Strategic Innovation and ICBM Vulnerability: Evaluating the Threat to Minuteman

See Lawrence D. Freedman, US Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat, (London: Macmillan, 1986)Google Scholar

John Prados, The Soviet Estimate: U.S. Intelligence Analysis and Russian Military Strength, (New York: Dial Press, 1982)Google Scholar

For their part the Soviets had not disguised their intention to deploy new systems of this size, hence their refusal to accept these restrictions as part of the main text of the treaty. See Jack F. Kemp, ‘Congressional Expectations of SALT II’, Strategic Review, Vol. VII, No. 1. (Winter 1979) p. 18.Google Scholar

Subcommittee on Arms Control, International Law and Organisation, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Briefing on Counterforce Attacks, 93rd Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington DC: United States Government Printing Office, 11 September 1974) p. 10.Google Scholar

For a full discussion of Congressional efforts to prevent the development of MIRV and accuracy improvements, see Alton Frye, A Responsible Congress: The Politics of National Security, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975)Google Scholar

Letter to Senator Edward W. Brooke from the Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, 5 November 1970; reprinted in Public Statements by the Secretaries of Defense, Part 4, Vol. V, p. 2057.Google Scholar

Air Force Magazine, March, 1971. Cited by Freedman, US, p. 178. Kaplan describes these ‘bomb-damage calculators’ of kill-probability as simple to operate ‘circular slide-rules that do neat little tricks without which the doomsayers would be nowhere’, Fred M. Kaplan, Dubious Spectre: A Sceptical Look at the Soviet Nuclear Threat, (Washington DC: The Institute For Policy Studies, 1980) p. 41.Google Scholar

Fred M. Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon, (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983) pp. 374–7.Google Scholar

Gregg Herken, Counsels of War, (New York: Knopf, 1985) p. 248.Google Scholar

Lynn E. Davis, ‘Limited Nuclear Options: Deterrence and the New American Doctrine’, Adelphi Paper No. 121, (London: nternational Institute for Strategic Studies, Winter 1975/6) p. 9.Google Scholar

Fred Charles Ikle, ‘Can Deterrence Last Out The Century?’ Foreign Affairs, (January, 1973). Reprinted in Philip Bobbitt, Lawrence Freedman, and Gregory Treverton (eds), US Nuclear Strategy: A Reader, (London: Macmillan, 1989) p. 352 and p. 349.Google Scholar

Kissinger observes in his memoirs that assured destruction ‘implied the most inhumane strategy for conducting a war... the mass extermination of civilians’, Henry Kissinger, White House Years, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1979) p. 216.Google Scholar

Richard K. Betts, Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance, (Washington DC: The Brookings Institute, 1987) pp. 185–91.Google Scholar

Philip Bobbitt, Democracy and Deterrence: The History and Future of Nuclear Strategy, (London: Macmillan, 1988) p. 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evidence of William Van Cleave, University of Southern California. Hearings, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Military Implications of the Treaty on the Limitations of Anti Ballistic Missile Systems and the Interim Agreement on Limitations of Strategic Offensive Arms, 92nd Congress, 2nd Session, (Washington DC: US Government Printing Office, June 1972) p. 587.Google Scholar

Gregory Treverton,’ Nuclear Weapons In Europe’ Adelphi Paper No. 168, (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981) p. 3.Google Scholar

As Davis explains, ‘a variety of different concerns combined to produce the new doctrine. The new Administration was uneasy about relying on Assured Destruction, given the build-up of Soviet strategic forces, and also wondered whether the large number of warheads entering the American inventory might have more utility than earlier Administrations had predicted. Systems analysts in the Defense Department worried about the rigidity of existing nuclear plans. Some military and civilian officials undoubtedly saw the new doctrine as a way to justify new weapons they wanted for other reasons. Finally, officials in the State Department hoped that the new doctrine would allay European anxieties about the credibility of the American strategic deterrent.’ Lynn E. Davis, ‘Limited Nuclear Options: Deterrence and the New American Doctrine’. Adelphi Paper No. 121, (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Winter 1975/6) p. 4.Google Scholar

Nixon, US Foreign Policy for the 1970s, pp. 54–5. See also Desmond Ball, Targeting for Strategic Deterrence’, Adelphi Paper No. 185, (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies. Summer 1983) pp. 17–20.Google Scholar

Nixon’s NSC had actually conducted a number of staff analyses on questions of strategic vulnerability in the first year of the new administration’s term, and as William Hyland — an NSC staffer at the time-observes, ‘the vulnerability of American ICBMs was thoroughly examined in 1969 including the countermeasures that would later evolve... Of special concern was the impact of a new vulnerability on the behaviour of both sides during a crisis. If one side could in fact launch an effective attack against the other side’s missile silos, would the temptation prove irresistible?’ As Hyland notes ‘all of this was a heretical challenge to the prevailing doctrine of deterrence’. William G. Hyland, Mortal Rivals: Superpower Relations From Nixon To Reagan, (New York: Random House, 1987) p. 42.Google Scholar

See Desmond Ball and Jeffrey Richelson, (eds), Strategic Nuclear Targeting, (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1986), p. 18.Google Scholar

At RAND Schlesinger’s research included work on the intellectual origins of the concepts now being discussed by the administration. Janne E. Nolan, Guardians of the Arsenal, (New York: Basic Books, 1989) p. 118.Google Scholar

Aviation Week And Space Technology, 22 June 1970, p. 22. Cited by David Gold, Christopher Paine and Gail Shields, Misguided Expenditure: An Analysis of the Proposed MX Missile System, (New York: Council On Economic Priorities, 1981) p. 41.Google Scholar

Gold et al. p. 40 and Lauren H. Holland and Robert A. Hoover, The MX Decision: A New Direction in US Weapons Procurement Policy, (Boulder: Westview, 1985) p. 125.Google Scholar

Holland and Hoover, pp. 125–7; John Edwards, Super Weapon: The Making of the MX, (London: Norton, 1982) pp. 100–2Google Scholar

Paul N. Stockton, ‘Arms Development and Arms Control: The Strange Case of the MX Missile’, in Allan P. Sindler (eds) American Politics and Public Policy (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1982) p. 227.Google Scholar

The trench idea was finally rejected when technical investigations indicated that the blast effect of a Soviet warhead on any part of the trench ‘would send shock waves through the tunnel, collapsing the roof, buckling the track and wrecking the missile’. Strobe Talbott, Endgame: The Inside Story of SALT II, (London: Harper and Bow, 1979) p. 167.Google Scholar