Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Modern Technology and Geopolitics

  • Chapter
On Geopolitics: Classical and Nuclear

Part of the book series: NATO ASI Series ((ASID,volume 20))

Abstract

Geopolitics has been defined most succinctly as “the relation of international political power to the geographical setting.”[1] This definition has three principal conceptual components—the international system of nation states, political power, and geography—each of which has a significant relationship to technology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Saul Bernard Cohen, Geography & Politics in a World Divided ( New York: Random House, 1963 ), p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, The Conduct of War 1789–1961 ( London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, 1962, p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power & Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Fourth Edition, 1967 ), p. 114.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ibid., p. 115.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ibid., pp. 115–116.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cohen, Geography & Politics in a Divided World, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  7. See Jean Gottman, “Geography & International Relations,” World Politics (Vol. Ill, No. 2 ), 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  9. See Harold and Margaret Sprout, “Geography and International Politics in an Era of Revolutionary Change,” The Journal of Conflict Resolutions (Vol. IV, No. 1 ), 1960.

    Google Scholar 

  10. A. T. Mahan, The Influence of Sea Power upon History, 1660–1783 (Boston, 1890 ), Chapter 1.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Sir Halford J. Mackinder, The Scope and Methods of Geography and The Geographical Pivot of History ( London: The Royal Geographical Society, 1951 ), pp. 30–44.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ibid., p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  13. W.A. Douglas Jackson (ed.), Politics and Geographic Relationships: Readings on the Nature of Political Geography (Engle-wood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964 ), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See Ross Babbage, “Technological Change on the Conventional Battlefield: Trends and Implications,” in Desmond Ball (ed.), Strategy and Defence: Australian Essays (Sydney, Australia: George Allen & Unwin, 1982 ), pp. 100–102.

    Google Scholar 

  15. A. A. Tinajero, “The MX Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Program” (Library of Congrss, Congressional Research Service, Issue Brief No. IB77080, 29 June 1977 ), p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Briefing on Counter-force Attacks (Secret Hearing held on 11 September 1974; Sanitized and made public on 10 January 1975 ), p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 16 June 1980, p. 69.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jim Klurfeld, “The MX Debate,” Long Island Newsday, 3 February 1980, p. 5; and Clarence A. Robinson, “Soviets Boost ICBM Accuracy,” Aviation Week & Space Technology, 3 April 1978, pp. 14–16.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Testimony of Paul H. Nitze, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The SALT II Treaty (Part 1), July, 1979, p. 458.

    Google Scholar 

  20. R. T. Pretty (ed.) Jane’s Weapon Systems 1979-80 ( London: Macdonald & Jane’s Publishers Limited, 1979 ), pp. 21–22.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Air Force Magazine, June 1980, p. 17. Aviation Week & Space Technology has even reported (8 December 1980, p. 11) that the CEP of the Trident II S1BM is expected to be as good as 400 feet.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Desmond J. Ball, “The Counterforce Potential of American SLBM Systems,” Journal of Peace Research (Vol. XIV, No. 1 ), 1977, pp. 23–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Doug Richardson, “Soviet Strategic Nuclear Rockets Guide,” Flight International, 11 December 1976, p. 1733.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Center for Defense Information, “The Cruise Missile: A Weapon in Search of a Mission,” The Defense Monitor (Vol. V, No. 7 ), September 1976, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid.; and testimony of Paul Nitze, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, The SALT II Treaty, Part 1, p. 458.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Center for Defense Information, “The Cruise Missile,” p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff and Jacquelyn K. Davis, The Cruise Missile: Bargaining Chip or Defense Bargain? (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, Inc., 1977 ), p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See, for example, James F. Digby, Precision-Guided Weapons (Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, P-5353, March 1975 ).

    Google Scholar 

  29. W. T. Mikolowsky and L. W. Noggle, An Evaluation of Very Large Airplanes and Alternative Fuels (Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, R-1889-AF, December 1976 ), p. 197.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Air Force Magazine, December 1982, p. 28.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 22 November 1982, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 31 January 1983, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 22 November 1982, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  34. The Committee for the Compilation of Materials on Damage Caused by the Atomic Bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981 ), pp. 30–31.

    Google Scholar 

  35. David Alan Rosenberg, “A Smoking, Radiating Ruin at the End of Two Hours: Documents on American Plans for Nuclear War with the Soviet Union, 1954-55,” International Security (Vol. 6, No. 3), Winter 1981/1982, p. 20, note 7.;

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ibid., p. 31, note 2; and Herbert York, The Advisors: Openheimer, Teller and the Super Bomb ( San Francisco: W. H. Freeman & Company, 1976 ), pp. 82–87.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Senate Armed Services Committee, Fiscal Year 1976 & July-September, Transition Period Authorization for Military Procurement (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1975), Part 10, p. 5146.

    Google Scholar 

  38. See Walter Pincus, “Why More Nukes?: A New Generation of Weaponry,” The New Republic, 9 February 1974, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  39. United States Atomic Energy Commission, Annual Report to Congress for 1972: 1972 Atomic Energy Programs: Operating and Developmental Functions (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 31 January 1973 ), p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Pincus, “Why More Nukes?,” p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid., pp. 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  42. House Appropriations Committee, Department of Defense Appropriation for 1980 ( Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979 ), p. 863.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ross Babbage, “Technological Change on the Conventional Battlefield,” pp. 102–103.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Desmond Ball, “Australia and the U.S. Defense Support Program,” Pacific Defence Reporter, November 1982, pp. 25–32, 47.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Desmond Ball, “The Rhyolite Programme” (Reference Paper No. 86, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, Canberra, November 1981 ).

    Google Scholar 

  46. John W.R. Taylor (ed)., Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft 1981-82 ( London: Jane’s Publishing Company Limited, 1981 ), p. 314.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid., p. 366.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid., p. 390.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Army Beefing Up Intelligence Capabilities, Defense Electronics/Electronic Warfare, June 1979, pp. 55–60.

    Google Scholar 

  50. See Desmond Ball, “0TH-B Radar in Defence of Australia,” Electronics Today International (Vol$18, No. 2) February 1978, pp. 35–40.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Director of Central Intelligence, Soviet Civil Defense (NI. 78-100003, July 1978 ), p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Letter from General Brown to Senator William Proxmire, 3 February 1977, reprinted in Survival, March/April 1977, p. 77; and Aviation Week & Space Technology, 7 February 1977, p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Kevin McKean, “Making Giant Waves for Subs in the Deep,” Discover, January 1982, p. 82.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Albert D. Wheelon, Roger W. Clapp, and Barnet Krinsky, EHF Satellite Communications (Hughes Aircraft Company, Space & Communications Group, 15 October 1981 ).

    Google Scholar 

  55. See Secretary Weinberger’s testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee of 5 October 1981, in Survival (Vol. XXIV, No. 1), January/February 1982, p. 31. However, the 150 Minuteman II silos at Ellsworth Air Force Base, South Dakota, are hardened to somewhat less than 2000 psi. See testimony of General Slay, Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1979 (Part 4 ), p. 985.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Colin S. Gray, The Future of Land-Based Missile Forces (Adelphi Paper No. 140, London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, Winter 1977), pp$112, 17; Aviation Week & Space Technology, 16 June 1980, p$167; Aviation Week & Space Technology, 3 November 1980., p. 28; and Aviation Week & Space Technology, 17 January 1983, p. 26.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Two New Soviet Strategic Missiles, Foreign Report, 24 February 1983, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See Desmond Ball, “The MX Basing Decision,” Survival (Vol. XXII, No. 2), March/April 1980, pp. 58–65.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Transcript of Remarks by the President on Weapons Program, New York Times, 3 October 1981, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  60. See Walter Pincus and Lou Cannon, “Panel on MX Basing Seeks Extension of Deadline,” Washington Post, 9 February 1983, p. 1.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See Desmond Ball, Can Nuclear War Be Controlled? (Adelphi Paper No. 169, London, International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981 ), Section II.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  63. See John Newhouse, Cold Dawn: The Story of SALT (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973), p. 245; and Gerard Smith, Doubletalk: The Story of SALT I (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1980 ), pp. 391–399.

    Google Scholar 

  64. See U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing & Urban Affairs, Economic and Social Consequences of Nuclear Attacks on the United States ( Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979 ), pp. 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Richard Burt, “New Weapons Technologies and European Security,” Orbis (Vol. XIX, No. 2), Summer 1975, p. 518.

    Google Scholar 

  66. James Digby, Precision-Guided Weapons, pp. 16, 23.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Brigadier General Edward B. Atkeson, Precision Guided Munitions: Implications for Detente (Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 16 September 1975 ), p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  68. For a comprehensive discussion of these trends and implications, see Ross Babbage, “Technological Change and the Conventional Battlefield,” pp. 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  69. See Desmond Ball, “New Military Technologies for the Defence of Australia,” Pacific Defence Reporter (Vol. IV, No. 7 ), February 1978, pp. 80–84.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Albert Wohlstetter, “Illusions of Distance,” Foreign Affairs (Vol.146, No. 2), January 1968, pp. 244–245.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Albert Wohlstetter, “Theory and Opposed-Systems Design,” in Morton A. Kaplan (ed.), New Approaches to International Relations ( New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1968 ), p. 44.

    Google Scholar 

  72. W. T. Mikolowsky and L. W. Noggle, An Evaluation of Very Large Airplanes and Alternative Fuels, p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Interview with General Bennie L. Davis, Commander-in- Chief of the Strategic Air Command, in USA Today, 17 March 1983, p. 5C.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See C.W.C. Oman, The Art of War in the Middle Ages: A.D. 378–1515 (New York: Cornell University Press, 1953 ), pp. 104–115.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Michael Howard, The Franco-Prussian War ( London: Hart- Davis Publishers, 1962 ).

    Google Scholar 

  76. Vannevar Bush, Modern Arms and Free Men ( New York: Simon & Schuster, 1949 ), Chapter 2.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Desmond Ball
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of California, 90024, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Ciro E. Zoppo (Professor of International Relations) (Professor of International Relations)

  2. University of Paris-Sud, Paris, France

    Charles Zorgbibe (Dean of the Faculty of Law and Vice President) (Dean of the Faculty of Law and Vice President)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1985 Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ball, D. (1985). Modern Technology and Geopolitics. In: Zoppo, C.E., Zorgbibe, C. (eds) On Geopolitics: Classical and Nuclear. NATO ASI Series, vol 20. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6230-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6230-9_7

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-009-6232-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-009-6230-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation