DOCSLIB.ORG

Siloed-Thinking.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Siloed-Thinking.Pdf 1 siloed thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent ABOUT FAS The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) is an independent, nonpartisan think tank that brings together members of the science and policy communities to collaborate on mitigating global catastrophic threats. Founded in November 1945 as the Federation of Atomic Scientists by scientists who built the first atomic bombs during the Manhattan Project, FAS is devoted to the belief that scientists, engineers, and other technically trained people have the ethical obligation to ensure that the technological fruits of their intellect and labor are applied to the benefit of humankind. In 1946, FAS rebranded as the Federation of American Scientists to broaden its focus to prevent global catastrophes. Since its founding, FAS has served as an influential source of information and rigorous, evidence- based analysis of issues related to national security. Specifically, FAS works to reduce the spread and number of nuclear weapons, prevent nuclear and radiological terrorism, promote high standards for the safety and security of nuclear energy, illuminate government secrecy practices, and prevent the use of biological and chemical weapons. The Nuclear Information Project provides the public with reliable information about the status and trends of the nuclear weapons arsenals of the world’s nuclear-armed countries. The project, which according to the Washington Post is “one of the most widely sourced agencies for nuclear warhead counts,” uses open sources such as official documents, testimonies, previously undisclosed information obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, as well as independent analysis of commercial satellite imagery as the basis for developing the best available unclassified estimates of the status and trends of nuclear weapons worldwide. The project also conducts analysis of the role of nuclear weapons and provides recommendations for responsibly reducing the numbers and role of nuclear weapons. The research is mainly published on the FAS Strategic Security Blog, in the Nuclear Notebook in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the World Nuclear Forces overview in the SIPRI Yearbook, as well as in magazines. As a primary source for reliable information on nuclear weapons, the project is a frequent advisor to governments, parliamentarians, the news media, institutes, and non-governmental organizations. FAS can be reached at 1112 16th St. NW. Suite 400, Washington, DC, 20036, [email protected], or through fas.org. Copyright © Federation of American Scientists, 2021. All rights reserved. Cover image: ICBM Prime Team, “Minuteman Weapon System History and Description,” 2001. 2 siloed thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent AUTHOR att Korda is a Research Associate for the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation M of American Scientists, where he co-authors the Nuclear Notebook with Hans Kristensen. Previously, he worked for the Arms Control, Disarmament, and WMD Non- Proliferation Centre at NATO HQ in Brussels. Matt is also the co-director of Foreign Policy Generation––a group of young people working to develop a progressive foreign policy for the next generation. He received his MA in International Peace & Security from the Department of War Studies at King’s College London. Matt’s research interests and recent publications focus on nuclear deterrence and disarmament, progressive foreign policy, and the nexus between nuclear weapons, climate change, and injustice. Matt’s work has been widely published and quoted in The Washington Post, Forbes, CBC, Politico, The Nation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Defense One, Inkstick, 38 North, Arms Control Wonk, and others. Matt is Ploughshares Fund’s 2020 Olum Fellow, a 2019 alumnus of the Wilson Center’s Nuclear History Boot Camp, and a 2019 CSIS Nuclear Scholar. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author is deeply grateful for the generous support from Ploughshares Fund and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, without which this work would not have been possible. The author is especially grateful to Tricia White for her invaluable contributions throughout this project, and particularly with research, coordination, and polling. The author is also very grateful to Hans Kristensen for providing critical support for this project, as well as to the many individuals who took time to offer comments on earlier drafts or individual chapters of this report, including Hans Kristensen, Steve Fetter, William Hartung, Kingston Reif, Doug Shaw, Jessica Sleight, Frank Von Hippel, Tricia White, and Amy Woolf, as well as several other experts who took the time to provide feedback. The author also owes a special thanks to John Carl Baker, Piers Mitchem, Alex Wellerstein, Jon Wolfsthal, Mercedes Trent, and Erin Connolly for their critical contributions and support for this project, as well as to Kate Kohn for her incredible design work. The author also wishes to thank the current and former members of the Federation of American Scientists, and a very special thanks to Eva Galanes-Rosenbaum, John Pope, Beau Salant, and others at Rethink Media who coordinated our polling and associated media efforts. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the author. Please direct all inquiries to Matt Korda, Research Associate for the Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists ([email protected]). Visit https://fas.org/issues/icbm-information-project/ for more information about the ICBM Information Project. 3 siloed thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent TABLE OF CONTENTS introduction 6 executive summary 8 I. The uncertain history of the nuclear “triad” 12 The organizational politics of ICBMs 12 Competing missiles, competing doctrines 15 The “Triad” as strategic nomenclature 17 II. Challenging the Strategic Requirement for ICBMs 20 The role of ICBMs in US nuclear strategy 21 ICBMs invite a devastating attack on the United States 22 ICBMs have significant limitations in addressing 21st century deterrence challenges 27 ICBMs are uniquely destabilizing weapon systems 29 ICBMs would not be necessary under a revised nuclear posture 33 ICBMs are not needed to hedge against submarine vulnerability 38 iII. the enhanced capabilities of the post-cold war icbm force 46 Guidance Replacement Program (GRP) 47 Safety Enhanced Reentry Vehicle (SERV) 49 Rapid Execution and Combat Targeting (REACT) System 50 ICBM Fuze Modernization Program 51 The Pentagon’s flawed assessment metrics 53 iV. “Pork and Butter:” The Influence of the Senate ICBM Coalition 55 The success of the Senate ICBM Coalition 58 GBSD is not a useful avenue for job creation 64 The militarization of American society 66 v. Ground-based strategic deterrent: Program detAILS 68 4 siloed thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent vi. The flawed assumptions behind the gbsd program 72 What capability gaps would the GBSD need to fill? 73 Does GBSD actually maintain the large solid rocket motor industrial base? 75 Is subcomponent commonality feasible––or wise? 82 Is GBSD cheaper than life-extending the Minuteman III? 85 vii. Exploring possibilities for a minuteman iii life-extension 91 The role of presidential guidance 98 Pursuing GBSD is riskier than life-extending Minuteman III 101 viiI. Public perceptions of the us intercontinental ballistic missile force 107 Americans believe that the United States has too many nuclear weapons 107 Nuclear weapons investments do not create a sense of safety 108 Investments in social priorities are more popular than new nuclear weapons. 110 Support for phasing out ICBMs with a guaranteed economic offset 112 Support for delaying and reviewing GBSD, while life-extending Minuteman III 114 Low levels of support for GBSD 115 Conclusion 118 ABBREVIATIONS 119 5 siloed thinking: A Closer Look at the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent introduction The Pentagon is planning to replace its current arsenal of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) with a brand-new missile force, known as the Ground-Based Strategic Deterrent, or GBSD. The GBSD program consists of a like-for-like replacement of all 400 Minuteman III missiles that are currently deployed across Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming, and will also include a full set of test-launch missiles, as well as upgrades to the launch facilities, launch control centers, and other supporting infrastructure. The GBSD program will keep ICBMs in the United States’ nuclear arsenal until 2075, and is estimated to cost approximately $100 billion (in Then-Year dollars) in acquisition fees and $264 billion (in Then-Year dollars) throughout its life-cycle. However, critics of the GBSD program––which include a chorus of former military commanders and Secretaries of Defense, top civilian officials, current congressional committee chairs, subject matter experts, and grassroots groups––are noting a growing number of concerns over the program’s increasing costs, tight schedule, and lack of 21st century national security relevance. Many argue that the GBSD’s price tag is too high amid a plethora of other budgetary pressures. Many also say that alternative deterrence options are available at a much lower cost, such as life- extending the current Minuteman III ICBM force. Despite these concerns, the GBSD program has been accelerated in recent years, apparently in an effort to lock in the system before a new administration could consider reversing it. However, the Pentagon has not offered a convincing
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Air & Space Power Journal, September-October 2012, Volume
    September–October 2012 Volume 26, No. 5 AFRP 10-1 Senior Leader Perspective Driving towards Success in the Air Force Cyber Mission ❙ 4 Leveraging Our Heritage to Shape Our Future Lt Gen David S. Fadok, USAF Dr. Richard A. Raines Features The Air Force’s Individual Mobilization Augmentee Program ❙ 12 Is the Current Organizational Structure Viable? Col Robin G. Sneed, USAFR Lt Col Robert A. Kilmer, PhD, USA, Retired An Evolution in Intelligence Doctrine ❙ 33 The Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance Mission Type Order Capt Jaylan Michael Haley, USAF Joint Targeting and Air Support in Counterinsurgency ❙ 49 How to Move to Mission Command LTC Paul Darling, Alaska Army National Guard Building Partnership Capacity ❙ 65 Operation Harmattan and Beyond Col James H. Drape, USAF Departments 94 ❙ Ira C. Eaker Award Winners 95 ❙ Views An Airman’s Perspective on Mission Command . 95 Col Dale S. Shoupe, USAF, Retired Seeing It Coming: Revitalizing Future Studies in the US Air Force . 109 Col John F. Price Jr., USAF A Misapplied and Overextended Example: Gen J . N . Mattis’s Criticism of Effects-Based Operations . 118 Maj Dag Henriksen, PhD, Royal Norwegian Air Force Academy, US Air Force Research Institute 132 ❙ Historical Highlights Geopolitics versus Geologistics Lt. Col. Harry A. Sachaklian 146 ❙ Ricochets & Replies 154 ❙ Book Reviews Embry-Riddle at War: Aviation Training during World War II . 154 Stephen G. Craft Reviewer: R. Ray Ortensie A Fiery Peace in a Cold War: Bernard Schriever and the Ultimate Weapon . 157 Neil Sheehan Reviewer: Maj Thomas F. Menza, USAF, Retired Khobar Towers: Tragedy and Response . 160 Perry D. Jamieson Reviewer: CAPT Thomas B.
    [Show full text]
  • AFA Aerospace Education Fellows
    Aerospace Education Fellows The Air Force Association proudly names each of individuals and organizations as Aerospace Education Fellows. AFA thanks both the Fellows and their sponsors for their continued support of AFA’s education programs. Doolittle Fellows Outstanding Current Operations (Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (2017), presented by Central Florida Chapter Outstanding Support (Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) 432nd Special Operations Squadron (2017), presented by Central Florida Chapter Groundbreaking Technology (Armed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) Predator – General Atomics (2017), presented by Central Florida Chapter David A. Dietsch (2016), presented by AFA Board of Directors General Robin Rand (2016), presented by Iron Gate Chapter Lt Gen David A. Deptula (2016), presented by Iron Gate Chapter Technology on the Horizon (Global Precision Attack) Small Diameter Bomb II (2016), presented by Central Florida Chapter Technology Today (Global Precision Attack) JDAM TAIL KIT (2016), presented by Central Florida Chapter Deployed Personnel (Global Precision Attack) USAF Deployed Airmen (2016), presented by Central Florida Chapter Current Operations (Global Precision Attack) 336th Fighter Squadron (2016), presented by Central Florida Chapter HQ ACC/A3TW (2015), presented by Central Florida Chapter Angry Kitten EA Pod Team (2015), presented by Central Florida Chapter Capt Brad Dvorak (2015), presented by Central Florida Chapter Alpha-Omega Change Engineering (2015), presented by Central Florida Chapter 705th Combat Training Squadron (2015), presented by Central Florida Chapter Maj Gen Jack Weinstein (2015), presented by Iron Gate Chapter Col Samuel Clinton Hinote (2015), presented by Iron Gate Chapter Jerry White (2015), presented by AFA National Directors Scott Van Cleef (2014), presented by AFA National Directors General Mark A. Welsh III (2014), presented by Iron Gate Chapter Major General Garrett Harencak (2014), presented by Iron Gate Chapter Colonel Robert S.
    [Show full text]
  • US Strategic Nuclear Forces
    Order Code RL33640 U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Updated September 5, 2007 Amy F. Woolf Specialist in National Defense Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division U.S. Strategic Nuclear Forces: Background, Developments, and Issues Summary During the Cold War, the U.S. nuclear arsenal contained many types of delivery vehicles for nuclear weapons. The longer range systems, which included long-range missiles based on U.S. territory, long-range missiles based on submarines, and heavy bombers that could threaten Soviet targets from their bases in the United States, are known as strategic nuclear delivery vehicles. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, the United States deployed more than 10,000 warheads on these delivery vehicles. That number has declined to around 6,000 warheads today, and is slated, under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, to decline to 2,200 warheads by the year 2012. At the present time, the U.S. land-based ballistic missile force (ICBMs) consists of 500 Minuteman III ICBMs, each deployed with between one and three warheads, for a total of 1,200 warheads. The Air Force recently deactivated all 50 of the 10- warhead Peacekeeper ICBMs; it plans to eventually deploy Peacekeeper warheads on some of the Minuteman ICBMs. The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) report also indicated that it planned to eliminate 50 of the Minuteman III missiles, leaving a force of 450 missiles that would carry, perhaps, 500-600 warheads. After submitting a study to Congress, the Air Force has begun to deactivate these 50 missiles. The Air Force is also modernizing the Minuteman missiles, replacing and upgrading their rocket motors, guidance systems, and other components.
    [Show full text]
  • 'The Future of Britain's Nuclear Weapons
    org-cdr-cover-final 280306.qxd 17/05/2007 14:24 Page 1 OxfordResearchGroup building bridges for global security In collaboration with Beyond Trident OxfordResearchGroup Oxford Research Group (ORG) is an independent non-governmental organisation (NGO) which works to develop effective methods for people to bring about positive change on issues of national and international security by non-violent means. Established in 1982, it is a registered charity and a “This report covers public company limited by guarantee. In 2003 its founder director Scilla Elworthy was awarded the Niwano Peace Prize for her work with ORG, and in April 2005 The Independent newspaper named the nuclear debate ORG one of the top 20 think tanks in the UK undertaking “blue skies” thinking. comprhensively from all sides of the We carry out and commission research into realistic non-military alternatives to current security THE FUTURE argument. orthodoxy. We publish and disseminate our findings through reports, seminars, consultations and Regardless of their private dialogues. Our practice is to make accurate information available so that open public debate OF BRITAIN’S convictions, the can take place. We also seek to foster dialogue between policy-makers and their critics, to help build bridges of understanding as a means of developing new ideas and making possible significant policy authors make a shifts. ORG seeks to promote more transparent, accountable and informed decision-making compelling case for processes in UK and overseas governments. NUCLEAR a wider debate in Britain about the WEAPONS: future of our About this report nuclear weapon This report is published in the context of a series of inquiries taking place within the Defence capability.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Sexual Assault Court-Martial Summaries 2010 March 2015
    Air Force Sexual Assault Court-Martial Summaries 2010 March 2015 – The Air Force is committed to preventing, deterring, and prosecuting sexual assault in its ranks. This report contains a synopsis of sexual assault cases taken to trial by court-martial. The information contained herein is a matter of public record. This is the final report of this nature the Air Force will produce. All results of general and special courts-martial for trials occurring after 1 April 2015 will be available on the Air Force’s Court-Martial Docket Website (www.afjag.af.mil/docket/index.asp). SIGNIFICANT AIR FORCE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASE SUMMARIES 2010 – March 2015 Note: This report lists cases involving a conviction for a sexual assault offense committed against an adult and also includes cases where a sexual assault offense against an adult was charged and the member was either acquitted of a sexual assault offense or the sexual assault offense was dismissed, but the member was convicted of another offense involving a victim. The Air Force publishes these cases for deterrence purposes. Sex offender registration requirements are governed by Department of Defense policy in compliance with federal and state sex offender registration requirements. Not all convictions included in this report require sex offender registration. Beginning with July 2014 cases, this report also indicates when a victim was represented by a Special Victims’ Counsel. Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, sexual assaults against those 16 years of age and older are charged as crimes against adults. The appropriate disposition of sexual assault allegations and investigations may not always include referral to trial by court-martial.
    [Show full text]
  • Twentieth Air Force - from B-29S to Icbms a Proud Past…A Bright Future
    Twentieth Air Force - From B-29s To ICBMs A Proud Past…A Bright Future by Major General Tom Neary Commander, Twentieth Air Force THE TWENTIETH AIR FORCE LEGACY As I come to work each day, I pass a picture gallery of the former Commanders of Twentieth Air Force. From it, the faces of great leaders like Hap Arnold, Curtis LeMay, and Nathan Twining remind me of the rich heritage of this numbered air force. The great warfighting organization these magnificent Air Force pioneers organized and led during World War II lives on today as "America’s ICBM Team"--modern day professionals carrying on the legacy of air power excellence born in the South Pacific in 1944. We remain linked to the original Twentieth Air Force in many ways. Pictured are Lieutenant Fiske Hanley, WW II veteran, and Captain Keith McCartney, 341st Space Wing, Malmstrom AFB MT. They are past and present representatives of the thousands of courageous airmen who founded, formed and now carry on our superb legacy. Although separated by five decades of history, Hanley and McCartney understand full well how crucial their missions were, and now are to the security of America. They also share another important linkage in history. While Fiske Hanley’s Twentieth Air Force of 1945 employed nuclear weapons to stop a horrible world war, Captain Keith McCartney stands alert in today’s Capt Keith McCartney in command Twentieth Air Force committed to preventing war at a Minuteman III launch control through nuclear deterrence and professional stewardship console of America’s nuclear arsenal. With our legacy as a preface, I invite you to join me on a journey through Twentieth Air Force--from the South Pacific in 1944, to the ICBM fields of rural America today, and on to our bright future as a relevant and important part of America’s national security team.
    [Show full text]
  • Rpioams+Ror^ £W Force. B^&O.^5^T1-H
    rpioAms+ror^ £W Force. B^&o.^5^t1-h^^ri^^f£^.4-/'<^'i HAER NO. NVT-I 38 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD Intermountain Support Office - Denver National Park Service P.O. Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225-0287 HISTORIC AMERICAN ENGINEERING RECORD MALMSTROM AIR FORCE BASE, 546th MISSILE SQUADRON (MINUTEMAN III MISSILE FACILITIES) HAERNO. MT-138 Location: Malmstrom Air Force Base (MAFB) is located near the City of Great Falls, Cascade County, Montana. Its 564th Missile Squadron has five Minuteman III Missile Alert Facilities (Papa, Quebec, Romeo, Sierra and Tango) and 50 associated Launch Facilities. The Missile Alert Facilities (MAFs) are located in Pondera and Toole Counties, Montana, and their associated Launch Facilities (LFs) are in Pondera, Toole, and Chouteau Counties. Present Owner: MAFB, US Air Force (USAF) Date of Construction Constructed as a Minuteman II system in 1965-1966; converted to a Minuteman III system in 1975 Architect: Ralph M. ParsonsCompany Builder: Morrison Knudsen Company and Associates Present Use: Deactivated Minuteman III Missile Alert Facilities (MAF) and Launch Facilities (LF) Significance: The 564th is an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) squadron based at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana. The fifty Minuteman ICBMs maintained and controlled by the 564th Missile Squadron (MS) were integral components of a massive Cold War defense system developed between the early 1960s and mid-1970s. The Minuteman system was designed to protect the United States from a possible nuclear attack as well as to provide a strategic deterrence, a cornerstone of American defense policy of the era. At the peak of the program, the nation's Minuteman arsenal had a total of some 1,000 operational missiles deployed at a series of northern Air Force Bases, including 200 at Malmstrom.
    [Show full text]
  • Airman Posthumously Receives Medal of Honor
    COMMANDER’S CORNER: HIGH-TOUCH LEADERSHIP - PAGE 2 Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado Thursday, August 2, 2018 Vol. 62 No. 31 Airman posthumously receives Medal of Honor HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AFNS) − As a combat controller, Tech. Sgt. John A. Chapman was trained and equipped for immediate deployment into combat operations. Trained to infiltrate in combat and austere environments, he was an experienced static line and military free fall jumper, and combat diver. By Staff Sgt. Ryan Conroy Combat control training is more than two years 24th Special Operations Wing Public Affairs long and amongst the most rigorous in the U.S. military. Only about one in ten Airmen who start the program graduate. HURLBURT FIELD, Fla. (AFNS) — The White From months of rigorous physical fitness train- House announced July 27, 2018, that Air Force ing to multiple joint schools – including military Tech. Sgt. John Chapman will be posthumously SCUBA, Army static-line and freefall, air traffic awarded the Medal of Honor Aug. 22, for his ex- control, and combat control schools – Chapman is traordinary heroism during the Battle of Takur remembered as someone who could do anything Ghar, Afghanistan, in March 2002. put in front of him. According to the Medal of Honor nomination, “One remembers two types of students — Chapman distinguished himself on the battle- the sharp ones and the really dull ones — and field through “conspicuous gallantry and intre- Chapman was in the sharp category,” said Ron pidity,” sacrificing his life to preserve those of his teammates. Childress, a former Combat Control School instructor. Making it look easy Combat Control School is one of the most Chapman enlisted in the Air Force Sept.
    [Show full text]
  • The Rise and Fall of Missiles in the Us Air Force, 1957-1967
    FLAMEOUT: THE RISE AND FALL OF MISSILES IN THE U.S. AIR FORCE, 1957-1967 A Dissertation by DAVID WILLIAM BATH Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Joseph G. Dawson, III Committee Members, Terry H. Anderson Olga Dror Angela Pulley Hudson James Burk Head of Department, David Vaught December 2015 Major Subject: History Copyright 2015 David William Bath ABSTRACT This dissertation documents how the U.S. national perspective toward ballistic nuclear missiles changed dramatically between 1957 and 1967 and how the actions and attitudes of this time brought about long term difficulties for the nation, the Air Force, and the missile community. In 1957, national leaders believed that ballistic missiles would replace the manned bomber and be used to win an anticipated third world war between communist and capitalist nations. Only ten years later, the United States was deep into a limited war in Vietnam and had all but proscribed the use of nuclear missiles. This dissertation uses oral histories, memoirs, service school theses, and formerly classified government documents and histories to determine how and why the nation changed its outlook on nuclear ballistic missiles so quickly. The dissertation contends that because scientists and engineers created the revolutionary weapon at the beginning of the Cold War, when the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were struggling for influence and power, many national leaders urged the military to design and build nuclear ballistic missiles before the Soviet Union could do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Almanac ■ Guide to Air Force Installations Worldwide
    USAFAlmanac ■ Guide to Air Force Installations Worldwide Major Installations Note: A major installation is an Air Force Base, Air Andrews AFB, Md. 20762-5000; 10 mi. SE of 4190th Wing, Pisa, Italy; 31st Munitions Support Base, Air Guard Base, or Air Reserve Base that Washington, D. C. Phone (301) 981-1110; DSN Sqdn., Ghedi AB, Italy; 4190th Air Base Sqdn. serves as a self-supporting center for Air Force 858-1110. AMC base. Gateway to the nation’s (Provisional), San Vito dei Normanni, Italy; 496th combat, combat support, or training operations. capital and home of Air Force One. Host wing: 89th Air Base Sqdn., Morón AB, Spain; 731st Munitions Active-duty, Air National Guard (ANG), or Air Force Airlift Wing. Responsible for Presidential support Support Sqdn., Araxos AB, Greece; 603d Air Control Reserve Command (AFRC) units of wing size or and base operations; supports all branches of the Sqdn., Jacotenente, Italy; 48th Intelligence Sqdn., larger operate the installation with all land, facili- armed services, several major commands, and Rimini, Italy. One of the oldest Italian air bases, ties, and support needed to accomplish the unit federal agencies. The wing also hosts Det. 302, dating to 1911. USAF began operations in 1954. mission. There must be real property accountability AFOSI; Hq. Air Force Flight Standards Agency; Area 1,467 acres. Runway 8,596 ft. Altitude 413 through ownership of all real estate and facilities. AFOSI Academy; Air National Guard Readiness ft. Military 3,367; civilians 1,102. Payroll $156.9 Agreements with foreign governments that give Center; 113th Wing (D. C.
    [Show full text]
  • STRIKING FIRST – Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Project AIR FORCE View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. STRIKINGFIRST Preemptive and Preventive Attack in U.S. National Security Policy KARL P. MUELLER JASEN J. CASTILLO FORREST E. MORGAN NEGEEN PEGAHI BRIAN ROSEN Prepared for the United States Air Force Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Air Force under Contract F49642-01-C-0003.
    [Show full text]
  • RAND History Project Interview: General Bernard Schreiver 5/18/1990
    NATIONAL A.IR AND SPACE !1CSEUM 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 ~1artin collins on _....;:....;1a.;;:.y_l~8.:..,_1_9_9_0_~~____ The ~ape and the manuscript are the property of the undersigned: however, the originals and copies are indefinitely deposited, respec~ivelYI at the National Air and Space Museum of the Smithsonian Ins~itu~ion and at the RAND corpora~ion. 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 ra~her 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 Ins~itution and the RAND Corporation will make reasonable efforts to enforce the condition to the extent possible. CONDI!'::!:ONS (Check one) PUBLIC. THE MATERIAL MAY BE MADE AVAILABLE TO AND MAY BE USED BY ~.NY PERSON FOR .Z>..NY !..AWFUL PURPOSE. I OPEN. This manuscript may be read and the tape heard by persons approved by the smithsonian Ins~itution or by ~he 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 smithsonian or RAND. MY PERMISSION REQU!RED TO QUOTE, CITE OR REPRODUCE.
    [Show full text]