DOCSLIB.ORG

H-Diplo FRUS Review No. 28

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
H-Diplo FRUS Review No. 28 H20-Diplo FRUS1 5Reviews H-Diplo H-Diplo FRUS Review Editors: Thomas Maddux and H-Diplo FRUS Reviews Diane Labrosse Web and Production Editor: George Fujii No. 28 Published on 6 March 2015 Commissioned for H-Diplo by Thomas Maddux H-Diplo FRUS Review of M. Todd Bennett, ed. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969- 1976. Volume XXXV: National Security Policy, 1973-1976. Washington, DC, 2014. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1969-76v35 URL: http://www.tiny.cc/FRUS28 Review by James Cameron, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University he poor president of the United States who is responsible for the defense of this country,” Vice President Nelson Rockefeller lamented at a National “T Security Council meeting in December 1976, as he struggled to get his mind around the capacious nature of U.S. national security commitments (Document 120). Those assembled were attempting to devise a coherent vision of a grand strategy for the United States to bequeath to their successors. The problem of defining ‘national security’ bedeviled their efforts, as it hangs over the title of this FRUS collection. Even narrowing the issue to questions of defense does not help a great deal. As the editor, M. Todd Bennett, points out, many of the major subjects of defense policy during the mid- 1970s have their own volumes, including Vietnam (X), SALT II (XXXIII), NATO (XLI), the Soviet Union (XV and XVI), and the People’s Republic of China (XVIII).1 In this compelling and important collection, Bennett focuses on the operations of the deep national security state, mainly the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Intelligence Community (IC). The first three chapters are chronological, dealing with the United States’ defense posture as U.S. national security organs struggled with the polarizing consequences of President Richard Nixon’s fall and Gerald Ford’s brief presidency. It is impossible to do justice to the wide range of issues covered in this section, but scholars of chemical and biological weapons, civil defense, nuclear strategy, naval shipbuilding, and war-reserve management will find many key documents here. The second part of the volume deals with three notable incidents in intelligence history, including the Team B experiment in competitive intelligence assessment, as well as two 1 M. Todd Bennett (ed.), Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969-1976 Volume XXXV: National Security Policy, 1973-1976 (Washington, DC, 2014), iv. 1 | Page H-Diplo FRUS Reviews less well-known events: the Ford administration’s discovery that the Soviet Union had penetrated the United States’ intercity telephone network, and the CIA’s half-successful effort to raise a sunken Soviet submarine from the bottom of the Pacific with the aid of reclusive billionaire Howard Hughes. If the mid-1970s was a grim time for many Americans, it was a particularly unpleasant period to be a member of the national security apparatus. Nixon, increasingly consumed by Watergate, appears infrequently in this volume. However, when he does, he exemplifies the unedifying situation that members of the military faced during this period. “Wear your uniforms when you are out – tell your people to,” Nixon urged the Joint Chiefs in December 1973, as the net closed around him. “The character flaw in the elite is they are ashamed of our country… You must confront them, try to show them what should be our real values” (Document 28). But what standard-bearer should the military rally around? The choice was doubly unpalatable: between an increasingly discredited president who used the armed services as a shield and the imperatives of national security to cover up his own illegal activities, and the growing proportion of the American public that, partly as a result of Nixon’s repeated invocations, denigrated the traditional values of loyalty, duty, patriotism and sacrifice that the military stood for. A pervasive sense of crisis runs through the documents. As executive authority cratered, Congress took a hacksaw to the DoD budget. “If we cut our defense budget, [Soviet General Secretary Leonid] Brezhnev is likely to roll over me,” Nixon pleaded with members of the Senate Appropriations Committee (Document 7). Yet defense spending dropped precipitously as a share of federal spending, from 34.3% in 1972 to 23.8% in 1977.2 Nixon and Ford stepped away from the professions of military superiority over the Soviet Union that had marked Lyndon Johnson’s years in office and started talking of America as “second to none” in defense (Documents 28 & 41). Despite these semantic games designed to project an image of relative optimism, both Nixon and Ford continued to be preoccupied with a possible loss of faith in the credibility of American global security guarantees. Nixon underlined his fundamental preoccupation to the short-lived defense secretary, Elliott Richardson: “enough was not enough – unless it was as much as the other guy had.” (Document 1). The question of how “much… the other guy had” was becoming increasingly complex, as Volume XXXV shows in great depth in its coverage of the infamous Team B episode of 1975-6. At the instigation of the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), experts, headed by Harvard Sovietologist Richard Pipes and advised by Foy Kohler, Paul Nitze, and Paul Wolfowitz, were invited by the Ford administration to present “an alternative view” of Soviet strategic capabilities and intentions to that represented by the U.S. Intelligence Community (Document 171). With the arrival of rough parity in the number of intercontinental nuclear delivery vehicles between the two superpowers, which had been frozen for five years in the 1972 Interim Agreement 2 John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment: A critical appraisal of American National Security Policy During the Cold War (Revised and Expanded Edn., New York, 2003), 393. 2 | Page H-Diplo FRUS Reviews on Offensive Forces, the focus on Soviet strategic intentions and capabilities inevitably shifted towards qualitative improvements in weapons systems. These included areas such as the accuracy of Soviet multiple warheads (multiple independently targetable reentry vehicles, or MIRVs), the ability of the USSR to track and destroy U.S. ballistic missile submarines, and Soviet air defense capabilities (Document 155). Such qualitative features, analysts admitted, were far harder to measure than counting the holes bored in the ground to accommodate nuclear missiles silos (Document 141). Compounding this problem was the fact that intelligence analysts were attempting to project a decade ahead on the basis of this limited evidence (Document 155). The position hammered out within the IC and represented in National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) was that while Kremlin moves may have betrayed “an opportunistic desire to… achieve a margin of superiority,” the Soviets could not “reduce damage to themselves to acceptable levels by a first strike against U.S. strategic forces” – in short, they could not escape from the situation of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that trapped both superpowers (Document 141). PFIAB, by contrast, viewed this judgment as “paying insufficient tribute… to Soviet achievements” and requested that the Director of Central Intelligence reassess the NIE’s conclusions (Document 144). At the root of this divergence was a fundamental and irreconcilable difference of opinion on the value of nuclear superiority.3 While the NIEs continued to maintain that MAD made any Soviet strike on the United States senseless, PFIAB and Team B pushed the thesis that Soviet superiority would give the Kremlin greater confidence in crises and might even tempt it to strike first. If this were not abstract enough, the NIEs implied that such arguments could in themselves undermine deterrence because the “psychological edge” that the Soviets could enjoy in a confrontation would be dependent on whether “those involved focus on the basic strategic relationship or on appearances” (Document 149). In other words, inferiority in the number of MIRVs would not be a problem as long as U.S. policymakers did not believe it was; dissenters were undermining deterrence by shifting policymakers’ attention away from MAD. The documentation arrayed here confirms much of what Anne Hessing Cahn discovered sixteen years ago in her book Killing Détente: The Right Attacks the CIA, though FOIA requests and personal interviews – in particular the slightly partial nature of her book’s title.4 The Team B exercise was not simply a case of the right going for the IC, but instead a particularly nasty family feud within the Republican Party, in which all of the principal participants considered themselves conservatives of one sort or another. Team B accused the CIA of a series of “methodological” shortcomings in its assessments, including “mirror imaging” by trying to squeeze Soviet doctrine into American strategic concepts such as MAD, and giving in to “political pressures and considerations,” in 3 Francis J. Gavin, Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America’s Atomic Age (Ithaca, NY, 2012), 119-33. 4 Anne Hessing Cahn, Killing Détente: The Right Attacks the CIA (University Park, PA, 1998). 3 | Page H-Diplo FRUS Reviews particular the perceived need to help maintain U.S.-Soviet détente by playing down advances in Soviet strategic weaponry (Document 174, attachment). Despite his initial enthusiasm for the exercise, Director of Central Intelligence George H.W. Bush was not fan of its results, submitting a lengthy defense of the methodology underpinning the NIEs to Ford in the waning months of his presidency (Document 174). The Pesident himself described the leaking of the exercise’s findings to the press in late 1976 as “unforgivable” (Document 172). However, once out, Team B’s conclusions took on a life of their own and added to the pressure on a crumbling trans-administration détente policy. Team B came at a particularly sensitive time, as Ford endured growing criticism from his own party regarding perceived weaknesses on defense.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Report Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
    17 95th Congress COMXITTEE PRINT 2d Session I THE NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATES A-B TEAM EPISODE CONCERNING SOVIET STRATE- GIC CAPABILITY AND OBJECTIVES REPORT OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON COLLECTION, PRODUCTION, AND QUALITY UNITED STATES SENATE TOGETHER WITH SEPARATE VIEWS FEBRUARY 16, 1978 Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 23-542 WASHINGTON : 1978 SENATE SELECT. COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d sess.) BIRCH BAYH, Indiana, Chairman BARRY GOLDWATER, Arizona, Vice Chairman ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey WILLIAM D. HATHAWAY, Maine JAKE GARN, Utah WALTER D. HUDDLESTON, Kentucky CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas ROBERT MORGAN, North Carolina JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island GARY HART, Colorado RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming DANIEL K. INOCYA, HawaiiN e ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Ex Officio Mfember HOWARD H. BAKER, JRt., Tennessee, Ex Officio Mlember WrniAm C. MILLER, Staff Director EARL D. EISENHOWER, Mfinority Staff Director ACRDREY H. HATRY, Chief Merk DANIEIOUYEHawai K. SUBCOMMITTEE ON4 COLLECTION, PRODUCTION AND, QUALITY ADLAI E. STEVENSON, Illinois, Chairman CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey, Vice Chairman GARY HART, Colorado RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming PREFACE The following report is the second of a series prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcommittee on Collection, Pro- duction and Quality, chaired by Senator Adlai E. Stevenson (D-Ill.), and Senator Clifford P. Case (R-N.J.), vice chairman.
    [Show full text]
  • The Nature of His CIA Work, Top-Secret. Who Was John Arthur Paisley, And
    -CINIAILJS2E21:1131 never discloses complete biographical By Tad Soule data on its officers; various aspects of His 'suicide' was bizarre; the nature of his their careers could provide clues about n the moonlit night of secret operations they may have been Sept. 23, 1978, John Ar- C.I.A. work, top-secret. Who was John Arthur engaged in and thus compromise the thur Paisley vanished agency's "sources and methods." in the waters of Chesa- Paisley, and what actually happened to him? In its public statements, therefore, peake Bay, the silent the C.I.A. portrayed Paisley as a rather kingdom of oysters and A week later, on Oct. 1, a bloated and suggested that death was by suicide, unimportant intelligence officer and crabs. He was a quiet badly decomposed body was found and the C.I.A., to questions posed by re- analyst. Prior to his official retirement 55-year-old man who floating in the bay, a 9-millimeter gun- porters, saw "no reason to disagree." in 1974, Paisley had served as deputy had a passion for soli- shot wound in the back of the head, The Maryland State Police later con- chief of the C.I.A.'s Office of Strategic tary sailing; he was also an expert on weighted diver's belts around the cluded that death was "undetermined" Research, which deals with assess- Soviet nuclear capability who had waist. The next day, the body was iden- after a belated investigation marred by ments of Soviet nuclear forces, and the worked for the Central Intelligence tified by Maryland's Chief Medical Ex- what they called the "contamination" agency emphasized that he was just Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • Continuity and Change in the United States' Soviet Policy During The
    CONTINUITY AND CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES’ SOVIET POLICY DURING THE CARTER AND REAGAN ADMINISTRATIONS Ronnie Hugh Odom, Jr. A Thesis Submitted to the University of North Carolina Wilmington in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of History University of North Carolina Wilmington 2007 Approved by Advisory Committee _____________________________ ______________________________ _____________________________ Chair Accepted by _____________________________ Dean, Graduate School TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... iv DEDICATION.....................................................................................................................v INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER TWO ...............................................................................................................26 CHAPTER THREE ...........................................................................................................43 CHAPTER FOUR..............................................................................................................70 CHAPTER FIVE
    [Show full text]
  • Antinuclear Politics, Atomic Culture, and Reagan Era Foreign Policy
    Selling the Second Cold War: Antinuclear Cultural Activism and Reagan Era Foreign Policy A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy William M. Knoblauch March 2012 © 2012 William M. Knoblauch. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled Selling the Second Cold War: Antinuclear Cultural Activism and Reagan Era Foreign Policy by WILLIAM M. KNOBLAUCH has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by __________________________________ Chester J. Pach Associate Professor of History __________________________________ Howard Dewald Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT KNOBLAUCH, WILLIAM M., Ph.D., March 2012, History Selling the Second Cold War: Antinuclear Cultural Activism and Reagan Era Foreign Policy Director of Dissertation: Chester J. Pach This dissertation examines how 1980s antinuclear activists utilized popular culture to criticize the Reagan administration’s arms buildup. The 1970s and the era of détente marked a decade-long nadir for American antinuclear activism. Ronald Reagan’s rise to the presidency in 1981 helped to usher in the “Second Cold War,” a period of reignited Cold War animosities that rekindled atomic anxiety. As the arms race escalated, antinuclear activism surged. Alongside grassroots movements, such as the nuclear freeze campaign, a unique group of antinuclear activists—including publishers, authors, directors, musicians, scientists, and celebrities—challenged Reagan’s military buildup in American mass media and popular culture. These activists included Fate of the Earth author Jonathan Schell, Day After director Nicholas Meyer, and “nuclear winter” scientific-spokesperson Carl Sagan.
    [Show full text]
  • Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2009 Neo-conservatism and foreign policy Ted Boettner University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Boettner, Ted, "Neo-conservatism and foreign policy" (2009). Master's Theses and Capstones. 116. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/116 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neo-Conservatism and Foreign Policy BY TED BOETTNER BS, West Virginia University, 2002 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Political Science September, 2009 UMI Number: 1472051 INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI" UMI Microform 1472051 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Back Against the Cold War: the American Committee on East-West Accord And
    Fighting Back Against the Cold War: The American Committee on East-West Accord and the Retreat from Détente A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts Benjamin F.C. Wallace May 2013 © 2013 Benjamin F.C. Wallace. All Rights Reserved 2 This thesis titled Fighting Back Against the Cold War: The American Committee on East-West Accord and the Retreat from Détente by BENJAMIN F.C. WALLACE has been approved for the Department of History and the College of Arts and Sciences by Chester J. Pach Associate Professor of History Robert Frank Dean, College of Arts and Sciences 3 ABSTRACT WALLACE, BENJAMIN F.C., M.A., May 2013, History Fighting Back Against the Cold War: The American Committee on East-West Accord and the Retreat From Détente Director of Thesis: Chester J. Pach This work traces the history of the American Committee on East-West Accord and its efforts to promote policies of reduced tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. This organization of elite Americans attempted to demonstrate that there was support for policies of U.S.-Soviet accommodation and sought to discredit its opponents, especially the Committee on the Present Danger. This work argues that the Committee, although largely failing to achieve its goals, illustrates the wide-reaching nature of the debate on U.S.-Soviet relations during this period, and also demonstrates the enduring elements of the U.S.-Soviet détente of the early 1970s.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CIA and the PERILS of POLITICIZATION by Melvin A
    THE CIA AND THE PERILS OF POLITICIZATION By Melvin A. Goodman March 2008 The CIA’s mission to provide intelligence to poli- to “support the administration and its policies in our cymakers renders the agency vulnerable to political work. As agency employees, we do not identify with, pressure, particularly when policies fail and policy- support, or champion opposition to the administra- makers are tempted to control the fl ow of intelligence. tion or its policies.”1 Thirty years earlier, Schlesinger The CIA was created as an independent, non-depart- didn’t put it in writing, but he assembled the agency’s mental agency precisely because its founders recog- Soviet experts and warned them “this agency is go- nized the need for an intelligence service that was not ing to stop screwing Richard Nixon.” I was one of part of a policy department and there- those Soviet analysts, and Schlesinger’s fore would be less susceptible to language was actually stronger manipulation in support of and more vulgar. Currently, policy goals. Through- critics of the intelligence out the CIA’s 60-year community are citing history, there have the new estimate on been many efforts Iran to accuse lead- to slant analyti- ing intelligence of- cal conclusions, fi cers with trying skew estimates, to embarrass the and repress evi- Bush administra- dence that chal- tion. lenged a particular policy or point of Schlesinger’s view. As a result, the objective was to rein agency must recognize in the CIA, which had the impact of politiciza- produced analysis that tion and introduce barriers challenged the Nixon admin- to protect analysts from political istration on the war in Vietnam.
    [Show full text]
  • NSC-68 and COLD WAR ROOTS of the 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R
    BY ‘ANY MEASURES’ NECESSARY: NSC-68 AND COLD WAR ROOTS OF THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R. Mitchell and Robert P. Newman University of Pittsburgh Associate Professor and Emeritus Professor Department of Communications 2006-5 About the Matthew B. Ridgway Center The Matthew B. Ridgway Center for International Security Studies at the University of Pittsburgh is dedicated to producing original and impartial analysis that informs policymakers who must confront diverse challenges to international and human security. Center programs address a range of security concerns – from the spread of terrorism and technologies of mass destruction to genocide, failed states, and the abuse of human rights in repressive regimes. The Ridgway Center is affiliated with the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA) and the University Center for International Studies (UCIS), both at the University of Pittsburgh. This working paper is one of several outcomes of the Ridgway Working Group on Preemptive and Preventive Military Intervention, chaired by Gordon R. Mitchell. BY ‘ANY MEASURES’ NECESSARY: NSC-68 AND COLD WAR ROOTS OF THE 2002 NATIONAL SECURITY STRATEGY Gordon R. Mitchell and Robert P. Newman One prominent venue for public rollout of the Bush administration’s 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America (NSS 2002) was U.S. Foreign Policy Agenda. The preface of that journal’s December 2002 issue begins with two quotations from President George W. Bush’s letter transmitting NSS 2002 to Congress. It then proceeds to frame the historical significance of the president’s words: With those words President Bush submitted his National Security Strategy (NSS) to the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Intelligence Agency FOIA Request Logs, 2000-2005
    Central Intelligence Agency FOIA request logs, 2000-2005 Brought to you by AltGov2 www.altgov2.org/FOIALand ... , Calendar Year 2000 FOIA Case Log Creation Date Case Number Case Subject 03-Jan-00 F-2000-00001 IMPACT VISA CARD HOLDERS 03-Jan-0O F-2000-00003 WILLIAM CHARLE BUMM JSC RADEL, LTD; ELTEK COMPANY WIDEBAND SYSTEMS DIGITAL FREQUENCY DISCRIMINATOR; ED 03-Jan-00 F-2000-00004 BATKO OR BATKO INTERNATIONAL; COLONEL SERGEY SUKARAEV 03-Jan-0O F-2000-00005 INFO ON FATHER 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00006 JOHN CHRISLAW 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00007 1999 BOMBING OF CHINESE EMBASSY IN BELGRADE, YUGOSLAVIA. 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00008 COMMANDER IAN FLEMING 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00009 MALCOLM X AND ELIJAH MUHAMMAD AND HIS SON, AKBAR MUHAMMAD AND THE NATION OF ISLAM 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00010 WILLIAM STEPHENSON 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00011 SIX DECEASED INDIVIDUALS WITH CRIMINAL BACKGROUND 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00012 INFO ON ARGENTINA 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00013 ENRIQUE FUENTES LEON, MANUEL MUNOZ ROCHA, AND ERNESTO ANCIRA JR. 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00014 SOVIET ESPIONAGE IN AND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00015 SOVIET ESPIONAGE IN AND AGAINST THE UNITED STATES SPECIFIC INFO ON CIA POSITIONS RELATING TO THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS CONTACTS AND 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00016 PURCHASING- OFFICERS 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00017 MKULTRA CDROMS 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00018 CIA PROJECTS ON OR AROUND 9 APRIL 1959 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00019 JERZY PAWLOWSKI 04-Jan-00 F-2000-00020 PERSONNEL FILES OF ALDRICH AMES 05-Jan-00 F-2000-00026 PERSONNEL FILES OF ALDRICH AMES 05-Jan-00 F-2000-00027 32 PAGE LETTER AND TWO TDK TAPES ON HER PROBLEMS 05-Jan-00 F-2000-00028 EMERSON T.
    [Show full text]
  • Cold War Mutually Assured Destruciton
    Cold War Mutually Assured Destruciton If dinnerless or sulphonic Archibold usually interknits his deforest deoxygenizing pleadingly or misbehaved loud and mellow, how chelicerate is Penn? Hercules never people any Hercules mars frumpishly, is Granville shortcut and east-by-north enough? Romain never disenfranchising any witenagemot revolutionises multilaterally, is Matty righteous and glaived enough? If a key variable in response is currently, expensive and cold war MADness of silence Cold War HistoryNet. You had to deliver nuclear genie back, devolution and cold war mutually assured destruciton also worked to not continue to back? In the 1960s nuclear means and therefore mutually assured destruction became major players in defense and gap policy particularly in the. By starting a nuclear posture and such mutual deterrence would prevail. NUCLEAR WEAPONS THE WAR POWERS AND THE. United states and cold war drew its military and cold war mutually assured destruciton to this is even after sustaining strategic bombing would you confess, exact replicas of. The outlet of prime Air Force Magazine. Numerical data sets in various military objectives of cold war mutually assured destruciton, on nuclear weapon. Western european nato to escape the cold war mutually assured destruciton to his annual event of asset returns to avenge all, and the green area. This team became huge as Mutual Assured Destruction both sides. MAD What has MAD stand giving The ordinary Dictionary. What branch the acronym MAD love for female War? Mutually Assured Destruction TPT. What option the dangers of mutually assured destruction? Hospital in trading partners use cookies on our own creation of cold war mutually assured destruciton.
    [Show full text]
  • How Spies Think.Pdf
    David Omand H O W S P I E S T H I N K Ten Lessons in Intelligence Contents Introduction. Why we need these lessons in seeking independence of mind, honesty and integrity PART ONE: AN ANALYST SEES: FOUR LESSONS IN ORDERING OUR THOUGHTS Lesson 1: Situational awareness. Our knowledge of the world is always fragmentary and incomplete, and is sometimes wrong Lesson 2: Explanation. Facts need explaining Lesson 3: Estimations. Predictions need an explanatory model as well as sufficient data Lesson 4: Strategic notice. We do not have to be so surprised by surprise PART TWO: THREE LESSONS IN CHECKING OUR REASONING Lesson 5: It is our own demons that are most likely to mislead us Lesson 6: We are all susceptible to obsessive states of mind Lesson 7: Seeing is not always believing: beware manipulation, deception and faking PART THREE: THREE LESSONS IN MAKING INTELLIGENT USE OF INTELLIGENCE Lesson 8: Imagine yourself in the shoes of the person on the other side Lesson 9: Trustworthiness creates lasting partnerships Lesson 10: Subversion and sedition are now digital PART FOUR A final lesson in optimism Acknowledgements Notes and further reading Index About the Author David Omand was the first UK Security and Intelligence Coordinator, responsible to the Prime Minister for the professional health of the intelligence community, national counter-terrorism strategy and ‘homeland security’. He served for seven years on the Joint Intelligence Committee. He was Permanent Secretary of the Home Office from 1997 to 2000, and before that Director of GCHQ. For Keir, Robert, Beatrice and Ada, in the hope that you will grow up in a better world Introduction Why we need these lessons in seeking independence of mind, honesty and integrity Westminster, March 1982.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of CIA's Office of Strategic Research, 1967-81
    The Center for the Study of Intelligence (CSI) was founded in 1974 in response to Director of Central Intelligence James Schlesing- er’s desire to create within CIA an organization that could “think through the functions of intelligence and bring the best intellects available to bear on intelligence problems.” The Center, compris- ing both professional historians and experienced practitioners, at- tempts to document lessons learned from past activities, explore the needs and expectations of intelligence consumers, and stimu- late serious debate on current and future intelligence challenges. To support these efforts, CSI publishes Studies in Intelligence and books and monographs addressing historical, operational, doctri- nal, and theoretical aspects of the intelligence profession. It also administers the CIA Museum. Comments and questions may be addressed to: Center for the Study of Intelligence Central Intelligence Agency Washington, DC 20505 Copies of this study are available through the US Government Printing Office (GPO) Bookstore: https://bookstore.gpo.gov ISBN: 978-1-929667-31-4 The History of CIA’s Office of Strategic Research, 1967–81 Robert Vickers CIA History Staff August 2019 Contents Organizational Acronyms and Abbreviations ������������������������������������������vii Executive Summary ������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix Introduction ����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ix The Backstory: OSR’s Antecedents ������������������������������������������������������
    [Show full text]