DOCSLIB.ORG

RAND History Project Interview: James Digby 1/14/1992

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Digby NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM RAND CORPORATION JOINT ORAL HISTORY PROJECT ON THE HISTORY OF THE RAND CORPORATION EDITORIAL USE FORM PREFACE This manuscript is based upon a tape-recorded interview conducted by Martin J, Collins on January 14, 1992 The tape and the manuscript are the property of the undersigned: however, the originals and copies are indefinitely deposited, respectively, at the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Institution and at the RAND Corporation. I have read the transcript and have made only minor corrections and emendations. The reader is therefore asked to bear in mind that this manuscript is a record of a spoken conversation rather than a literary product. Though the smithsonian Institution and the RAND Corporation may use these materials for their own purposes as they deem appropriate, I wish to place the condition as selected below upon the use of this interview material by others and I understand that the smithsonian Institution and the RAND Corporation will make reasonable efforts to enforce the condition to the extent possible. CONDITIONS (Check one) v PUBLIC. THE MATERIAL MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO AND MAY BE USED BY ANY PERSON FOR ANY LAWFUL PURPOSE. OPEN. This manuscript may be read and the tape heard by persons approved by the Smithsonian Institution or by the RAND Corporation. The user must agree not to quote from, cite or reproduce by any means this material except with the written permission of the Smithsoniar or. RAND. MY PERMISSION REQUIRED TO QUOTE, CITE OR :?;,; : >'1~0DUCE. This manuscript and the tape are open to !:!;;..:a.i~ination as above. The user must agree not to quote from, cite or reproduce by any means this material except with the written permission of the Smithsonian or RAND in which permission I must join. Upon my death this interview becomes open. EDITORIAL CSE FORM (CONT.} MY PERMISSION REQUIRED FOR ACCESS. - must give writen permission before the manus c~~ pt or tape can be utilized other than by Smithsonian or RAND staff =or official Smithsonian or RAND purposes. Also my permission is required to quote, cite or reproduce by any means. Upon my dea~h the interview becomes open. - ~ r. v~~ (S'gnature) ~ Mr. James Digby (Name, typed) I A)~ 1'(: (Date) James Digby January 14, 1992 TAPE 1, SIDE 1 1-2 Purpose of RAND Strategic Air Power Project, partly in response to fragmentation of RAND work. Roles of Digby, Herman Kahn, Albert Wohlstetter. Power of RAND division heads. 2-4 Continuing tension within RAND between integration across disciplines and smaller projects. Development of program management structure. 4-6 Diversity of views within RAND on nuclear strategy. Issues of research style, differences between Wohlstetter and engineers, later between engineers and associates of Robert McNamara. References to T. Finley Burke, William B. Graham, Natalie Crawford. 6-7 Digby's recollections of Frank Collbohm, Hans Speier, Bernard Brodie, John Williams, Robert Specht. 8 Contribution of engineers, later sense of exclusion. 8-9 Larry Henderson's role as intermediary between Wohlstetter and Air Force, Henderson's relations with Herman Kahn. 9-10 Frank Collbohm's disinterest in civil defense as an area for RAND. RAND interest in passive defense. 10-11 RAND approach to disarmament. References to Louis Sohn, Thomas Schelling. TAPE 1, SIDE 2 11-12 Collbohm's attitudes towards disarmament studies, and influence of Hans Speier. Perspective of Air Force. 12-13 Digby's perspectives on the "RAND strategy." Contrast between Air Force and Department of Defense acceptance of RAND strategic ideas. Roles of McNamara, Charles Hitch, Alain Enthoven. 13 War games and kriegspiel. Wohlstetter mentioned. 13-15 Digby's perspective on RAND turning points: formation of social science department, systems analysis, concept of deterrence, counterforce, increasing public role, influence on NATO strategy. -DIGBY-1 Interviewee: Mr. James Digby Interviewer: Mr. Martin Collins Date: January 14, 1992 Place: RAND Corporation Santa Monica, California TAPE 1, SIDE 1 MR. COLLINS: I wanted to follow up some odds and ends from our previous discussions. I wanted to get a little clearer sense of the Strategic Air [Power] Project (SAP) that you'd mentioned, as kind of a follow-on to the Strategic Objectives Committee (SOC) that happened before the SOFS [Strategic Offensive Force Structure] Study. Did any document come out of that, like the soc document (D-2700), "The Next Ten Years," that kind of made a map of problems and potential approaches for RAND work, or was it more informal than that? MR. DIGBY: I don't recall an overall document. And the group was put together more as a management tool. It wasn't on quite as scholarly a basis as the Strategic Objectives Committee, which really thought of itself as reviewing the ingredients for strategic decisions and discussing them and coming out with some conclusions. The Strategic Air Power Project was more of a way of getting RAND projects to work in coordination across the various department lines. COLLINS: Was this something that Frank [Collbohm] asked for? How did this come to happen? In part I ask that because, as you put it, the triumvirate that was leading this, you and Herman Kahn and Albert Wohlstetter, two of those people weren't especially known for their managerial acuity. [Laughter] So it just raises an interesting question of how it came to be and how the group was decided upon. DIGBY: I'm sure it was decided upon in a management committee meeting. Frank must have agreed to it. The initiative more likely came from someone like Charlie [Charles] Hitch. COLLINS: So the selection of the committee members is not something that stands out in your mind. DIGBY: Well, I think Herman and Albert were considered two of -DIGBY-2 the brightest, most vigorous intellects at RAND, but it was widely felt that they were not easy to manage. They didn't do things in an orderly fashion always, as you pointed out just now. I was at that time a department head and was considered somebody who would get along with both of them and could bring a little more order to the projects. I think the triggering impetus for this was, that over the fifties, RAND periodically realized that there was a fractionation of its talents, because there were a lot of incentives to becoming a project leader, and in some sense that's good, because we had quite a large number of very smart people. To give them their head, you had to give them a project, or at least be a co-leader of a project. But that meant that instead of having the few large projects like the [Edward] Barlow projects or the Wohlstetter projects of the early years, we saw that almost every senior person had his own project number and project, and it made it very hard to get consistent, consecutive work done. People would switch from one project to the other, so the Strategic Air Power Project was intended as a way of countering this fractionalization of RAND work, and was meant to run across the department lines and skills in the way that RAND's earlier projects had done. In other words, it was after a period of disintegration, so to speak, into smaller projects. It was meant to be an integrative idea. COLLINS: What were the incentives or mechanisms you had at your disposal to get people to coordinate and cooperate in the fashion that you were describing? DIGBY: The power was almost all vested in the department heads-­ or division heads, they were. We had both divisions and departments then, as I recall. The division heads were all­ powerful in terms of hiring, firing, salaries, and program. The division heads wanted this done. They were generally quite wise people, like Hitch, [James] Lipp, Gene Root--who may have left by that time, Ed Barlow. They gave the Strategic Air Power Project its authority and backed it up. COLLINS: I don't know how well you can respond to this question, but as we've talked over our several discussions, there seems to be this interesting tension between the development of small individual projects, or small group projects, and the desire to bring together the research effort so that it's concentrated on what are broadly perceived as critical problems and issues. I wonder whether you can give me a sense of the balance of this over time and how difficult it was for RAND to bring together these more massive efforts as opposed to what seemed to be an easier thing to do--the smaller group projects. -DIGBY-3 DIGBY: Well, it was certainly something that came up periodically. After the Strategic Air Power Project did its thing--and I can't remember just how it came to an end. It kind of dwindled in some way.--People like Herman [Kahn] and Albert [Wohlstetter] tend to start doing their own thing, regardless of what a management committee may have decided. The integrative effort in the same general area was tried again with Ed Barlow as Director of Projects and Wohlstetter as his deputy, so it's been something that RAND had tried several times. It hapened rather automatically with a few very smart and integrative people in the early fifties, then it happened by design with the Strategic Air Power Project, and then it happened again by design with the director of projects. After that, along came the [RobertS.] McNamara period, and RAND sort of changed in many ways, although I ~uess I was a part of the next attempt to do something like that.
Recommended publications
  • Albert Wohlstetter's Legacy: the Neo-Cons, Not Carter, Killed

    Albert Wohlstetter's Legacy: the Neo-Cons, Not Carter, Killed

    SPECIAL REPORT: NUCLEAR SABOTAGE ALBERT WOHLSTETTER’S LEGACY Wohlstetter was even stranger than the “Dr. Strangelove” depicted in the 1964 movie of that name. An early draft of the film was titled “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” the same title as Wohlstetter’s best-known unclassified work. Here, a still from the film. tives—Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Zalmay Khalilzad, to name a few. In Wohlstetter’s circle of influence were also Ahmed Chalabi (whom Wohlstetter championed), Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.), Sen. Robert Dole (R- Kan.), and Margaret Thatcher. Wohlstetter himself was a follower of Bertrand Russell, not only in mathematics, but in world outlook. The pseudo-peacenik Russell had called for a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union, after World War II and before the Soviets developed the bomb, as a prelude to his plan for bully- ing nations into a one-world government. Russell, a raving Malthusian, opposed economic development, especially in the Third World. Admirer Jude Wanniski wrote of Wohlstetter in an obituary, “[I]t is no exaggeration, I think, to say that Wohlstetter was the most influential unknown man in the world for the past half century, and easily in the top ten in importance of all men.” “Albert’s decisions were not automat- ically made official policy at the White House,” Wanniski wrote, “but Albert’s The Neo-Cons, Not Carter, genius and his following were such in the places where it counted in the Establishment that if his views were Killed Nuclear Energy resisted for more than a few months, it
  • Discriminate Deterrence

    Discriminate Deterrence

    DISCRIMINATE DETERRENCE Report of The Commission On Integrated Long-Term Strategy Co -C. I lairmea: Fred C. lkle and Albert Wohlstetter Moither, Anne L. Annsinmg Andrew l. Goodraster flenry /1 Kissinger Zbign ei Brzezinski fames L. Holloway, Ur Joshua Lederberg William P. Clark Samuel P. Huntington Bernard A. Schriever tV. Graham Ciaytor, John W. Vessey January 1988 COMMISSION ON INTEGRATED LONG-TERM STRATEGY January 11. 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS We are pleased to present this final report of Our Commission. Pursuant to your initial mandate, the report proposes adjustments to US. military strategy in view of a changing security environment in the decades ahead. Over the last fifteen months the Commission has received valuable counsel from members of Congress, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service Chiefs. and the Presdent's Science Advisor, Members of the National Security Council Staff, numerous professionals in the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, and a broad range of specialists outside the government provided unstinting support. We are also indebted to the Commission's hardworking staff. The Commission was supported generously by several specialized study groups that closely analyzed a number of issues, among them: the security environment for the next twenty years, the role of advanced technology in military systems, interactions between offensive and defensive systems on the periphery of the Soviet Union, and the U.S, posture in regional conflicts around the world. Within the next few months, these study groups will publish detailed findings of their own.
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008

    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.
  • Kahn Used the Metaphor of an 'Escalation Ladder'

    Kahn Used the Metaphor of an 'Escalation Ladder'

    Preventing Nuclear Use: Internationally-Controlled Theater Missile Defenses Among Non- Super-Arsenal States1 Carolyn C. James, PhD University of Missouri, Columbia INTRODUCTION The current debates over missile defenses in the United States all have a common aspect - the systems are meant to provide a defense for US territory, allies, or troops abroad.2 This article proposes a different view with significant security potential. Specifically, theater missile defenses (TMD) should be considered as an international tool to prevent nuclear weapons use among proliferated states.3 Internationally-controlled TMD placed at potential flash points could prevent conflicts and crises from escalating to nuclear levels. These areas include borders with so-called “rogue” states, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all of whom have seemingly aggressive ballistic missile programs and are embroiled in protracted conflicts with their neighbors.4 Similar to the goal of peacekeeping, reducing and limiting conflict in regions such as the Middle East clearly is in the US national interest. How, then, can nuclear use be prevented? Currently, there are seven declared nuclear weapon states (US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Pakistan, India), one non-declared “opaque” nuclear weapon state (Israel), and several states with known or suspected nuclear aspirations (including Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Taiwan). Two of these, the US and Russia, have established a legacy of Cold War deterrence policies. Nuclear deterrence, in particular, has been credited with maintaining crisis stability during those years.5 Today, a major debate in the field of security studies surrounds the question: Does nuclear deterrence really work? A common failure in most of these discussions about successful deterrence and avoiding nuclear use is the lack of distinction among nuclear force levels.6 The debate tends to be clarified by asking whether it was nuclear weapons, or mutual assured destruction (MAD), that kept the Cold War cold.
  • Omnicide “Here Is What We Now Know: the United States and Russia Each Have an Actual Doomsday Machine.”

    Omnicide “Here Is What We Now Know: the United States and Russia Each Have an Actual Doomsday Machine.”

    Omnicide “Here is what we now know: the United States and Russia each have an actual Doomsday Machine.” By Daniel Ellsberg From The Doomsday Machine, published by Bloomsbury. The book is an account of America’s nuclear program in the 1960s drawn from Ellsberg’s experience as a consultant to the Department of Defense and the White House, drafting Secretary Robert McNamara’s plans for nuclear war. Ellsberg is the author of Secrets, a book about his experiences leaking the Pentagon Papers. At the conclusion of his 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick introduced the concept of a “Doomsday Machine”—designed by the Soviet Union to deter nuclear attack against the country by automating the destruction of all human life as a response to such an attack. The movie’s Russian leader had installed the system before revealing it to the world, however, and it was now being triggered by a single nuclear explosion from an American B-52 sent off by a rogue commander without presidential authorization. Kubrick had borrowed the name and the concept of the Doomsday machine from my former colleague Herman Kahn, a Rand physicist with whom he had discussed it. In his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War, Kahn wrote that he would be able to design such a device. It could be produced within ten years and would be relatively cheap— since it could be placed in one’s own country or in the ocean. It would not depend on sending warheads halfway around the world. But, he said, the machine was obviously undesirable. It would be too difficult to control— too inflexible and automatic—and its failure “kills too many people”— everyone, in fact, an outcome that the philosopher John Somerville later termed “omnicide.” Kahn was sure in 1961 that no such system had been built, nor would it be, by either the United States or the Soviet Union.
  • Suspected Soviet Cell Wrote Reagan's Long-Term Strategy

    Suspected Soviet Cell Wrote Reagan's Long-Term Strategy

    Click here for Full Issue of EIR Volume 15, Number 23, June 3, 1988 �TIillFeature Suspected Soviet cell wrote Reagan's long-tenn strategy by Jeffrey Steinberg A tightly organized cell of suspected Soviet moles wrote the Reagan administra­ tion's "semi-official" long-term strategy for dealing with the U.S.S.R. and also played a major hand in drafting the disastrous Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force (INF) treaty that a deluded President Reagan now hopes will earn him and Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachov the Nobel Peace Prize. As shocking as this may sound, Dr. Albert Wohlstetter and Dr. Fred Ikle, the two principal authors of the presidential report, Discriminate Deterrence. have beenidentified to this news service by highly reliabJe U.S. intelligence sources as prime suspects in a Soviet-Israeli "false flag" spy ring first exposed with the November 1985 arrest of Jonathan Jay Pollard and the December 1987 arrest of Shabtai Kalmanowitch. On Feb. 19, 1988, Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodwardpublished a front-page story detailing the Pentagon and CIA's futile search for "Mr. X," the designation for a high-level intelligence community mole who was believed to be providing Pollard with top secret code numbers of classified military documents that Pollard, a counterterrorist analyst at a Naval Investigative Service facility in Suitland, Md., would then pilfer and pass on to Israeli and Soviet intelligence. Shabtai Kalmanowitch, a Russian-born Israeli multi-millionaire, soon to be tried in Israel as a KGB spy, is widely believed to have been one of the Israel-Soviet "back channels" through which the "Mr.
  • Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 104 Rev1 Page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 105 Rev1 Page 105

    Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 104 Rev1 Page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative Hberkc Ch5 Mp 105 Rev1 Page 105

    Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_103 rev1 page 103 part iii Neoconservatism Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_104 rev1 page 104 Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_105 rev1 page 105 chapter five The Neoconservative Journey Jacob Heilbrunn The Neoconservative Conspiracy The longer the United States struggles to impose order in postwar Iraq, the harsher indictments of the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy are becoming. “Acquiring additional burdens by engag- ing in new wars of liberation is the last thing the United States needs,” declared one Bush critic in Foreign Affairs. “The principal problem is the mistaken belief that democracy is a talisman for all the world’s ills, and that the United States has a responsibility to promote dem- ocratic government wherever in the world it is lacking.”1 Does this sound like a Democratic pundit bashing Bush for par- tisan gain? Quite the contrary. The swipe came from Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center and copublisher of National Interest. Simes is not alone in calling on the administration to reclaim the party’s pre-Reagan heritage—to abandon the moralistic, Wilsonian, neoconservative dream of exporting democracy and return to a more limited and realistic foreign policy that avoids the pitfalls of Iraq. 1. Dimitri K. Simes, “America’s Imperial Dilemma,” Foreign Affairs (Novem- ber/December 2003): 97, 100. Hoover Press : Berkowitz/Conservative hberkc ch5 Mp_106 rev1 page 106 106 jacob heilbrunn In fact, critics on the Left and Right are remarkably united in their assessment of the administration. Both believe a neoconservative cabal has hijacked the administration’s foreign policy and has now overplayed its hand.
  • How Scenarios Became Corporate Strategies: Alternative Futures and Uncertainty in Strategic Management

    How Scenarios Became Corporate Strategies: Alternative Futures and Uncertainty in Strategic Management

    HOW SCENARIOS BECAME CORPORATE STRATEGIES: ALTERNATIVE FUTURES AND UNCERTAINTY IN STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT Bretton Fosbrook A Dissertation submitted to The Faculty of Graduate Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Science and Technology Studies York University Toronto, Ontario December 2017 © Bretton Fosbrook, 2017 ABSTRACT How Scenarios Became Corporate Strategies tracks the transformation of scenario planning, a non-calculative technique for imagining alternative futures, from postwar American thermonuclear defense projects to corporate planning efforts beginning in the late 1960s. Drawing on archival research, the dissertation tells a history of how different corporate strategists in the second half of the twentieth century attempted to engage with future uncertainties by drawing heterogeneous and sometimes contradictory rational and intuitive techniques together in their developments of corporate scenario planning. By tracing the heterogeneity of methodologies and intellectual influences in three case studies from corporate scenario planning efforts in the United States and Britain, the dissertation demonstrates how critical and countercultural philosophies that emphasized ‘irrational’ human capacities like imagination, consciousness, and intuition—often assumed to be antithetical to the rule- bound, quantitative rationalities of corporate planning efforts—became crucial tools, rather than enemies, of corporate strategy under uncertainty after 1960. The central argument
  • The Game Theory Narrative and the Myth of the National Security State

    The Game Theory Narrative and the Myth of the National Security State

    Game Theory Narrative | 333 The Game Theory Narrative and the Myth of the National Security State Steven Belletto With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don’t want to be blown up, we don’t want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain. —Barack Obama, September 2004 ou can never underestimate the willingness of the state to act out its own massive fantasies.” So says Eric Deming in the novel Underworld (1997), Don DeLillo’s weighty stocktaking of postwar “Y 1 U.S. culture. As Matt Shay listens, Eric, stoned and introspective, repeats this statement: “You can never unterestimate the villingness of the shtate . to ahkt out its own massif phantasies.” The accented repetition signals that this is a clichéd phrase, likely lifted from some half-remembered antifascist B movie. But the following day, as Matt thinks about the phrase, he wonders if it was not “paying tribute” to “all those émigrés from Middle Europe [who] came to do science in New Mexico during the war.” This speculation is occasioned by a rambling reference Eric wedges between the first statement and its rep- etition: “Eric went on in his stupid voice, talking about problem boxes and minimax solutions, all the kriegspielish stuff they’d studied in grad school, theory of games and patterns of conflict, heads I win, tails you lose.” With this pairing, DeLillo implies a connection between game theory—“minimax solutions, all the kriegspielish stuff”—and fantasies of state control.
  • "Fat Man," the New Yorker (2005): on Herman Kahn and Nuclear Strategy

    "Fat Man," the New Yorker (2005): on Herman Kahn and Nuclear Strategy

    3/8/2017 Fat Man - The New Yorker BOOKS JUNE 27, 2005 IUE FAT MAN Herman Kahn and the nuclear age. By Louis Menand erman Kahn was the heavyweight of the Megadeath Intellectuals, the men who, H in the early years of the Cold War, made it their business to think about the unthinkable, and to design the game plan for nuclear war—how to prevent it, or, if it could not be prevented, how to win it, or, if it could not be won, how to survive it. The collective combat experience of these men was close to nil; their diplomatic experience was smaller. Their training was in physics, engineering, political science, mathematics, and logic, and they worked with the latest in assessment technologies: operational research, computer science, systems analysis, and game theory. The type of war they contemplated was, of course, never waged, but whether this was because of their work or in spite of it has always been a matter of dispute. Exhibit A in the case against them is a book by Kahn, published in 1960, “On Thermonuclear War.” Kahn was a creature of the Corporation, and was a creature of the Air Force. In 1945, when the United States dropped atomic bombs nicknamed Little Boy and Fat Man on Japan, the Air Force was still a branch of the Army. The bomb changed that. An independent Department of the Air Force was created in 1947; the nation’s nuclear arsenal was put under its command; and the Air Force displaced the Army as the prima donna of national defense.
  • INNOVATION Under Austerity

    INNOVATION Under Austerity

    Issue 68, 1st Quarter 2013 INNOVATION Under Austerity European Missile Defense Military Values JOINT FORCE QUARTERLY Inside Issue 68, 1st Quarter 2013 Editor Col William T. Eliason, USAF (Ret.), Ph.D. JFQ Dialogue Executive Editor Jeffrey D. Smotherman, Ph.D. Supervisory Editor George C. Maerz Letters 2 Production Supervisor Martin J. Peters, Jr. From the Chairman Senior Copy Editor Calvin B. Kelley 4 Copy Editor/Office Manager John J. Church, D.M.A Bridging the Basics By Bryan B. Battaglia 6 Internet Publications Editor Joanna E. Seich Director, NDU Press Frank G. Hoffman Forum Design Chris Dunham, Guy Tom, and Jessica Reynolds U.S. Government Printing Office Executive Summary 8 Printed in St. Louis, Missouri by 10 Russia and European Missile Defenses: Reflexive Reset? By Stephen J. Cimbala Military Wisdom and Nuclear Weapons By Ward Wilson 18 NDU Press is the National Defense University’s Managing Foreign Assistance in a CBRN Emergency: The U.S. Government cross-component, professional military and 25 academic publishing house. It publishes books, Response to Japan’s “Triple Disaster” By Suzanne Basalla, William Berger, journals, policy briefs, occasional papers, and C. Spencer Abbot monographs, and special reports on national security strategy, defense policy, interagency 32 Operationalizing Mission Command: Leveraging Theory to Achieve cooperation, national military strategy, regional Capability By Kathleen Conley security affairs, and global strategic problems. Special Feature This is the official U.S. Department of Defense edition of JFQ. Any copyrighted portions of this The 600-pound Gorilla: Why We Need a Smaller Defense Department journal may not be reproduced or extracted without 36 permission of the copyright proprietors.
  • Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter Papers

    Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter Papers

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/kt1489q8rg Online items available Register of the Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter papers Finding aid prepared by Aparna Mukherjee, David Jacobs, Natalia Porfirenko, and Ronald Bulatoff Hoover Institution Library and Archives © 2001, 2007, 2020 434 Galvez Mall Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-6003 [email protected] URL: http://www.hoover.org/library-and-archives Register of the Albert J. and 97076 1 Roberta Wohlstetter papers Title: Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter papers Date (inclusive): 1929-2007 Collection Number: 97076 Contributing Institution: Hoover Institution Library and Archives Language of Material: English Physical Description: 846 manuscript boxes, 5 card file boxes, 8 oversize boxes(343.4 Linear Feet) Abstract: Speeches and writings, correspondence, notes, memoranda, reports, studies, and printed matter relating to American military and national security policy, nuclear warfare strategic planning, and nuclear proliferation issues. Includes the papers of Roberta Wohlstetter, wife of Albert J. Wohlstetter. Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org. Creator: Wohlstetter, Albert Creator: Wohlstetter, Roberta Hoover Institution Library & Archives Access "Boxes 1-61, 201-354, 385-754, 815-821, and 838-859 closed. The remainder of the collection is open for research; materials must be requested at least two business days in advance of intended use." Publication Rights For copyright status, please contact the Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Acquisition Information Materials were acquired by the Hoover Institution Library & Archives in 1997. Preferred Citation [Identification of item], Albert J. and Roberta Wohlstetter papers, [Box no., Folder no. or title], Hoover Institution Library & Archives. Alternate Forms Available Digital copies of select records also available at https://digitalcollections.hoover.org.