The Future of Land-based Strategic Weapons: Part II

  • Louis C. Finch
Part of the International Institute for Strategic Studies Conference Papers book series (IISSCP)

Abstract

All aspects of strategic forces have been scrutinized in public debate. None, however, has presented so vexing a problem over the last decade as finding a solution to the perceived problem of the vulnerability of silo-based icbm. Valiant attempts have been made, first through finding technical solutions to icbm basing — for example, multiple aim point basing, multiple protective shelters, and closely spaced ‘dense pack’ basing — and later through the recommendations of the Scowcroft Commission to proceed with a combination of interim silo-basing of MX, development of mobile icbm basing options and arms-control measures. But problems still remain. (In the case of earlier icbm basing schemes, all were rejected for a variety of technical, political and economic reasons. In the case of the Scowcroft recommendations, recent actions in the US Congress suggest that the political consensus on which they were based is eroding, and the arms-control proposals on which they rely heavily have thus far been rejected by the USSR.)

Keywords

Hexad Assure Expense Triad Poss 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    Alan C. Enthoven and Wayne K. Smith, How Much is Enough? Shaping the Defense Program, 1961–9 ( New York: Harper and Row, 1971 ), p. 207.Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Phillip Shabecoff, ‘Grimmer View Painted of Nuclear War Effects’, New York Times, 30 October 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Theodore H. Moran and Peter A. Wilson, ‘A New Strategic Arms Agreement’, SAIS Review, Winter/Spring 1984, p. 119.Google Scholar
  4. 10.
    Albert Gore Jr, ‘A New Proposal for START Talks’, Congressional Record, 4 August 1983, pp. E4045–8.Google Scholar
  5. 11.
    Walter Pincus, ‘New Silo Hardening Tests Could Reopen Missile Basing Debate’, Washington Post, 11 May 1984, p. 15.Google Scholar
  6. 12.
    Albert Gore Jr, ‘Super Missiles: Their Relationships to Military Security and Arms Control’, Congressional Record, 26 April 1984, pp. E1794 — E1795.Google Scholar
  7. 13.
    Edgar Ulsamer, ‘The Prospects for Superhard Silos’, Air Force Magazine, January 1984, pp. 74–7.Google Scholar

Source

  1. Collins, John M., and Thomas Peter Glakas, US Soviet Military Balance Statistical Trends, 1970–1981 (As of 1 January 1983) (Washington Dc: Congressional Research Service, October 1981, updated 1 August 1983.Google Scholar
  2. Finch, Louis C., START Ballistic Missile Warhead Portion of the ‘Build Down’ Proposal (Washington Dc: Congressional Research Service, 17 January 1984).Google Scholar
  3. Moran, Theodore H., and Peter A. Wilson. Wilson ‘A New Strategic Arms Agreement’, SAIS Review, Winter/ Spring 1984.Google Scholar
  4. Bowen, Alva M., Navy Nuclear Armed Cruise Missiles (Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, 9 May 1984 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for Strategic Studies 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis C. Finch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations