NATO (Thorsten Bohlman) NATO
SACEUR and Chairman of NATO military committee visit missile defense exhibition Russia and European Missile Defenses Reflexive Reset?
By Stephen J. Cimbala
he U.S.-Russian “reset” the Russian government and military leader- reach agreement with the United States and appeared to be in free fall in ship on missile defenses and nuclear arms NATO over the future of missile defenses in December 2011 as a result of control is driven by realistic fears and/or Europe.1 Accusing the United States and the T both foreign and domestic resistant forces in Russian domestic politics. Alliance of undermining Russia’s security, policy issues that had dampened enthusiasm It then discusses the possibility that aspects Medvedev censured Washington for its for further momentum. Among the forces of Russian public diplomacy on missile unwillingness to provide a legal guarantee resisting progress on nuclear arms control defenses consist of a “reflexive control” or that the Obama administration’s European was the issue of missile defenses. The fol- other influence operation, directed at both Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) to Euro- lowing discussion examines European (and foreign and domestic audiences. The article pean missile defenses would not be directed other) missile defenses from the Russian then performs data analysis to determine the against Russia.2 The outgoing Russian presi- perspective, with obvious implications for viability of Russian and U.S. strategic nuclear dent presumably spoke with the approval current and future U.S. and North Atlantic deterrents, including scenarios that assume of the current prime minister and probable Treaty Organization (NATO) policies. The antimissile defenses are available. future president Vladimir Putin. article first considers whether the outlook of Facing an imminent election in Russia Russian Rethinking that might have prompted his tougher line Medvedev Stokes Fears. On November with respect to national security issues, Dr. Stephen J. Cimbala is Distinguished Professor 23, 2011, then–Russian President Dmitriy Medvedev outlined a number of responsive of Political Science at the Pennsylvania State Medvedev issued a somber address in which measures that Russia would take if the United University–Brandywine. he declared that Russia had been unable to States and NATO continued to stiff Russia
10 JFQ / issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 ndupress.ndu.edu CIMBALA on missile defense talks. First, Russia would to meet exigent and prospective threats to include use of the media and other sources develop capabilities for “the destruction of its security from conflicts near or within its to influence public and leadership opinion information and control means of the missile borders, including terrorist attacks.8 Besides in other countries and in one’s own state. defense system” deployed in Europe, meaning, growing a more professional military for low- In addition to these two major categories of in plain English, cyberwar. Second, the protec- and mid-intensity wars, Russia must prepare information operations, one might argue tion of Russian facilities for strategic nuclear for a world in which major powers and others for a separate and specifically “cyber” aspect weapons and launchers would be increased. can exploit the information highway for mili- including “the use of military and surrogate Third, nuclear strategic ballistic missiles tary purposes.9 As Jacob W. Kipp has noted: computers to disrupt command and control” would be equipped with new countermea- in countries in conflict with Russia.15 Timothy sures to overcome U.S. and NATO ballistic If the strategic nuclear arsenals have been the L. Thomas, U.S. expert on Russian informa- missile defenses. Fourth, Russia might deploy backbone of deterrence and strategic stability tion warfare, explains: advanced attack systems in its western and for the last half century, it appears that they southern districts capable of striking elements are no longer sufficient to set the general line If an information warfare element under con- of the U.S. and NATO missile defense system, of relations in part because of the reduced sideration is a machine-driven, data-proces- including Iskander ground-to-ground missiles threat perceptions of each side, but also sor component (computers, sensors, satellites, in the Kaliningrad exclave.3 Fifth, Russia might because other military capabilities have taken reconnaissance-strike systems, etc.) then the suspend further cooperation on arms control on greater importance.10 category under consideration is information- and disarmament, and, according to Medve- technical. Electronic warfare would also be dev, “There might be grounds for our country These other military capabilities an element in this field. If the IO element to withdraw from the New START [Strategic include, according to Dr. Kipp, nonstrategic is a human-based, data processor compo- Arms Reduction Treaty].”4 As Medvedev nuclear weapons, missile defenses, con- nent (the brain, which can be influenced or spoke, doubtless the Russian General Staff was ventional systems for prompt, long-range manipulated by propaganda, psychotronics, loading his PowerPoint file with even more offensive strikes, and military transformation nonlethal weapons, or special pharmaceuti- talking points for future briefings. in conventional armed forces driven by devel- cals according to the Russian paradigm), then Although it was apparent that some opments in C4ISR (command, control, com- the issue under consideration is information- of Medvedev’s rhetoric was intended for munications, computers, intelligence, surveil- psychological. Thus, psychological operations domestic political consumption, it would lance, and reconnaissance).11 The United (PSYOPS) are an element of this field.16 be mistaken to infer that his démarche was States, having mastered the information tech- mainly or entirely campaign fodder. Russia’s nology revolution and applied it to military Of course, the actual conduct of military political and military leaders have, from their affairs in the most comprehensive manner, operations or the prewar management of perspective, genuine security needs and con- has arguably provided its commanders the crises can involve both aspects of informa- cerns that are evoked by the U.S. and NATO military-strategic equivalent of a trump card tion operations as defined above. The point missile defense plans.5 For example, although in information-based warfare. The Russian is to understand why and how Russia might the Duma had previously cautioned against military leadership has also sought to exploit be using what the United States would call jettisoning the entire reset process over the electronic spectrum and cyberspace for “influence operations” or the Russians missile defenses, the first deputy chairman of military advantage, as Russia’s war against information-psychological operations to com- the Duma’s foreign affairs committee, Leonid Georgia in August 2008 demonstrated. In that pensate for military-technical deficiencies in Slutsky, warned of inevitable connections: conflict, attacks on Georgian government and hardware, software, and command-control- other Web sites appeared to have been well communications “connectivity.” The biggest success of this new chapter in coordinated with Russian kinetic force opera- If Russia is sincerely concerned about Russian-U.S. relations was the signing of tions, including suspiciously coincidental the possibility of U.S. full-spectrum domi- the New START treaty. But this treaty links timing of starts and stops in activity.12 nance by means of offensive and defensive strategic offensive weapons to missile defense. In addition, Russian military thinking force modernization, network-centric warfare, But the American administration, acting in about information operations (IO) and infor- and enhanced C4ISR, then it follows that Rus- circumvention of all agreements, is now trying mation warfare is quite sophisticated and has sia’s better strategic moves include both dip- to deploy systems near Russian borders that roots in Soviet-era discussions of topics such lomatic forestalling and manipulation, as well threaten our strategic nuclear deterrence as electronic warfare, reconnaissance-strike as substantial investment in military modern- forces.6 complexes, and camouflage and concealment, ization. However, Russia needs to nest these among other subjects.13 Russian military forestalling-manipulation and modernization Additional Challenges for Russia. In writers distinguish between the information- initiatives within a broader geostrategic and addition to the relationship between nuclear technical and the information-psychological diplomatic strategy that fits into present, and offensive retaliatory forces and antimis- aspects of warfare and military operations.14 arguably future, reality. sile strategic defenses, there is the fact that Information-technical aspects have to do with Reflexive Control? An undiplomatic strategic nuclear deterrence per se is but one equipping the force with digital products and finger-pointing by Putin against Secretary element in the Russian geopolitical security neutralizing the enemy’s information systems of State Hillary Clinton over demonstrations calculus.7 Russia faces the need to modern- by means of electronic, cybernetic, or kinetic in Russia in December 2011 was an obvious ize its conventional military forces in order attacks. Information-psychological aspects effort at distraction and buck-passing.17 But it ndupress.ndu.edu issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 / JFQ 11 Forum | Russia and European Missile Defenses also contained elements of disinformation and the conclusion of the New START treaty on detection, threat assessment, and choice of misdirection familiar to students of Cold War strategic nuclear arms reductions signed by response. NATO has demurred at this pro- Soviet military and intelligence practice. The Medvedev and President Barack Obama, posal, preferring to have separately operated concept of reflexive control appeared in Soviet European missile defenses have remained a and maintained U.S.-NATO and Russian military literature decades ago, referring to a serious bone of contention since 2007. This is BMD systems that cooperate in selected means of conveying to another actor specially so regardless of the uncertain technological areas, including a joint data center and shared prepared information that would induce him capabilities of the proposed European missile information about missile warning. Russia “to voluntarily make the predetermined deci- defenses as first proposed by George W. Bush has responded that, unless satisfied on this sion desired by the initiator of the action.”18 and then revised by President Obama.21 issue of joint participation in BMD, and According to Thomas, reflexive control can The reflexive control aspects of Medve- unless reassured that planned NATO BMD be used against either human-mental or dev’s and others’ opposition to U.S. and NATO interceptors are no prospective threat to its computer-based decisionmaking processors. European missile defenses include efforts to nuclear deterrent, Russia will take responsive Reflexive control is similar to the U.S. concept influence their government leaderships and measures unfriendly to the United States and of “perceptions management” although it public opinions in favor of either delaying or NATO (as enumerated previously). emphasizes control more than management of reconsidering the European missile defenses. Russia’s demand for a legal guarantee the target audience.19 A form of this message directed at Europeans that the European PAA missile defenses Putin’s placement of blame on Secretary partakes of intimidation. Russia threatens to system is not aimed at Russia seems to con- Clinton for demonstrations in Russia, unusu- move nuclear-capable missile strike forces tradict its expressed desire to share in the ally personal by normal diplomatic standards, closer to the locations of proposed missile management and operation of a European- had a reflexive control aspect for not only defense installations. In addition, Russia might wide BMD system. The apparent contradic- domestic but also foreign audiences, includ- withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear tion is reduced if we assume that both the ing Americans. The Russian prime minister Forces Treaty and be free to deploy longer- demand for legal guarantees and the demand was raising the cacophony bar, but in support range missiles pointed at NATO Europe for for shared operation of the European BMD of a familiar theme for his administration: the first time since the 1980s. Russia’s threat of system together constitute an example of Russian sovereignty imperiled by foreign possible withdrawal from New START and fol- “nested” reflexive control—one pointed at the sources, including nongovernmental organi- low-on negotiations spikes the blood pressure diplomatic level and the other at the military- zations working in Russia and international of not only U.S. advocates for nuclear arms technical level of U.S. and NATO decision- media stories unsympathetic to Russia or to reductions but also Europeans who might feel making. As to the first, at the diplomatic Putin. The sensitivity of Russian leaders on this point has been especially pronounced since the Rose and Orange revolutions in Russia’s concept of shared operations and control over European Georgia and Ukraine, respectively, and, more missile defenses differs markedly from the NATO version recently, Russia’s war with Georgia in 2008. Putin’s managed democracy or authoritarian capitalism, however one prefers to define it, unprotected in the midst of a revived U.S.- level, the Obama administration has already is threatened by the very existence of grass- Russia nuclear arms race. These and other indicated its willingness to provide reassur- roots dissidence on a large scale, especially messages about nuclear arms control and ing political statements to Russian leaders, if it escalates into an Arab Spring in Russia missile defenses are intended to separate ranks indicating that the European missile defense per the 2011 uprisings in North Africa and within NATO as to the desirability or feasibil- system is intended to deflect attacks from the Middle East. Thus, Putin’s pointer at ity of missile defenses and further nuclear so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Secretary Clinton was also a warning to arms reductions, including proposals for Korea, not from Russia. More than this, the domestic opponents not to push too far reducing the numbers of Russian and NATO United States has also invited Russia to send against the regime, despite its oligarchic and nonstrategic nuclear weapons in Europe. observers to missile test launches to verify authoritarian tendencies. The Russian prime In addition to sticks with respect that SM-3 interceptor missiles lack the perfor- minister reiterated the same theme during his to Russian messages on missile defenses, mance envelopes to threaten Russia’s strategic televised call-in show marathon of December the Kremlin has offered carrots. The most nuclear deterrent. Reportedly, U.S. officials 15, 2011, during which he noted that color obvious carrot was Russia’s expressed inter- have indicated a willingness to share some of revolutions “are special schemes to destabilize est in joining NATO in the construction and the technical specifications of the SM-3 with society” and added that Russian opposition operation of an all-European missile defense Russia, although Republicans in Congress activists were trained under Viktor Yush- system, a principle endorsed by NATO at its have threatened to oppose this idea.22 chenko, former president of Ukraine.20 Lisbon summit in 2010. However, Russia’s Despite these apparent overtures of U.S. In the same fashion, Russian political concept of shared operations and control over cooperation, Russia has insisted on legal guar- leaders’ fulminations against U.S. missile European missile defenses differs markedly antees against the European missile shield defense plans for Europe have a reflexive from the NATO version. Russia wants an inte- being pointed at Russia, although: control quality for domestic and international grated ballistic missile defense (BMD) system audiences, including the United States and with overlapping Russian and NATO compo- ■■ such a legal guarantee would be mean- NATO. Despite the U.S.-Russian reset and nents and shared control over missile launch ingless in the face of uncertain technology
12 JFQ / issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 ndupress.ndu.edu CIMBALA developments in missile defenses, including the possible improvement in interceptor that, if the United States should decide to Nevertheless, worst cases have a way velocities, sensors, and battle management and field missile defense systems against Russian of becoming standard talking points in command and control nuclear weapons, those defenses would be the Kremlin, depending on the prevail- ■■ Russia would be shooting itself in deployed in the United States, not in Europe, ing winds in domestic politics. Just now, the foot if it withdrew from the New START on account of the physical principles of missile these winds are pushing in the direction agreement over disagreements about missile interception that make it “easier and better to of more open political discontent against defenses, since New START enables Russia to approach an incoming missile from the oppo- Putin as an icon and against Putin’s form preserve an image of nuclear-strategic parity site side than it is to try to chase it down.”24 of managed democracy combined with with the United States without the expense of However, the command-control and oligarchic capitalism. This is not a sup- an open-ended offensive nuclear arms race political decisionmaking aspects of PAA are portive political milieu for NATO-Russia ■■ departing New START and declaring more complicated than that. EPAA capa- rapprochement over nuclear arms control, arms control dead because of BMD would bilities will support U.S. obligations to the nonproliferation, or missile defenses. Both deprive Russia of important diplomatic defense of NATO as required under Article Russian and American political establish- and military-technical windows into U.S. 5. But these capabilities will also be used to ments will be tempted toward hunker- policy planning and defense modernization, support U.S. forces deployed overseas and, down, bunker-down reflexes in which they including performance enhancements in with respect to the fourth phase of EPAA will be controlling themselves and their missile defense and offensive nuclear force evolution, U.S. homeland defense. As Daniel domestic political opponents more than modernization. Goure has explained: they will succeed in controlling or influ- encing others. The other aspect of Russian participa- This means that in some instances the EPAA Notwithstanding these toxic political tion with NATO in a European-wide missile will operate under NATO’s direction and waters, analysis can contribute to the modi- defense system is the suspicion on the part rules of engagement but in others will be fication of excesses in political prognostica- of Russia that the European PAA system is under direct U.S. command and control. tion and in military forecasting. merely a part of the eventual, and perhaps When—or if—phase four capabilities are inevitable, U.S. global missile defense system deployed to Europe, for the first time since Analysis that would be capable of nullifying Russia’s ballistic missile defenses were deployed in the In the analysis that follows, we gener- nuclear deterrent. Therefore, Russia wants 1960s, the defense of the homeland against ate hypothetical, but not unreasonable, to monitor the technical characteristics of ballistic missile attack will rely, at least in strategic nuclear forces for the United States the NATO European missile shield in order part, on interceptors fired from outside the and for Russia that are within New START to devise countermeasures, when and if the United States.25 guidelines and counting rules for deployed system evolves into something approaching a weapons and launchers, circa 2018–2020.27 global Leviathan that would give the United Russia’s need for reassurances against In the figures that follow, we summarize the States a preclusive first-strike capability against U.S. and NATO missile defenses is based on results of nuclear force exchanges between Russia or any other nuclear weapons state. This fear of evolving U.S. offensive and defen- sive force modernization combining to estab- Russia fears that conventional prompt global strike systems lish an American departure from U.S.-Russian could be used as first strike weapons against other states’ nuclear-strategic parity, or the impression of nuclear or conventional forces nuclear-strategic parity, is as much a politi- cal as a military-technical preoccupation for Russia. The same concern motivates Russia’s worst-case analysis relative to the ability of the United States and Russia under four objections to U.S. conventional prompt global Russia to maintain its image as a great power. operational conditions for New START strike systems: Russia fears that conventional The U.S. Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has compliant forces with a peacetime deploy- prompt global strike systems could be used acknowledged many technical challenges ment limit of 1,550 nuclear warheads on as first strike weapons against other states’ standing in the way of completing all four intercontinental launchers and for a smaller nuclear or conventional forces, backed up by phases of the EPAA plan, including the pos- force with a maximum limit of 1,000 war- expanded and improved American continental sibility that the MDA will have to design an heads. The four operational conditions for and worldwide missile defenses. entirely new missile for the SM-3 IIB variant, second strike retaliation are: U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder together with a new launch system. And each indicated in December 2011 that U.S. and phase of EPAA will require improvements ■■forces are on generated alert and NATO plans for European missile defenses in space-based and airborne sensors as well launched on warning (Gen/LOW) would go forward with or without Russia. as in battle management and command and ■■forces are on generated alert and According to Ambassador Daalder, Russian control systems.26 Progress in technology riding out the attack (Gen/RO) concerns were not as important as the development also assumes consistent funding ■■forces are on day-to-day alert and accelerating Iranian missile threat: “We’re from Congress, an uncertainty within the launched on warning (Day/LOW) deploying all four phases [of the EPAA] in prevailing U.S. political climate of reducing ■■forces are on day-to-day alert and order to deal with that threat.”23 He added deficits and shrinking defense budgets. riding out the attack (Day/RO). ndupress.ndu.edu issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 / JFQ 13 62_Cimbala Fig 1
Forum | Russia and European Missile Defenses Figure 1: U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads New START Deployments Figure 1. U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads New START Deployments
Russian Balance Triad 1,550
800.00
700.00
600.00
s
ad 500.00
arhe
W 400.00
er of
b
m 300.00
Nu
200.00
100.00
0.00 Russian Russian Russian Russian U.S. U.S. U.S62_Cimbala. U.S. Fig. 2 Gen/LOW Gen/RO Day/LOW Day/RO Gen/LOW Gen/RO Day/LOW Day/RO Series1 486.30 405.25 324.20 243.15 733.75 611.46 489.17 366.87
Figure 2. U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads 1,000 Deployment Limit Figure 2. U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads 1,000 Deployment Limit
Russian Balance Triad 1,000
450.00
400.00
350.00
s 300.00
d a e
arh 250.00
W of
er er 200.00
b
m u N 150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
Russian Russian Russian Russian U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Gen/LOW Gen/RO Day/LOW Day/RO Gen/LOW Gen/RO Day/LOW Day/RO Series1 438.73 365.61 292.49 219.37 442.03 368.36 294.69 221.02
14 JFQ / issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 ndupress.ndu.edu 62_Cimbala Fig. 3
CIMBALA
Figure 3. U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads vs. Defenses New START Deployments Figure 3. U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads vs. Defenses New START Deployment
Russian Balance Triad 1,550
500.00
450.00
400.00
350.00
s d
a 300.00
e arh W
250.00
of er b
m 200.00
u N
150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00 Phase IV Phase III Phase II Phase I Phase IV Phase III Phase II Phase I U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Russian Russian Russian Russian Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Series1 81.05 162.10 243.15 324.20 122.29 244.58 366.87 489.17 Figure 4. U.S.-Russia Surviving and REtaliating Warheads vs. Defenses 1,000 Deployment Limit
Figure 4. U.S.-Russia Surviving and Retaliating Warheads vs. Defenses 1,000 Deployment Limit
Russian Balance Triad 1,000
300.00
250.00
s d
a 200.00
e arh
W
150.00
of er
b
m
u N 100.00
50.00
0.00 Phase IV Phase III Phase II Phase I Phase IV Phase III Phase II Phase I U.S. U.S. U.S. U.S. Russian Russian Russian Russian Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Defenses Series1 73.12 146.24 219.37 292.49 73.67 147.34 221.02 294.69 ndupress.ndu.edu issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 / JFQ 15 Forum | Russia and European Missile Defenses
Figure 1 summarizes the outcomes for out the attack are limited to several tens ping the New START ceilings on deployed the 1,550 weapon deployment limit. Figure of surviving and retaliating weapons, but warheads from 1,550 to 1,000 for each state 2 provides similar information for the 1,000 Russian forces in a crisis will be alerted so this creates a behavior space for launching a warhead limit.28 For the sake of complete- finding is an improbable worst case for them. tiered multilateral nonproliferation regime ness in analysis, the results for U.S. and On the other hand, if either the United States among existing nuclear powers.31 Russian balanced triad force structures are or Russia deployed advanced missile defenses As for missile defenses, allowing compared with the outcomes for alternative in sufficient numbers to shift this equation, regional or continental missile defenses to force structures for each state.29 stable deterrence could be placed at risk—or, become incubators of distrust or gridlock, as The results summarized in figures 1 at least, the political perception of it.30 between Russian and U.S. or NATO negotia- and 2 show that the United States and Russia tors, is politically shortsighted and militarily can fulfill the requirements for stable deter- Conclusions unjustified. The performances of future rence based on assured retaliation at, or even There is nothing necessary or inevi- missile defenses are guesswork on a good below, New START deployment ceilings. In table about the backsliding in the reset in day (including in this article). Their political either case, sufficient numbers of surviving U.S.-Russia relations, including the poten- effects are at least two-sided. First, they can and retaliating warheads exist to destroy tial for additional strategic nuclear arms support deterrence by denial by making it unacceptable numbers of the first striker’s reductions. The United States and Russia more difficult for attackers with small arse- major cities and/or national infrastructure. could maintain stable deterrence based on nals to accomplish their objectives. Second, The 1,000 deployment ceiling limits the assured retaliation at New START or lower to the contrary, as more states acquire missile options for attacking nuclear counterforce levels, even in the face of highly competent defenses, their rivals or enemies may be moti- targets in retaliation more than does the defenses deployed by either state or by both vated to pursue countermeasures—including 1,550 deployment limit, but especially in states. Another reason for restarting the more offensive weapons. In this second sce- the most likely retaliatory postures during reset in U.S.-Russia nuclear arms control is nario, missile defenses can contribute to an a crisis (generated alert and launch on warning, or generated alert and riding out the attack). Surviving and retaliating land- and sea-based forces and bomber delivered weapons provide some leverage against that target class. In addition, since the model is following New START counting U.S. Department of State rules that count each heavy bomber as only one weapon, it understates the number of surviving and retaliating weapons for each state, but especially for the better equipped U.S. bomber force. Would missile defenses deployed by either or both sides change the outcomes depicted in figures 1 and 2? In figures 3 and 4, we examine the impact of antimissile defenses on retaliating U.S. and Russian second strike forces assuming an overall penetration capa- bility for each side against opposed defenses of 40 percent (60 percent of the retaliators are intercepted or otherwise deflected away from Secretary of State Clinton meets with Russian president outside Moscow their intended targets). This is a generous assumption for the effectiveness of missile to create additional momentum for NATO- eventual arms race even if they provide more defenses given present and foreseeable tech- Russia negotiations on reducing or eliminat- reassurance against an imminent threat of nologies. Figure 3 summarizes these results ing nonstrategic nuclear weapons deployed nuclear first strike. Whether missile defenses for the larger peacetime deployment limit of in Europe. Nonstrategic nuclear weapons become positives or negatives in U.S.-Russia 1,550 warheads and figure 4 for the smaller talks need to get moving before Russia relations therefore depends upon politics— peacetime deployment limit of 1,000 weapons. is tempted to abrogate the Intermediate including the vagaries of domestic politics in The results summarized in figures 3 Nuclear Forces Treaty and redeploy interme- the United States and Russia. JFQ and 4 show that even the smaller (1,000 limit) diate- and shorter-range missiles in Europe of the two forces for each state can provide and in Asia. A third reason for post–New for numerous retaliating and arriving second START reductions is to establish the United strike warheads against opposed defenses States and Russia as reliable leaders for of high competency by today’s standards. multilateral nuclear arms reductions among Russian forces on day-to-day alert and riding the remaining nuclear weapons states. Drop-
16 JFQ / issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 ndupress.ndu.edu CIMBALA
11 Ibid. 25 Daniel Goure, “The Obama Administration’s Grateful acknowledgment is made to Stephen 12 Ariel Cohen and Robert E. Hamilton, The Phased Adaptive Architecture: Technological, Blank, Andrew Futter, Daniel Goure, Jacob Kipp, Russian Military and the Georgia War: Lessons and Operational and Political Issues,” unpublished Timothy Thomas, and Mikhail Tsypkin for insights Implications (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, paper, December 2011, 15. Dr. Goure is not respon- June 2011), esp. 44–48. See also Thomas, Recasting sible for its use here, nor for any arguments or into the topic of this study. None is responsible for the Red Star, 221–261; and Timothy L. Thomas, opinions in this study. any analysis or arguments here. “Russian Information Warfare Theory: The Con- 26 Ibid., 11, passim. See also Unclassified State- sequences of August 2008,” in The Russian Military ment of Lieutenant General Patrick J. O’Reilly, Today and Tomorrow, 265–300. Director, Missile Defense Agency, Before the House 13 For an especially ambitious example, see V.V. Armed Services Committee, Subcommittee on Druzhinin and D.S. Kontorov, Concept, algorithm, Strategic Forces, Regarding the Fiscal Year 2011 Notes decision: Decision making and automation (a Soviet Missile Defense Programs, Washington, DC, April view) (Moscow: Ministry of Defense of the USSR, 15, 2010. 1 “Russia Warns of Response to U.S. 1972), trans. and published under the auspices of 27 Forces are notional and not necessarily Missile Shield,” VOA News, November 23, the U.S. Air Force. See also Thomas, Recasting the predictive of actual deployments. For expert projec- 2011, available at
ndupress.ndu.edu issue 68, 1 st quarter 2013 / JFQ 17