Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
U.S. Air Force Strategic Deterrence Capabilities in the 21st Century Security Environment A Workshop Summary Norman M. Haller, Rapporteur Committee on U.S. Air Force Strategic Deterrence Capabilities in the 21st Century Security Environment: A Workshop Air Force Studies Board Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences

OCR for page R1
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This is a report of work supported by Grant FA9550-12-1-0413 between the U.S. Air Force and the National Academy of Sciences. Any views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-28547-6 International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-28547-X Copies of this report are available from: The National Academies Press 500 Fifth Street, NW Keck 360 Washington, DC 20001 (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 http://www.nap.edu Copyright 2013 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COMMITTEE ON U.S. AIR FORCE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE CAPABILITIES IN THE 21st CENTURY SECURITY ENVIRONMENT: A WORKSHOP GERALD F. PERRYMAN, JR., Independent Consultant, Chair RAFAEL ALONSO, Science Applications International Corporation ALLISON ASTORINO-COURTOIS, National Security Innovations, Inc. W. PETER CHERRY, Independent Consultant LOUIS A. COX, JR., Cox Associates, LLC PAUL K. DAVIS, RAND Corporation JERROLD M. POST, George Washington University BRIAN SKYRMS, University of California at Irvine MICHAEL O. WHEELER, Institute for Defense Analyses Staff CARTER W. FORD, Program Officer SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate MARGUERITE E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator v

OCR for page R1
AIR FORCE STUDIES BOARD GREGORY S. MARTIN, GS Martin Consulting, Chair BRIAN A. ARNOLD, Raytheon Company CLAUDE M. BOLTON, JR., Defense Acquisition University STEVEN R.J. BRUECK, University of New Mexico THOMAS J. BURNS, Science Applications International Corporation FRANK CAPPUCCIO, Cappuccio and Associates, LLC BLAISE J. DURANTE, U.S. Air Force (retired) DONALD C. FRASER, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory (retired) MICHAEL J. GIANELLI, The Boeing Company (retired) DANIEL HASTINGS, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PAUL G. KAMINSKI, Technovation, Inc. ROBERT LATIFF, R. Latiff Associates NANCY G. LEVESON, Massachusetts Institute of Technology MARK J. LEWIS, IDA Science and Technology Policy Institute LESTER L. LYLES, The Lyles Group MATT L. MLEZIVA, Wildwood Strategic Concepts C. KUMAR N. PATEL, Pranalytica, Inc. GERALD F. PERRYMAN, JR., Independent Consultant RICHARD V. REYNOLDS, The VanFleet Group, LLC J. DANIEL STEWART, University of Tennessee REBECCA WINSTON, Winston Strategic Management Consulting Staff TERRY J. JAGGERS, Director DIONNA ALI, Senior Program Assistant JESSICA R. BROKENBURR, Financial Assistant SARAH M. CAPOTE, Research Associate GREGORY EYRING, Senior Program Officer CARTER W. FORD, Program Officer CHRIS JONES, Financial Manager MARGUERITE E. SCHNEIDER, Administrative Coordinator DANIEL E.J. TALMAGE, JR., Program Officer vi

OCR for page R1
Preface Changes in the 21st century security environment require new analytic approaches to support strategic deterrence. Because current adversaries may be deterred from the use of nuclear weapons differently than were Cold War adversaries, the Air Force needs an analytic process and tools that can help determine those Air Force capabilities that will successfully deter or defeat these new nuclear-armed adversaries and assure U.S. allies. While some analytic tools are available, a coherent approach for their use in developing strategy and policy appears to be lacking. Without a coherent analytic approach that addresses the nuances of today's security environment, Air Force views of its strategic deterrence needs may not be understood or accepted by the appropriate decision makers. A coherent approach will support Air Force decisions about its strategic force priorities and needs, deter actual or potential adversaries, and assure U.S. allies. 1 Strategic deterrence may now be far more difficult for the United States than during the Cold War. Compared to the Cold War bipolar, rational-actor model, new thinking is needed to cope with the complex notion of deterring other nuclear-armed or potentially nuclear-armed entities. As current nuclear non-peers become near-peers or peers, they may not act as expected. Non-peers that have or are developing nuclear weapons are often ruled by regimes that are difficult to penetrate, as well as regimes whose decision-making dynamics are difficult to interpret. Although these regimes may be considered irrational, other factors need to be taken into account, such as insular perspectives of adversaries; aberrant views of their role in their region; and historic, cultural, and religious biases, all of which affect the decision maker’s cost-benefit calculus. U.S. security depends on having the right mix of strategic options and capabilities to deal with the new challenges. The United States may find itself engaged in a conventional war with such nuclear-armed adversaries. Some postulate that preventing escalation in such circumstances will be far more difficult than peacetime deterrence was during the Cold War. Adversaries may have powerful incentives to brandish or use nuclear weapons. It is conceivable that some nuclear-armed leaders who face very bad options may take desperate gambles, accepting a high probability of making things worse in exchange for a small hope of avoiding a large loss. Before ever getting to such a point, the Air Force must be able to understand fully and articulate convincingly its capabilities to contribute to deterrence. 2 In this context, the Air Force in 2012 requested that the Air Force Studies Board of the National Research Council undertake a workshop to bring together national experts to discuss 1 Hunter Hustus, Technical Advisor, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff of the Air Force for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, “USAF A10 Perspective.” White paper dated September 21, 2012. 2 Ibid. vii

OCR for page R1
current challenges relating strategic deterrence and potential new tools and methods that the Air Force might leverage in its strategic deterrence mission. Titled “U.S. Air Force Strategic Deterrence Capabilities in the 21st Century Security Environment,” the workshop consisted of two 3-day sessions held in Washington, D.C., on September 26-28, 2012, and January 29-31, 2013. The workshop committee was very pleased that the leaders of both Air Force organizations that championed this independent workshop, Lt Gen James Kowalski, Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command, and Maj Gen William Chambers, Assistant Chief of Staff for Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration, were available to discuss in detail their needs related to this important workshop. In addition, the committee was honored that Dr. C. Paul Robinson, president emeritus of Sandia National Laboratories, former ambassador, chief U.S. negotiator, and head of the U.S. delegation to nuclear testing talks with the Soviet Union, as well as Gen Larry Welch (USAF, Ret.), trustee emeritus and former president, Institute for Defense Analyses, and former Air Force chief of staff, were able to share their perspectives in two capstone talks. Also, the committee thanks the many expert speakers and guests who contributed immensely to both sessions of this workshop. The workshop committee’s role was limited primarily to planning and organizing the workshop sessions. The workshop committee was also provided opportunities to review drafts of the workshop summary for accuracy. As a function of planning for the workshop sessions, workshop committee members exchanged e-mails and read outside materials. Some workshop committee members were asked by National Research Council staff to give presentations and moderate workshop panels as individual workshop participants. Gerald F. Perryman, Jr., Chair Committee on U.S. Air Force Strategic Deterrence Capabilities in the 21st Century Security Environment: A Workshop viii

OCR for page R1
Acknowledgment of Reviewers This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) Report Review Committee. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: John F. Ahearne, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, Allison Astorino-Courtois, National Security Innovations, Inc., Arden L. Bement, Jr., Purdue University, and Michael O. Wheeler, Institute for Defense Analyses. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the views presented at the workshop, nor did they see the final draft of the workshop summary before its release. The review of this workshop summary was overseen by Robert J. Elder, Jr., George Mason University. Appointed by the NRC, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this workshop summary was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this summary rests entirely with the author and the institution. ix

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
Contents 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 VARIOUS PERSPECTIVES 3 Air Force Presentations, 3 Additional Presentations, 6 3 STRATEGIC DETERRENCE: PAST, CURRENT, AND FUTURE 9 Panel on Deterrence Concept Updates and Approaches, 9 Tailored Deterrence, 12 Capstone Presentations, 13 4 ANALYTIC-BASED AND NON-TRADITIONAL APPROACHES 15 Analytic-Based Approaches, 15 Non-Traditional Analytic Approaches, 18 Scenario-Based Tools, 20 Leadership Profiling, 21 Threat Anticipation and Intelligence Analysis, 24 5 INSIGHTS FOR THE FUTURE 26 Insights of Various Individual Workshop Participants, 26 On Deterrence, 26 On General Chambers’ Presentation, 26 On General Klotz’s Presentation (Nuclear Posture), 27 On Congressional Perspectives, 27 On Tools in General, 28 On Profiling (Including the Panel Presentation), 29 On Heuristics, 31 On Force Structure Analyses, 31 On the Approach of the Air Force Office of Studies and Analyses, Assessments, and Lessons Learned, 32 On Scenario-Based Analytic Tools, 32 On Threat Anticipation and Intelligence Analysis, 33 Insights for a Follow-on Study, 33 xi

OCR for page R1
APPENDIXES A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members 35 B Workshop Session Agendas 40 C Workshop Participants 45 xii

OCR for page R1
Acronyms AFGSC Air Force Global Strike Command AFGSC/CC Commander, Air Force Global Strike Command DoD Department of Defense NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NRC National Research Council NSC National Security Council SAIC Science Applications International Corporation TIN timed influence net TOR terms of reference USAF U.S. Air Force USCG U.S. Coast Guard USSTRATCOM U.S. Strategic Command xiii

OCR for page R1