against an incoming target. It requires the rapid integration of detection, tracking, identification, decision-making and engagement systems, often within a very limited timeframe and under highly demanding operational conditions.
In broad terms, missile defence seeks to detect, engage and destroy an incoming threat before it can reach its intended target. A missile shield is therefore not a single weapon but a layered architecture that combines sensors, radar systems, command-and-control networks and interceptor missiles designed to counter ballistic threats.
Geography and timing are critical. Whenever possible, a ballistic missile should be intercepted as far away from the defended territory as circumstances allow. The earlier a threat can be detected and engaged, the greater the probability of success. Conversely, once a missile enters the terminal phase of its flight, the defender's options become significantly more limited.
It is also important to understand that missile-defence systems do not operate in isolation. They are part of a broader defensive architecture that may include other air- and missile-defence assets, each contributing to the overall effort to reduce risk and increase the probability of interception.
Ultimately, missile defence should be understood not as a guarantee, but as a means of improving security and reducing vulnerability. The objective is to complicate an adversary's calculations and to increase the chances of neutralising a threat, not to create the illusion of absolute protection.
There is also an additional consideration in the case of nuclear weapons. Even if a missile carrying a nuclear warhead were successfully intercepted, the consequences of its destruction would depend on the circumstances under which that interception occurred. This is one of the reasons why missile-defence assets are positioned, whenever possible, at significant distance from the territory they are intended to protect.
For that reason, discussions about missile defence should not focus exclusively on technology. They are equally discussions about deterrence, strategic planning and risk reduction. In the nuclear age, preventing the launch of such weapons remains far preferable to having to intercept them after they are already in flight.
Adrian Leonard Mociulschi: Thank you for your time, General, and for helping us better understand some of the most consequential security challenges facing the world today.
Beyond Deterrence
Romania is not merely observing the return of strategic competition. Through its role within NATO's missile-defence architecture, including the Aegis Ashore site at Deveselu and the Patriot systems operated by the Romanian Armed Forces, it contributes directly to the collective effort to deter threats and preserve stability.
Behind these capabilities stand generations of Romanian military professionals who have dedicated their careers to national defence and Allied security. Lieutenant General (Ret.) Corneliu Postu is among those officers whose experience helps bring clarity to some of the most complex challenges facing the contemporary security environment.
In the nuclear age, the greatest victory remains the one in which no one is ever forced to use such weapons.
Comentează