DOCSLIB.ORG

Limiting Terrorist Use of Advanced Conventional Weapons

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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 Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Homeland Security Program 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. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. 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. Stealing theSword Limiting Terrorist Use of Advanced Conventional Weapons James Bonomo Giacomo Bergamo David R. Frelinger John Gordon IV Brian A. Jackson Prepared for the Department of Homeland Security The research described in this report was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Office of Comparative Studies, under the auspices of the Homeland Security Program within RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (ISE), a division of the RAND Corporation. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stealing the sword : limiting terrorist use of advanced conventional weapons / James Bonomo ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MG-510”—Back cover. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN-13: 978-0-8330-3965-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. Weapons systems. 2. Arms control. 3. Terrorism—Prevention. 4. Terrorism— United States—Prevention. I. Bonomo, James. II. Rand Corporation. UF500.S84 2007 363.325'16—dc22 2006017948 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. Cover design by Peter Soriano © Copyright 2007 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2007 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface In this document, we focus on how the United States can shape the environment, including the perceptions of terrorists, to discourage the use of advanced conventional weapons. We review weapons under development, assess prospective and previous terrorist uses of such weapons, identify ways to make particular kinds of weapons less attrac- tive to terrorist groups, and explore reasons that terrorist groups choose or reject certain weapons. The analyses presented here should be of interest to homeland security policymakers who need to understand the threat posed by advanced conventional weapons. Those concerned with developing security or defensive systems can allocate research and development and technology funding to countermeasures and defense systems with the greatest possible potential payoff. Those concerned with training security forces can adjust their curricula and concepts appropriately. And those interested in limiting the access of terrorists to advanced weapons can learn where to focus their efforts. Overall, these efforts should influence terrorist decisionmaking, deterring their use of par- ticular weapons. Related RAND Corporation publications include the following: t Brian A. Jackson, John C. Baker, Peter Chalk, Kim Cragin, John V. Parachini, and Horacio R. Trujillo, Aptitude for Destruction, Vol. 1: Organizational Learning in Terrorist Groups and Its Impli- cations for Combating Terrorism (MG-331-NIJ, 2005) t Brian A. Jackson, John C. Baker, Peter Chalk, Kim Cragin, John V. Parachini, and Horacio R. Trujillo, Aptitude for Destruction, iii iv Stealing the Sword: Limiting Terrorist Use of Advanced Conventional Weapons Vol. 2: Case Studies of Organizational Learning in Five Terrorist Groups (MG-332-NIJ, 2005) t Kim Cragin and Sara A. Daly, The Dynamic Terrorist Threat: An Assessment of Group Motivations and Capabilities in a Changing World (MR-1782-AF, 2004) t James S. Chow, James Chiesa, Paul Dreyer, Mel Eisman, Theo- dore W. Karasik, Joel Kvitky, Sherrill Lingel, David Ochmanek, and Chad Shirley, Protecting Commercial Aviation Against the Shoulder-Fired Missile Threat (OP-106-RC, 2005). This monograph is one component of a series of studies exam- ining the technology competition between security organizations and terrorist organizations, a critical battleground in the war against terror- ism. This series focuses on understanding how terrorist groups make technology choices and how they respond to the technologies deployed against them. This research was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Science and Technology Directorate, Office of Comparative Studies. The RAND Homeland Security Program This research was conducted under the auspices of the Homeland Secu- rity Program within RAND Infrastructure, Safety, and Environment (ISE). The mission of ISE is to improve the development, operation, use, and protection of society’s essential physical assets and natural resources and to enhance the related social assets of safety and secu- rity of individuals in transit and in their workplaces and communi- ties. Homeland Security Program research supports the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies charged with preventing and mitigating the effects of terrorist activity within U.S. borders. Projects address critical infrastructure protection, emergency management, ter- rorism risk management, border control, first responders and prepared- ness, domestic threat assessments, domestic intelligence, and workforce and training. Preface v Questions or comments about this monograph should be sent to the project leader, Brian Jackson ([email protected]). Infor- mation about the Homeland Security Program is available online (http://www.rand.org/ise/security/). Inquiries about homeland security research projects should be sent to the following address: Michael Wermuth, Director Homeland Security Program, ISE RAND Corporation 1200 South Hayes Street Arlington, VA 22202-5050 703-413-1100, x5414 [email protected] Contents Preface ............................................................................. iii Figures ............................................................................. xi Tables .............................................................................xiii Summary ..........................................................................xv Acknowledgments ............................................................ xxiii Abbreviations ................................................................... xxv CHAPTER ONE Introduction ....................................................................... 1 Study Approach .................................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO What Types of Advanced Military Weapons Could Become Available to Terrorists? ...................................................... 7 Advanced Small Arms ............................................................. 8 Technological Advance: Airburst Assault Weapons with Smart Ammo .......................................................................10 Technological Advance: Metal Storm’s 100 Percent Electronic Firing Mechanism .........................................................17 Mortar Systems ................................................................... 20 Technological Advance: Gliding and Rocketing to Longer Range ...... 22 Technological Advance: Nonballistic Flight Through Thrusters and Control Fins ............................................................... 27 vii viii Stealing the Sword: Limiting Terrorist Use of Advanced Conventional Weapons Technological Advance: “Fire-and-Forget” IR- and RF-Homing Terminal Guidance ....................................................... 28 Technological Advance: Laser and Fiber-Optic Man-in-the-Loop Terminal Guidance ........................................................29 Technological Advance: GPS-Based
Recommended publications
  • Issue 8, Volume 59, April 30 1985 Ckland University Students' Association EDITORIAL

    Issue 8, Volume 59, April 30 1985 Ckland University Students' Association EDITORIAL

    ngs duldoon 23-27 APR! 1 & 6 PM S2 & S4 Issue 8, Volume 59, April 30 1985 ckland University Students' Association EDITORIAL Craccum is edited by Pam Goode and Birgitta On Sunday, 21 April a woman was viciously raped in a manner whi imitated a rape scene screened on TVNZ the previous evening. And all 1 I Noble. The following people helped on this issue: week past, I have been subjected to the sensationalist accounts of first f Ian Grant, Andrew Jull, Karin Bos, Henry Knapp blaming the traffic officers (who would not allow the woman to 1 Harrison, Darius, Cornelius Stone, Dylan home, because of her blood alcohol level and would not drive her home) fori Horrocks, Robyn Hodge, Wallis, John Bates, occurence of the rape and then the PSA excusing the actions of the office Mark Allen & Janet Cole. alluding to the lack of staff. For their contributions thanks to: Bidge Smith, Whilst there is no doubt the traffic officers are partially to blame, thei Jonathan Blakeman, Colin Patterson, Adam Ross, reason for the rape has been ignored both by the press and in the statementi the various people concerned. Implicit in the argument surrounding | Kupe, Cornelius Stone. For photography thanks to Andrew Jull. culpability of the traffic officers is the assumption that the streets are nots And a special thank you to Janina Adamiak and J o at night for women, and therefore the woman concerned should not havel eft alone. But this assumption blames the victim, the woman for assertir Imrie. right to be wherever she wishes.
  • Improvised Firearms in the Collection of the Forensic Laboratory

    Improvised Firearms in the Collection of the Forensic Laboratory

    FORENSIC PRACTICE Sławomir Kudełka Forensic Laboratory, Voivodeship Police Headquarters in Kraków [email protected] Tomasz Konopka Department of Forensic Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Jagiellonian University [email protected] Improvised firearms in the collection of the Forensic Laboratory, Voivodeship Police Headquarters in Kraków and the Department of Forensic Medicine, Collegium Medicum, Jagiellonian University — towards a systematics Summary Despite a very large variety of improvised firearms, repeatability of certain actions of the manufacturers can be observed, reflecting the purpose to which such weapons are produced (e.g. poaching), and the availability of appropriate technologies. The aim of this article is to make an attempt to systematize improvised firearms on the basis of the expert opinions elaborated at the Weapon Research and Ballistics Department of the Voivodeship Police Headquarters in Kraków (LK KWP) as well as studies carried out on weapons belonging to the collection of the Department of Forensic Medicine (ZMS) in Kraków. Research material included both primitive devices made by using simple methods and without concern for accuracy or aesthetics, as well as fine-tuned pieces with individual design solutions or copies of factory-made weapons. Improvised firearms can generally be divided into conversions and own designs. The conversion most frequently applies to alarm, gas or pneumatic weapons. It consists in removing factory safety mechanisms or, in the case of pneumatic weapons, in introducing technical modifications, which enable to blast off the cartridge and discharge the projectile by means of gas pressure arising during combustion of the propellant. Own designs may contain certain factory elements, most frequently the barrel, however, in most cases, they are manufactured from scratch.
  • JP 3-11, Operations in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Environments, 04 October 2013

    JP 3-11, Operations in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Environments, 04 October 2013

    Joint Publication 3-11 OF NT TH E E W M I S E' L L H D T E F T E N A R D R A M P Y E D • • U A N C I I T R E E D M S A T F AT E S O Operations in Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Environments 29 October 2018 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides doctrine for planning, conducting, and assessing military operations in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear environments. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations, and it provides considerations for military interaction with governmental and nongovernmental agencies, multinational forces, and other interorganizational partners. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs), and prescribes joint doctrine for operations and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing and executing their plans and orders. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of objectives. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff, commanders of combatant commands, subordinate unified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands, the Services, and combat support agencies.
  • Easier Said Than Done: Legal Reviews of Cyber Weapons

    Easier Said Than Done: Legal Reviews of Cyber Weapons

    Easier Said Than Done: Legal Reviews of Cyber Weapons Gary D. Brown* & Andrew O. Metcalf** INTRODUCTION On June 1, 2012, author and New York Times reporter David Sanger created a sensation within the cyber-law community. Just over a year previously, Vanity Fair, among other media outlets, reported that a malware package of unprec- edented complexity had effectively targeted the Iranian nuclear research pro- gram.1 The malware, which came to be known as Stuxnet, was also discovered on many computer systems outside Iran, but it did not appear to do any damage to these other systems. Just as the discussions spurred by the discovery of Stuxnet had begun to die down, the New York Times published an interview with Mr. Sanger to discuss his newest book, in which he alleged that the Stuxnet malware had been part of a U.S. planned and led covert cyber operation. The assertion that a nation state had used a “cyber attack” in support of its national objectives reinvigorated the attention of cyber-law commentators, both in and out of government. What makes Stuxnet interesting as a point of discussion is that the basic functioning of the software is easy to understand and easy to categorize. A piece of software was deliberately inserted into the target systems, and physical damage was the result. However, resulting physical damage is not characteristic of most cyber operations, and the legal analysis of Stuxnet is of limited utility when examining a broad range of cyber activities.2 A distinct lack of physical effects is much more characteristic of cyber operations, and the absence of physical effects has continued to complicate the legal analysis of cyber in the context of military operations.
  • The Law of Submarine Warfare Today

    The Law of Submarine Warfare Today

    Jacobson 205 Chapter VIII The Law of Submarine Warfare Today by Jon L. Jacobson* Introduction he roles of military submarines have evolved throughout the twentieth T century. In wartime, these roles have included coastal defense, harassment of enemy fleets, and, especially in World War II, hunting and destroying the seaborne commerce that supported the enemy's war efforts. Today, two principal roles for u.s. submarines, at least in any future war with the Soviet Union, are probably as anti-submarine weapons (attack submarines) and as strategic weapons platforms (ballistic missile submarines). Other missions, however, could include coastal defense, attacks on the enemy's surface fleet, projection of force ashore, and commerce warfare.1 The laws of war have never been comfortable with the submarine's unique combination of stealth and vulnerability. As will be explained below, it is this peculiar mix of strength and weakness that can be blamed as the root cause of the legal dilemma, particularly as it relates to the submarine's role as a commerce raider. The legal responses to this twentieth-century weapons platform have ranged from early proposals for its abolition to justification of its use under the rules of reprisal to tolerance of it as an effective war machine with characteristics that regrettably require some adjustments in the traditional laws of war. The U.s. Navy's new Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (NWP 9) includes references to the laws of naval warfare that specifically address the submarine weapons system and also rules that apply, or can apply, to submarines and their roles in wartime.
  • Improvised Weapons

    Improvised Weapons

    Updated Apr 2009 The purpose of this presentation is to make you better aware of the numerous improvised weapons and ingenious hiding places that have been created and are in use by today’s criminals. The majority of the material used in this presentation comes from various law enforcement officer safety bulletins throughout the world. This presentation attempts to combine information from those bulletins into one easy to view presentation. In the interest of keeping the focus to the threat on hand, many of the circumstances surrounding the identification of these items has been removed. Knowledge is safety. Unless you stay informed, danger will find you… Improvised Weapon Any item that has been designed, modified, or disguised to function as a weapon. California’s Dangerous Weapon Law (12020 P.C.) 12020(a) PC Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison: (1) Manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, or possesses any cane gun or wallet gun, any undetectable firearm, any firearm which is not immediately recognizable as a firearm, any camouflaging firearm container, any ammunition which contains or consists of any flechette dart, any bullet containing or carrying an explosive agent, any ballistic knife, any multiburst trigger activator, any nunchaku, any short-barreled shotgun, any short-barreled rifle, any metal knuckles, any belt buckle knife, any leaded cane, any zip gun, any shuriken, any unconventional pistol, any lipstick case knife, any cane sword, any shobi-zue, any air gauge knife, any writing pen knife, any metal military practice handgrenade or metal replica hand grenade, or any instrument or weapon of the kind commonly known as a blackjack, slungshot, billy, sandclub, sap, or sandbag.
  • Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD)

    Anti-Access/Area-Denial (A2/AD)

    C en t er f o R S t ra t egic and B udge t ary A ssessmen t S Outside-In Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-Access and Area-Denial Threats BY MARK GUNZINGER With Chris Dougherty Outside-in: Operating frOm range tO defeat iran’s anti-access and area-denial threats BY MARK GUNZINGER With Chris Dougherty 2011 © 2011 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. about the center for strategic and Budgetary assessments The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy and resource allocation. CSBA provides timely, impartial and insightful analyses to senior decision mak- ers in the executive and legislative branches, as well as to the media and the broader national security community. CSBA encourages thoughtful participation in the de- velopment of national security strategy and policy, and in the allocation of scarce human and capital resources. CSBA’s analysis and outreach focus on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security. Meeting these challenges will require transforming the national security establishment, and we are devoted to helping achieve this end. about the authors Mark Gunzinger is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces Transformation and Resources. He is the principal author or co-author of multi- ple Defense Planning Guidance directives, key strategic planning guidance documents that shape DoD force planning.
  • The People's Liberation Army's 37 Academic Institutions the People's

    The People's Liberation Army's 37 Academic Institutions the People's

    The People’s Liberation Army’s 37 Academic Institutions Kenneth Allen • Mingzhi Chen Printed in the United States of America by the China Aerospace Studies Institute ISBN: 9798635621417 To request additional copies, please direct inquiries to Director, China Aerospace Studies Institute, Air University, 55 Lemay Plaza, Montgomery, AL 36112 Design by Heisey-Grove Design All photos licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, or under the Fair Use Doctrine under Section 107 of the Copyright Act for nonprofit educational and noncommercial use. All other graphics created by or for China Aerospace Studies Institute E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.airuniversity.af.mil/CASI Twitter: https://twitter.com/CASI_Research | @CASI_Research Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CASI.Research.Org LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/11049011 Disclaimer The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government or the Department of Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, Intellectual Property, Patents, Patent Related Matters, Trademarks and Copyrights; this work is the property of the U.S. Government. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights Reproduction and printing is subject to the Copyright Act of 1976 and applicable treaties of the United States. This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This publication is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal, academic, or governmental use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete however, it is requested that reproductions credit the author and China Aerospace Studies Institute (CASI).
  • Terrorist and Insurgent Teleoperated Sniper Rifles and Machine Guns Robert J

    Terrorist and Insurgent Teleoperated Sniper Rifles and Machine Guns Robert J

    Claremont Colleges Scholarship @ Claremont CGU Faculty Publications and Research CGU Faculty Scholarship 1-1-2016 Terrorist and Insurgent Teleoperated Sniper Rifles and Machine Guns Robert J. Bunker Claremont Graduate University Alma Keshavarz Claremont Graduate University Recommended Citation Bunker, R. J. (2016). Terrorist and Insurgent Teleoperated Sniper Rifles and Machine Guns. Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO), 1-40. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the CGU Faculty Scholarship at Scholarship @ Claremont. It has been accepted for inclusion in CGU Faculty Publications and Research by an authorized administrator of Scholarship @ Claremont. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WL KNO EDGE NCE ISM SA ER IS E A TE N K N O K C E N N T N I S E S J E N A 3 V H A A N H Z И O E P W O I T E D N E Z I A M I C O N O C C I O T N S H O E L C A I N M Z E N O T Terrorist and Insurgent Teleoperated Sniper Rifles and Machine Guns ROBERT J. BUNKER and ALMA KESHAVARZ August 2016 Open Source, Foreign Perspective, Underconsidered/Understudied Topics The Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, is an open source research organization of the U.S. Army. It was founded in 1986 as an innovative program that brought together military specialists and civilian academics to focus on military and security topics derived from unclassified, foreign media. Today FMSO maintains this research tradition of special insight and highly collaborative work by conducting unclassified research on foreign perspectives of defense and security issues that are understudied or unconsidered.
  • ASROC with Systems

    ASROC with Systems

    Naval Nuclear Weapons Chapter Eight Naval Nuclear Weapons The current program to modernize and expand U.S. deployed within the Navy (see Table 8.1) include anti- Naval forces includes a wide variety of nuclear weapons submarine warfare rockets (both surface (ASROC with systems. The build-up, according to the Department of W44) and subsurface launched (SUBROC with W55)), Defense, seeks "increased and more diversified offensive anti-air missiles (TERRIER with W45), and bombs and striking power.. increased attention to air defense . depth charges (B43, B57, and B61) used by a variety of [and] improvements in anti-submarine warfare."' The aircraft and helicopters, both carrier and land based (see plan is to build-up to a "600-ship Navy" concentrating Chapters Four and Se~en).~ on "deployable battle forces." Numerous new ships will The various nuclear weapons systems that are under be built, centered around aircraft carrier battle groups, development or are being considered for tactical naval surface groups, and attack submarines. New, more capa- nuclear warfare include: ble anti-air warfare ships, such as the TICONDEROGA (CG-47) class cruiser and BURKE (DDG-51) class  A new surface-to-air missile nuclear war- destroyers, will be deployed. New nuclear weapons and head (W81) for the STANDARD-2 missile, launching systems, as well as nuclear capable aircraft soon to enter production, carrier based forces, form a major part of the program. A long-range, land-attack nuclear armed As of March 1983, the nuclear armed ships of the U.S. Sea-Launched
  • JP 3-05, Special Operations

    JP 3-05, Special Operations

    Joint Publication 3-05 Special Operations 16 July 2014 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides overarching doctrine for special operations and the employment and support for special operations forces across the range of military operations. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination and for US military involvement in multinational operations. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders and prescribes joint doctrine for operations, education, and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the joint force commander from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the joint force commander deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall objective. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, subordinate components of these commands, the Services, and combat support agencies. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the CJCS, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance.
  • National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21St Century

    National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21St Century

    National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century September 2008 Foreword In July 2007, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, we issued a statement that summarized the need for maintaining a credible U.S. nuclear deterrent and urged bipartisan Congressional support for the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. This paper, National Security and Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, expands on the July 2007 statement by addressing in greater detail the considerations behind U.S. requirements for nuclear weapons. The paper also describes the relationship among strategic nuclear force structure, the stockpile of nuclear warheads, and the nuclear warhead research and production infrastructure. We believe the logic presented here provides a sound basis on which this and future administrations can consider further adjustments to U.S. nuclear weapons policy, strategy, and force structure. Many of the policy issues and strategic capabilities discussed in this paper are based on the December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review and represent continuity with decisions made by prior administrations. For example, the Clinton Administration developed the “lead and hedge” strategy as a way to reduce the size of the deployed strategic nuclear force, while also ensuring that the United States would be able to respond to future challenges that could be more stressing than estimated at that time. Under this strategy the United States would take the “lead” in nuclear reductions, but would “hedge” through an inventory of non-deployed nuclear warheads and a force structure capable of deploying those warheads. The current administration seeks to build on that approach by relying, over time, more heavily on a responsive nuclear weapons design and manufacturing infrastructure to manage risk, and less on an inventory of non-deployed warheads.