DOCSLIB.ORG

Mass and Elite Views on Nuclear Security US National Security Surveys 1993–1999

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mass and Elite Views on Nuclear Security US National Security Surveys 1993–1999 UNM Institute for Public Policy Mass and Elite Views on Nuclear Security US National Security Surveys 1993–1999 Volume II: Policy Elites UNM Institute for Public Policy The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August 2000 This research was conducted with funding provided by Sandia National Laboratories. Mass and Elite Views on Nuclear Security US National Security Surveys 1993–1999 Volume II: Policy Elites Kerry G. Herron, Ph.D. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith, Ph.D. Scott D. Hughes, Ph.D. Dennis M. Gormley Thomas G. Mahnken, Ph.D. UNM Institute for Public Policy The University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico August 2000 Acknowledgments The authors wish to express appreciation to the following individuals whose support made this project possible. Sandia National Laboratories Roger Hagengruber, Senior Vice President Clyde Layne, Manager National Security and Arms Control National Security Leadership Programs UNM Institute for Public Policy Contributing Staff Transcription Carol Silva Marylou Smith Amy Fromer Carol Brown C. J. Ondek Lisa Page Policy Elites Interviewed 1 David Albright William C. Martel Andrew L. Ross Sidney Bearman James J. Martin Henry Rowen Richard K. Betts Jeffrey S. McKitrick James R. Schlesinger Davis B. Bobrow Jack Mendelsohn Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft General George Lee Butler Charles E. Miller Leon V. Sigal Stephen A. Cambone Marvin Miller Steven Simon William W. Carter Steven E. Miller Leon Sloss Tom Zamora Collina Janne E. Nolan Ambassador David Smith Ambassador Jonathan Dean Robert S. Norris Henry Sokolski Sidney Drell Robert Nurick John D. Steinbruner Michele Flournoy David Ochmanek Jessica Stern Alton Frye Keith B. Payne Frank J. Thomas Frank W. Gaffney, Jr. Vice Adm. John Poindexter Stephen W. Van Evera John Isaacs Barry Posen General Larry D. Welch Spurgeon M. Keeny, Jr. George W. Rathjens Cindy Williams Daryl G. Kimball Victor H. Reis Philip Williams Ronald Lehman Stephen P. Rosen 1 Brief notations about the professional associations and qualifications of each participant are provided in Chapter One. ii Abstract As the first decade of the post-Cold War era comes to a close, policy makers and citizens can take stock of the lessons learned and continuing uncertainties that characterize this new international security environment. In this volume we provide a resource for “taking stock” through analyzing the results of in- depth interviews with fifty members of the US security policy community con- ducted between June 3, 1999 and March 1, 2000. Participants were chosen for their expertise in nuclear security policy and to illuminate a wide range of rele- vant policy perspectives. This is Volume II of the fourth report in an ongoing series of studies begun in 1993 to examine how mass and elite perspectives about nuclear security are evolving in the post-Cold War era. Areas of investigation in this volume include elite perceptions of the follow- ing: (a) key attributes and implications of the contemporary international secu- rity environment; (b) the evolving nature and requirements of nuclear security; (c) nuclear arms control; (d) US nuclear force structure, posture, and infra- structure; (d) missile defenses; (e) integrated beliefs about nuclear security; and (f) the role of the US general public in security policy processes. Qualitative cross-sectional analysis of verbatim transcripts of the fifty inter- views provides comparisons of the views of these policy elites in their own words. We employ cluster analysis to identify four groups of respondents ex- hibiting similar within group views about nuclear security and large differ- ences in policy perspectives between groups. We compare these patterns to the results of cluster analysis of a national sample of the US general public. In Volume I we present findings from a nationwide telephone survey of ran- domly selected members of the US general public conducted from September 13 to October 14, 1999. To analyze trends, we compare results to findings from previous surveys in this series conducted in 1993, 1995, and 1997. iii Intentionally Blank iv Contents: Volume II Front Matter Acknowledgments ii Abstract iii Contents v Executive Guide for the Reader ix Chapter One: Introduction and Overview 1 Section 1.1: Project Goal 1 Section 1.2: Conceptual Approach 2 Section 1.3: Analytic Model 3 Section 1.4: Research Design 5 Section 1.5: Data Collection 6 Section 1.6: Data Analysis 12 Section 1.7: Organization of Volume II 17 Chapter Two: International Security Environment 19 Section 2.1: Characterizing Today’s Security Environment 20 Section 2.2: Implications for Managing Security 23 Section 2.3: Assessing Russia 29 Section 2.4: Assessing China 34 Section 2.5: Nuclear Proliferation 39 Section 2.6: Mass Casualty Terrorism 46 Section 2.7: Characterizing Group Views 53 Chapter Three: Evolving Nature of Nuclear Security 59 Section 3.1: Risks and Benefits of Nuclear Weapons 59 Section 3.2: Nuclear Deterrence and the Cold War 63 Section 3.3: Nuclear Deterrence Today 67 Section 3.4: The Future Efficacy of Nuclear Deterrence 73 Section 3.5: Extended Nuclear Deterrence 76 Section 3.6: Existential Nuclear Deterrence 80 Section 3.7: Deterring Biological and Chemical Attacks 84 v Section 3.8: The Role of Precision Guided Munitions 96 Section 3.9: Characterizing Group Views 104 Chapter Four: Nuclear Arms Control 109 Section 4.1: Viability of Strategic Arms Control 109 Section 4.2: Views About Unilateral Nuclear Initiatives 116 Section 4.3: Shape of START III 119 Section 4.4: Transparency and Verification 122 Section 4.5: Future Arms Control Directions 124 Section 4.6: Views About the CTBT 127 Section 4.7: Characterizing Group Views 138 Chapter Five: Nuclear Forces and Infrastructure 143 Section 5.1: US Nuclear Force Structure 143 Section 5.2: US Nuclear Force Posture 157 Section 5.3: US Nuclear Infrastructure 172 Section 5.4: Characterizing Group Views 184 Chapter Six: Missile Defenses 189 Section 6.1: Perspectives on the Ballistic Missile Threat 189 Section 6.2: Perspectives on Theater Missile Defenses 192 Section 6.3: National Missile Defenses and Nuclear Deterrence 194 Section 6.4: Relationship Between Offensive and Defensive Forces 196 Section 6.5: Effectiveness of National Missile Defenses 199 Section 6.6: Implications for the ABM Treaty 201 Section 6.7: Responses to Deploying National Missile Defenses 203 Section 6.8: Characterizing Group Views 205 Chapter Seven: Beliefs About Nuclear Security 209 Section 7.1: Conceptualizing Nuclear Abolition 209 Section 7.2: Reconciling Nuclear Weapons and US Values 225 vi Section 7.3: Justifying the Employment of Nuclear Weapons 230 Section 7.4: Characterizing Group Views 235 Chapter Eight: Elite Views of the Public and Nuclear Security 239 Section 8.1: Traditional Role of the Public in Nuclear Security Policy 240 Section 8.2: Public Capacity to Understand and Participate 252 Section 8.3: Elite Preferences About the Role of the General Public 256 Section 8.4: Characterizing Group Views 261 Chapter Nine: Comparing Mass and Elite Perspectives 265 Section 9.1: Comparing Expectations About Publics 265 Section 9.2: Characterizing Mass and Elite Views 267 Section 9.3: Relating Patterns Among Mass and Elite Publics 272 Section 9.4: Implications for Security Policy Processes 278 Section 9.5: Bottom Lines 282 Appendix 1: Research Methodology 285 Section A1.1: Sampling 285 Section A1.2: Respondent Protections 287 Section A1.3: Initial Contact and Scheduling 287 Section A1.4: Data Collection 288 Section A1.5: Data Coding and Analysis 297 Annex A: Consent Form 305 Annex B: Topical Outline 306 Annex C: Interviewer’s Guide 307 Appendix 2: Elite Focus Group 311 Section A2.1: Participants 312 vii Section A2.2: Security Environment and Threats to US Security 313 Section A2.3: Relevance of Nuclear Weapons 319 Section A2.4: US Nuclear Force Structure and Posture 324 Section A2.5: Security Policy Processes and the Public 331 Glossary 335 References 337 viii Volume II: Executive Guide for the Reader This is the second volume of a two-volume report summarizing findings from an ongoing research project to study mass and elite views about nuclear security in the post-Cold War environment. This Executive Guide provides an overview of topics by chapter and a quick reference to key points of interest for the reader. In Volume I of the report, we analyze results from a nationwide survey of the general public conducted between September 13 and October 14, 1999. We compare findings with those from three previous surveys of the general public conducted in 1993, 1995, and 1997. In Volume II we comparatively analyze views about nuclear security expressed during in-depth interviews with fifty members of the US security policy community between June 3, 1999 and March 1, 2000. The following table outlines our ongoing study series. PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III PHASE IV Survey: September– June 1993– September– June– October 1999 COLLECTION PERIODS March 1994 November 1995 November 1997 Interviews: June1999– March 2000 • General Public: • General Public: • General Public: • General Public: N = 1,301 N = 2,490 N = 1,639 N = 1,483 RESPONDENT • Union of Con- • American Men & • Policy Elites: GROUPS cerned Scientists: Women of Science: N = 50 N = 1,155 N = 1,212 • US National Labs: • State Legislators: N = 1,226 N = 603 • General Public: • General Public: • General Public: • General Public: Telephone Telephone Telephone Telephone COLLECTION • Union of Con- • American Men & • Policy Elites: METHODS cerned Scientists: Women of Science: Face-to-face Mail Mail interviews • US National Labs: • State Legislators: Mail Mail • Nuclear security • Nuclear security • Nuclear security • Nuclear security • Philosophical • US/Russian nu- • US/Russian nu- • Precision guided KEY LINES OF approaches to clear cooperation clear cooperation munitions INVESTIGATION science and • Personal security • Critical infrastruc- • Response options research tures • National missile • Science policy defenses ix Chapter One: Introduction and Overview Project Goal (p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Revisiting South Africa's Nuclear Weapons Program
    REVISITING SOUTH AFRICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM ITS HISTORY, DISMANTLEMENT, AND LESSONS FOR TODAY Institute for Science and International Security The Institute for Science and International Security is a non- profit, non- partisan institution dedicated to informing the public about science and policy issues affecting international security. Its primary focus is on stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology to additional nations and to terrorists, bringing about greater transparency of nuclear activities worldwide, strengthening the international non- proliferation regime, and achieving deep cuts in nuclear arsenals. Copyright © 2016 by Institute for Science and International Security Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) Press 440 1st Street NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20001 USA www.isis- online.org @TheGoodISIS Library of Congress Control Number: 2016912653 CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform North Charleston, SC ISBN-13: 978-1536845655 ISBN-10: 1536845655 Front cover photograph credits: Armscor and Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa Limited. All unsourced photos in the book are from David Albright. REVISITING SOUTH AFRICA’S NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM ITS HISTORY, DISMANTLEMENT, AND LESSONS FOR TODAY DAVID ALBRIGHT WITH ANDREA STRICKER institute for science and international security june 2016 Dedicated to all those who strive for a world free of nuclear weapons. CONTENTS Preface, ix Acknowledgements, xi Chapter 1: Laying the Foundation, 1 Chapter 2: Developing Nuclear Devices,
    [Show full text]
  • Ackerman, Bruce
    e Decline and Fall of the American Republic BRUCE ACKERMAN T T L H V­ Delivered at Princeton University April – , is Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale and the author of een books that have had a broad inuence in political philosophy, constitutional law, and public policy. His major works include Social Justice in the Liberal State and his multivolume con- stitutional history, We the People. His most recent books are e Failure of the Founding Fathers () and Before the Next Attack (). His book e Stake Holder Society (with Anne Alstott) served as a basis for Tony Blair’s recent introduction of child investment accounts in the United Kingdom, and his book Deliberation Day (with James Fishkin) served as a basis for PBS Deliberation Day, a national series of citizen deliberations produced by McNeill-Lehrer on national television for the elec- tions. He also writes for the general public, contributing frequently to the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times, and has served, without charge, as a lawyer on matters of public importance. He was a lead witness for President Clinton before the House Judiciary Com- mittee’s Impeachment Hearings and a principal spokesman for Al Gore before the Florida legislature during the election crisis of . Professor Ackerman is a member of the American Law Institute and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He is a Commander of the French Order of Merit and the recipient of the American Philosophical Society’s Henry Phillips Prize for Lifetime Achievement in Jurisprudence. LECTURE I. AN EXTREMIST PRESIDENCY Constitutional thought is in a triumphalist phase.
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D
    Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D. Baum Global Catastrophic Risk Institute http://sethbaum.com * http://gcrinstitute.org Futures 72: 69-79. This version 14 October 2015. Abstract Large-scale nuclear war sends large quantities of smoke into the stratosphere, causing severe global environmental effects including surface temperature declines and increased ultraviolet radiation. The temperature decline and the full set of environmental effects are known as nuclear winter. This paper surveys the range of actions that can confront the threat of nuclear winter, both now and in the future. Nuclear winter can be confronted by reducing the probability of nuclear war, reducing the environmental severity of nuclear winter, increasing humanity’s resilience to nuclear winter, and through indirect interventions that enhance these other interventions. While some people may be able to help more than others, many people—perhaps everyone across the world—can make a difference. Likewise, the different opportunities available to different people suggests personalized evaluations of nuclear winter, and of catastrophic threats more generally, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. Keywords: catastrophic threats, global catastrophic risk, nuclear war, nuclear winter, risk reduction 1. Introduction The explosion of nuclear weapons causes enormous fireballs, burning everything in the vicinity. Most of the ensuing smoke rises past the clouds, into the stratosphere, where it spreads around the world and remains for a time on the order of ten to twenty years. A large enough nuclear war would send up so much smoke that the global environment would be fundamentally altered. Surface temperatures and precipitation would decline, while ultraviolet radiation increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008
    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS.
    [Show full text]
  • Imports-Exports Enterprise’: Understanding the Nature of the A.Q
    Not a ‘Wal-Mart’, but an ‘Imports-Exports Enterprise’: Understanding the Nature of the A.Q. Khan Network Strategic Insights , Volume VI, Issue 5 (August 2007) by Bruno Tertrais Strategic Insights is a bi-monthly electronic journal produced by the Center for Contemporary Conflict at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of NPS, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Introduction Much has been written about the A.Q. Khan network since the Libyan “coming out” of December 2003. However, most analysts have focused on the exports made by Pakistan without attempting to relate them to Pakistani imports. To understand the very nature of the network, it is necessary to go back to its “roots,” that is, the beginnings of the Pakistani nuclear program in the early 1970s, and then to the transformation of the network during the early 1980s. Only then does it appear clearly that the comparison to a “Wal-Mart” (the famous expression used by IAEA Director General Mohammed El-Baradei) is not an appropriate description. The Khan network was in fact a privatized subsidiary of a larger, State-based network originally dedicated to the Pakistani nuclear program. It would be much better characterized as an “imports-exports enterprise.” I. Creating the Network: Pakistani Nuclear Imports Pakistan originally developed its nuclear complex out in the open, through major State-approved contracts. Reprocessing technology was sought even before the launching of the military program: in 1971, an experimental facility was sold by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) in 1971.
    [Show full text]
  • Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
    Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Paul K. Kerr Analyst in Nonproliferation Mary Beth Nikitin Specialist in Nonproliferation August 1, 2016 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL34248 Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons Summary Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal probably consists of approximately 110-130 nuclear warheads, although it could have more. Islamabad is producing fissile material, adding to related production facilities, and deploying additional nuclear weapons and new types of delivery vehicles. Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is widely regarded as designed to dissuade India from taking military action against Pakistan, but Islamabad’s expansion of its nuclear arsenal, development of new types of nuclear weapons, and adoption of a doctrine called “full spectrum deterrence” have led some observers to express concern about an increased risk of nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India, which also continues to expand its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan has in recent years taken a number of steps to increase international confidence in the security of its nuclear arsenal. Moreover, Pakistani and U.S. officials argue that, since the 2004 revelations about a procurement network run by former Pakistani nuclear official A.Q. Khan, Islamabad has taken a number of steps to improve its nuclear security and to prevent further proliferation of nuclear-related technologies and materials. A number of important initiatives, such as strengthened export control laws, improved personnel security, and international nuclear security cooperation programs, have improved Pakistan’s nuclear security. However, instability in Pakistan has called the extent and durability of these reforms into question. Some observers fear radical takeover of the Pakistani government or diversion of material or technology by personnel within Pakistan’s nuclear complex.
    [Show full text]
  • Title: the Distribution of an Illustrated Timeline Wall Chart and Teacher's Guide of 20Fh Century Physics
    REPORT NSF GRANT #PHY-98143318 Title: The Distribution of an Illustrated Timeline Wall Chart and Teacher’s Guide of 20fhCentury Physics DOE Patent Clearance Granted December 26,2000 Principal Investigator, Brian Schwartz, The American Physical Society 1 Physics Ellipse College Park, MD 20740 301-209-3223 [email protected] BACKGROUND The American Physi a1 Society s part of its centennial celebration in March of 1999 decided to develop a timeline wall chart on the history of 20thcentury physics. This resulted in eleven consecutive posters, which when mounted side by side, create a %foot mural. The timeline exhibits and describes the millstones of physics in images and words. The timeline functions as a chronology, a work of art, a permanent open textbook, and a gigantic photo album covering a hundred years in the life of the community of physicists and the existence of the American Physical Society . Each of the eleven posters begins with a brief essay that places a major scientific achievement of the decade in its historical context. Large portraits of the essays’ subjects include youthful photographs of Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, and Richard Feynman among others, to help put a face on science. Below the essays, a total of over 130 individual discoveries and inventions, explained in dated text boxes with accompanying images, form the backbone of the timeline. For ease of comprehension, this wealth of material is organized into five color- coded story lines the stretch horizontally across the hundred years of the 20th century. The five story lines are: Cosmic Scale, relate the story of astrophysics and cosmology; Human Scale, refers to the physics of the more familiar distances from the global to the microscopic; Atomic Scale, focuses on the submicroscopic This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government.
    [Show full text]
  • ASD-Covert-Foreign-Money.Pdf
    overt C Foreign Covert Money Financial loopholes exploited by AUGUST 2020 authoritarians to fund political interference in democracies AUTHORS: Josh Rudolph and Thomas Morley © 2020 The Alliance for Securing Democracy Please direct inquiries to The Alliance for Securing Democracy at The German Marshall Fund of the United States 1700 18th Street, NW Washington, DC 20009 T 1 202 683 2650 E [email protected] This publication can be downloaded for free at https://securingdemocracy.gmfus.org/covert-foreign-money/. The views expressed in GMF publications and commentary are the views of the authors alone. Cover and map design: Kenny Nguyen Formatting design: Rachael Worthington Alliance for Securing Democracy The Alliance for Securing Democracy (ASD), a bipartisan initiative housed at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, develops comprehensive strategies to deter, defend against, and raise the costs on authoritarian efforts to undermine and interfere in democratic institutions. ASD brings together experts on disinformation, malign finance, emerging technologies, elections integrity, economic coercion, and cybersecurity, as well as regional experts, to collaborate across traditional stovepipes and develop cross-cutting frame- works. Authors Josh Rudolph Fellow for Malign Finance Thomas Morley Research Assistant Contents Executive Summary �������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 1 Introduction and Methodology ��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]
  • Kazan Kremlin (Russian Federation) No
    Category of property Kazan Kremlin (Russian Federation) In terms of the categories of cultural property set out in Article 1 of the 1972 World Heritage Convention, this is a group of buildings. No 980 History and Description History The first human occupation in the Kazan area goes back to Identification the 7th and 8th millennia BCE; there are traces of the Bronze Age (2nd to 1st millennia, late Kazan area settlement), early Nomination Historical and Architectural Complex of Iron Age (8th to 6th centuries BCE, Ananin culture), and the Kazan Kremlin early medieval period (4th–5th centuries CE, Azelin culture). From the 10th to 13th centuries Kazan was a pre-Mongol Location Republic of Tatarstan, City of Kazan Bulgar town. Today’s Kremlin hill consisted then of a fortified trading settlement surrounded by moats, State Party Russian Federation embankments, and a stockade. A stone fortress was built in the 12th century and the town developed as an outpost on the Date 29 June 1999 northern border of Volga Bulgaria. The so-called Old Town extended eastward, on the site of the former Kazan Monastery of Our Lady. The fortress was demolished on the instructions of the Mongols in the 13th century. A citadel was then built as the seat of the Prince of Kazan, including the town’s administrative and religious institutions. By the Justification by State Party first half of the 15th century, the town had become the capital The Kazan Kremlin is a unique and complex monument of of the Muslim Principality of Bulgaria, with administrative, archaeology, history, urban development, and architecture.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterrence and Extended Deterrence: Key Terms and Definitions
    Deterrence and Extended Deterrence Key Terms and Definitions Jeffrey A. Larsen, Ph.D. Read Ahead Material for PPNT Presentation, UCSD/IGCC, San Diego 23 July 2010 Deterrence Prevention of action by fear of negative consequences A state of mind in one’s adversary, brought about by a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction Credibility = capability + will Purpose: convince a party not to take some action by threatening the destruction of something he considers to be of great value, or by denying him achieving his objectives The opposite of compellence (getting another party to do something they do not want to do) Deterrence by punishment A doctrine used to deter an adversary by threatening the destruction of something he values, such as population centers, key cultural sites, the leadership, or military forces. Deterrence by denial The strategic doctrine used to deter an adversary by denying him the ability to achieve his objectives; this may include a combination of counterforce targeting and active and passive defenses Mutual assured destruction The ability of both sides to guarantee the destruction of the adversary even after suffering from a nuclear first strike. Secure second strike The forces, planning, and basing to ensure that enough offensive striking power remains after a devastating nuclear first strike to still guarantee the destruction of the adversary’s society. Techniques for ensuring a secure second strike may include hardening, dispersal, camouflage, placing forces on alert, or increasing the number of delivery systems. Societal vulnerability The perceived requirement to ensure that both sides’ populations were vulnerable to strategic attack in order to ensure stability between two adversaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Air and Space Power Journal: Winter 2009
    SPINE AIR & SP A CE Winter 2009 Volume XXIII, No. 4 P OWER JOURN Directed Energy A Look to the Future Maj Gen David Scott, USAF Col David Robie, USAF A L , W Hybrid Warfare inter 2009 Something Old, Not Something New Hon. Robert Wilkie Preparing for Irregular Warfare The Future Ain’t What It Used to Be Col John D. Jogerst, USAF, Retired Achieving Balance Energy, Effectiveness, and Efficiency Col John B. Wissler, USAF US Nuclear Deterrence An Opportunity for President Obama to Lead by Example Group Capt Tim D. Q. Below, Royal Air Force 2009-4 Outside Cover.indd 1 10/27/09 8:54:50 AM SPINE Chief of Staff, US Air Force Gen Norton A. Schwartz Commander, Air Education and Training Command Gen Stephen R. Lorenz Commander, Air University Lt Gen Allen G. Peck http://www.af.mil Director, Air Force Research Institute Gen John A. Shaud, USAF, Retired Chief, Professional Journals Maj Darren K. Stanford Deputy Chief, Professional Journals Capt Lori Katowich Professional Staff http://www.aetc.randolph.af.mil Marvin W. Bassett, Contributing Editor Darlene H. Barnes, Editorial Assistant Steven C. Garst, Director of Art and Production Daniel M. Armstrong, Illustrator L. Susan Fair, Illustrator Ann Bailey, Prepress Production Manager The Air and Space Power Journal (ISSN 1554-2505), Air Force Recurring Publication 10-1, published quarterly, is the professional journal of the United States Air Force. It is designed to serve as an open forum for the http://www.au.af.mil presentation and stimulation of innovative thinking on military doctrine, strategy, force structure, readiness, and other matters of national defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembrance of Things Past the Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons
    Remembrance of Things Past The Enduring Value of Nuclear Weapons James Wood Forsyth Jr. B. Chance Saltzman, Colonel, USAF Gary Schaub Jr. So long as there is a finite chance of war, we have to be interested in outcomes; and although all outcomes would be bad, some would be very much worse than others. —Bernard Brodie Much has been written about nuclear weapons, but what has been learned? Once an essential element of American foreign and defense policy, these matters were neglected after the Cold War and all but forgotten after September 11th. As the Schlesinger Commission concluded, “Because nu­ clear weapons have been less prominent since the end of the Cold War and have not been used since World War II, their importance and unique role as a deterrent have been obscured though not diminished.”1 Recent inci­ dents of mismanagement of the US nuclear weapons enterprise, the acqui­ sition of atomic weapons by North Korea, Iran’s apparent quest for such weapons, the expiration of the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) and negotiation of its replacement with Russia, and the decision to engage in a nuclear posture review have brought the attention of policy makers James Wood Forsyth Jr., PhD, currently serves as professor of national security studies, USAF School of Ad­ vanced Air and Space Studies, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He earned his PhD at the Josef Korbel School of Inter­ national Studies, University of Denver. He has written on great-power war, intervention, and nuclear issues. Col B. Chance Saltzman is chief, Strategic Plans and Policy Division, Headquarters Air Force.
    [Show full text]