United States Security Interests in the Arctic

  • G. Leonard Johnson
  • David Bradley
  • Robert S. Winokur
Conference paper

Abstract

The Arctic is of strategic importance to the United States for a variety of reasons. First, it is the only region in which the United States shares a common border with its superpower rival, the Soviet Union (Figure 13-11). Second, the Arctic Ocean serves as an important defensive barrier to attack from the north.

Keywords

Microwave Europe Petroleum Transportation Radar 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. A.C. Washburn, “Focus on Polar Research,” Science 209 (1980), pp. 643–652;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. R.P. Berman and J.C. Baker, Soviet Strategic Forces: Requirements and Responses (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1982).Google Scholar
  3. R. Halloran, “Navy Trains to Battle Soviet Submarines in the Arctic,” New York Times, May 19, 1983, p. 17.Google Scholar
  4. W. Ostreng, “The Stategic Balance and the Arctic Ocean: Soviet Options,” Cooperation and Conflict XII (1977):412–462.Google Scholar
  5. W. Parham, “A Soviet Threat from the Arctic,” Norwich Connecticut Sunday Bulletin, November 29, 1981, p. 11.Google Scholar
  6. H.W. Chesire, “Washington Outlook,” Business Week, 7 March 1983, p. 119.Google Scholar
  7. Fredric N. Smith, “Moscow’s Most Powerful Fleet,” Defense and Foreign Affairs, September 1982, pp. 30–31.Google Scholar
  8. Thomas Ries, “Svalbard, Flashpoint of the Far North,” International Defense Review 3 (1980):335–339.Google Scholar
  9. Getler, T “Kola Peninsula as a Key to Soviet Navy Strategy,” Washington Post, December 29, 1982, p. A4.Google Scholar
  10. Erling Bjol, Nordic Security, Adelphi Paper No. 181 (The International Institute for Strategic Studies: London, 1983), p. 43.Google Scholar
  11. T.M. Tynan, “Canadian-American Relations in the Arctic: The Effect of Environmental Influences on Terrestrial Claims,” Review of Politics 41, no. 3, (1979):402–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. S.A. Swarztrauber, “Alaska and Siberia: A Strategic Analysis,” Naval Review, U.S. Naval Institute (1965), pp. 138–165.Google Scholar
  13. C.W. Weinberger, Annual Report to Congress, Fiscal Year 1984 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1983).Google Scholar
  14. Captain John Moore, ed., Janes Fighting Ships 1980–1982, (New York: Janes Publishing Co., 1982), pp. 123–125.Google Scholar
  15. R.P. Martin, Russia’s “Arctic Superfort at Murmansk,” U.S. News & World Report 88 (1980):37–38.Google Scholar
  16. E. Ellingsen, “The Balance of Strength in Northern Europe in Northern Waters Resources and Security Issues,” D. Scrivenor, ed., Centre for Defense Studies, Aberdeen, Scotland (1981), pp. 53–72Google Scholar
  17. J.J. Sokolsky, “Canada’s Future in NATO.” Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institute 1 (1980):67–73.Google Scholar
  18. John Urquhart, “Military Vacuum,” Wall Street Journal, December 1, 1982, p. 56.Google Scholar
  19. Lincoln Bloomfield, “The Arctic: Last Unmanaged Frontier,” Foreign Affairs, Fall 1981, p.91.Google Scholar
  20. Michael MccGwire, “The Rationale for the Development of Soviet Seapower,” in John Baylis and Gerald Segal, Soviet Strategy (London: Croon Helm, 1981), p. 249.Google Scholar
  21. M.M. Kleinerman, “Naval Concerns in the Seasonal Sea Ice Zone.” Naval Sunace Weapons Center Technical Report NSWC MP 80–57 (1980).Google Scholar
  22. AIDJEX, R. Pritchard, ed., Sea Ice Processes and Models (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1980).Google Scholar
  23. F. Jensen and J. Taagholt, Automatic Meteorological Observations under Arctic Conditions, Seventh International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering under Arctic Conditions Symposium Tech. Research Centre Finland, 2 (1983): 1035–1044.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Leonard Johnson
    • 1
  • David Bradley
    • 2
  • Robert S. Winokur
    • 3
  1. 1.United States Office of Naval ResearchNew York University, University of CopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.Geophysical Sciences DivisionCatholic UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteAmerican UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations