Advertisement

The Impact of New Technologies: Evolutionary or Revolutionary?

  • Stephen J. Flanagan
Part of the Studies in International Security book series (SIS)

Abstract

Several proposals for improving NATO’s conventional forces have centred upon the potential contribution of a variety of technological developments that promise to revolutionize the effectiveness of nonnuclear weapons systems against a wide range of targets.1 Referred to under the general shorthand rubric of ‘emerging technologies’, or ‘ET’, what is envisaged is the integration of a wide range of advances in munitions, precision guidance, sensor, data processing and communications technologies into complex high-capability weapons systems.

Keywords

Nuclear Weapon Weapon System Defense Advance Research Project Agency Shaped Charge Ballistic Missile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    ESECS, Strengthening Conventional Deterrence in Europe (New York: St Martin’s, 1983), and Strengthening Conventional Defense in Europe: A Program for the 1980s, ESECS II (Boulder, Colorado, and London: Westview, 1985).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sir Roy Mason, ‘Lecture to the International Institute for Strategic Studies’, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    James A. Tegnelia, ‘Emerging Technology for Conventional Deterrence’, International Defense Review, 5 (1985), p. 646.Google Scholar
  4. James W. Canan, ‘Here Come the Superchips’, Air Force Magazine April 1984, pp. 48–54; and US Department of Defense, Annual Report of the Secretary of Defense, Caspar W. Weinberger, to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1986 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 4 February 1985), p. 265.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edgar Ulsamer, ‘A Roadmap to Tomorrow’s Tactical Airpower’, Air Force Magazine, December 1983, p. 45.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    US Department of Defense, Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger, Annual Report to Congress, FY 1988, 12 January 1987, pp. 200–1.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Gary Mitchelmore, ‘The Big World of the Sentry’, Air Force Magazine, April 1984, pp. 70–7;Google Scholar
  8. Brian Wanstall, ‘Integrating the NATO AEW Force’, Interavia, January 1984, p. 33;Google Scholar
  9. and Robert King, ‘Nimrod Ax Changes UK Defense Plans’, Armed Forces Journal International, February 1987, pp. 26–7.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Clarence A. Robinson, Jr, ‘Surveillance Integration Pivotal in Israeli Successes’, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 5 July 1982, pp. 1617.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    US Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger, Annual Report to the Congress, FY 1987, 6 February 1986, p. 249.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Floyd D. Kennedy, Jr, ‘The Radioelectronic Struggle: Soviet EW Doctrinal Development’, Signal, December 1984, pp. 59–63;Google Scholar
  13. and Gerald Green, ‘Soviet EW — Maskirova and REC’, National Defense, April 1985, pp. 34–9.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J. P. Rapalski, ‘DoD RPVs — Too Costly, Too Few, Too Late?’, Armed Forces Journal International, February 1984, pp. 62–7;Google Scholar
  15. and Glenn W. Goodman, Jr, ‘U.S. Military RPV Programs have taken Big Strides in 1986’, Armed Forces Journal International, December 1986, pp. 66–70.Google Scholar
  16. 15.
    Lois M. Blake, ‘Multiple Launch Rockets’, Journal of Defense and Diplomacy, 1, 3 (June 1983) p. 51.Google Scholar
  17. 16.
    Edgar Ulsamer, ‘Smart and Standing Off’, Air Force Magazine, November 1983, p. 59.Google Scholar
  18. 17.
    Manfred Woerner and Peter Kurt Wurzbach, ‘NATO’s New “Conventional Option”’, Wall Street Journal, 19 November 1982, p. 30.Google Scholar
  19. 18.
    Michael R. Gordon, ‘Highly Touted Assault Breaker Weapon Caught up in Internal Pentagon Debate’, National Journal 22 October 1983, pp. 2152–6. Assault Breaker was not a single weapon but a number of components such as an airborne radar, tactical fusion processing centre, missile and payload, used in close coordination.Google Scholar
  20. 24.
    IISS, The Military Balance, 1985–1986 (London: IISS, 1985), p. 162.Google Scholar
  21. 26.
    For a discussion of SDI work relevant to the ATBM question, see Gregory H. Canavan, Theater Applications of Strategic Defense Concepts (Los Alamos, N.M.: Los Alamos National Laboratory, June 1985), LA–UR–85–2117 (P/AC: 85–149).Google Scholar
  22. 27.
    Clarence A. Robinson, Jr, ‘U.S. Develops Antitactical Weapon for Europe Role’, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9 April 1984, pp. 46–9.Google Scholar
  23. 28.
    Michael Feazel, ‘German Minister Proposes Initiative to Improve European Defenses’, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9 December 1985, pp. 19–20;Google Scholar
  24. and Manfred Woerner, ‘A Missile Defense for NATO Europe’, Strategic Review 14 (Winter 1986), pp. 13–19.Google Scholar
  25. 31.
    Alan Dodd Frank, ‘Learning the Hard Way’, Forbes, 6 June 1983, pp. 41–2.Google Scholar
  26. 32.
    William J. Perry and Cynthia A. Roberts, ‘Winning Through Sophistication: How to Meet the Soviet Challenge’, Technology Review, July 1982, pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
  27. 33.
    See John J. Mearsheimer, ‘Precision-Guided Munitions and Conventional Deterrence’, Survival 21, 2 (March/April 1979), pp. 68–76;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Daniel Gouré and Gordon McCormick, ‘PGM No Panacea’, Survival 22, 1 (January/February 1980), pp. 15–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. and John J. Mearsheimer ‘Rejoinder’, Survival 22, 1 (January/February 1980), pp. 20–22;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. and Michael L. Brown and Thomas J. Leney, ‘Conventional Defense: Technology, Doctrine and Force Structure’, in J. R. Golden, A. Clark, and B. E. Arlinghaus, Conventional Deterrence (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1984), pp. 163–76.Google Scholar
  31. 34.
    Benjamin F. Schemmer, ‘Interview With Philip A. Karber’, Armed Forces Journal International, May 1987, pp. 42–60;Google Scholar
  32. and Vernon A. Guidry, Jr, ‘Army Modifies Missile, Seeks Edge on Armor’, Baltimore Sun, 19 July 1987, p. 1.Google Scholar
  33. 36.
    B. Bloom, ‘U.S. “Railroading” NATO on High-Tech Weapons’, Financial Times (London), 4 December 1983, p. 3.Google Scholar
  34. 37.
    David A. Brown, ‘NATO Selects Emerging Technologies’, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 16 April 1984, pp. 28–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Institute for Strategic Studies 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen J. Flanagan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations