National Academies Press: OpenBook

Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence (1997)

Chapter: Front Matter

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence

Naval Studies Board
Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Applications
National Research Council

NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1997

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page ii

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. The report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

This work was performed under Department of Navy Contract N00014-93-C-0089 issued by the Office of Naval Research under contract authority NR 201-124. However, the content does not necessarily reflect the position or the policy of the Department of the Navy or the government, and no official endorsement should be inferred.

The United States Government has at least a royalty-free, nonexclusive, and irrevocable license throughout the world for government purposes to publish, translate, reproduce, deliver, perform, and dispose of all or any of this work, and to authorize others so to do.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 96-71712
International Standard Book Number 0-309-05639-X

Additional copies of this report are available from:

National Academy Press
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Box 285
Washington, D.C. 20055
800-624-6242
202-334-3313 (in the Washington Metropolitan Area)
http://www.nap.edu

Naval Studies Board
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20418

Copyright 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page iii

PARTICIPANTS IN THE POST-COLD WAR CONFLICT DETERRENCE STUDY

Andrew J. Goodpaster, The Atlantic Council, Chair
Seymour J. Deitchman, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Vice Chair
David S.C. Chu, Rand
Paul K. Davis, Rand
Richard L. Garwin, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
John C. Hopkins, Los Alamos, New Mexico
Benjamin Huberman, Huberman Consulting Group
Glenn A. Kent, Rand
Robert L.J. Long, Annapolis, Maryland
C. Richard Nelson, The Atlantic Council
Paul H. Nitze, Johns Hopkins University
Robert B. Oakley, National Defense University
W.K.H. Panofsky, Stanford, California
Thomas C. Schelling, University of Maryland
Brent Scowcroft, Scowcroft Group
William Y. Smith, Falls Church, Virginia
Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Brookings Institution
David L. Stanford, Science Applications International Corporation
John D. Steinbruner, Brookings Institution
Victor A. Utgoff, Institute for Defense Analyses
Paul Wolfowitz, Johns Hopkins University

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page iv

NAVAL STUDIES BOARD

* David R. Heebner, Science Applications International Corporation (ret.), Chair
George M. Whitesides, Harvard University, Vice Chair
* Albert J. Baciocco, Jr., The Baciocco Group, Inc.
* Alan Berman, Applied Research Laboratory, Pennsylvania State University
Norman E. Betaque, Logistics Management Institute
Norval L. Broome, Mitre Corporation
* Gerald A. Cann, Raytheon Company
* Seymour J. Deitchman, Chevy Chase, Maryland, Special Advisor
Anthony J. DeMaria, DeMaria ElectroOptics Systems, Inc.
John F. Egan, Lockheed Martin Corporation
* Andrew J. Goodpaster, The Atlantic Council, Special Advisor
Robert Hummel, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York
University
David W. McCall, AT&T Bell Laboratories (ret.)
Robert J. Murray, Center for Naval Analyses
* Robert B. Oakley, National Defense University
William J. Phillips, Northstar Associates, Inc.
Mara G. Prentiss, Jefferson Laboratory, Harvard University
* Herbert Rabin, University of Maryland
Julie JCH Ryan, Booz, Allen and Hamilton
Harrison Shull, Naval Postgraduate School (ret.)
* Keith A. Smith, U.S. Marine Corps (ret.)
Robert C. Spindel, Applied Physics Laboratory, University of Washington
* David L. Stanford, Science Applications International Corporation
H. Gregory Tornatore, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University
J. Pace VanDevender, Prosperity Institute
Vincent Vitto, Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
* Bruce Wald, Arlington Education Consultants

Navy Liaison Representatives

RADM John W. Craine, Jr., USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N81)
RADM Richard A. Riddell, USN, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N91)
Paul G. Blatch, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (N911T1)
Ronald N. Kostoff, Office of Naval Research

Staff

Ronald D. Taylor, Director (as of October 2, 1995)
Associate Director (July 1, 1994, through September 29, 1995)
Lee M. Hunt, Director (through September 29, 1995)
Susan G. Campbell, Administrative Assistant
Mary (Dixie) Gordon, Information Officer
Christopher Hanna, Project Assistant

* Members who also participated in the post-Cold War conflict deterrence study.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page v

COMMISSION ON PHYSICAL SCIENCES, MATHEMATICS, AND APPLICATIONS

Robert J. Hermann, United Technologies Corporation, Co-chair
W. Carl Lineberger, University of Colorado, Co-chair
Peter M. Banks, Environmental Research Institute of Michigan
Lawrence D. Brown, University of Pennsylvania
Ronald G. Douglas, Texas A&M University
John E. Estes, University of California at Santa Barbara
L. Louis Hegedus, Elf Atochem North America, Inc.
John E. Hopcroft, Cornell University
Rhonda J. Hughes, Bryn Mawr College
Shirley A. Jackson, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Kenneth H. Keller, University of Minnesota
Kenneth I. Kellermann, National Radio Astronomy Observatory
Margaret G. Kivelson, University of California at Los Angeles
Daniel Kleppner, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
John Kreick, Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company
Marsha I. Lester, University of Pennsylvania
Thomas A. Prince, California Institute of Technology
Nicholas P. Samios, Brookhaven National Laboratory
L.E. Scriven, University of Minnesota
Shmuel Winograd, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Charles A. Zraket, Mitre Corporation (ret.)

Norman Metzger, Executive Director

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page vi

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. Bruce Alberts 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. William A. Wulf is interim 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. Kenneth I. Shine 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. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William A. Wulf are chairman and interim vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page vii

Preface

This report responds to a request made by RADM T.D. Ryan, USN, Director, Submarine Warfare Division, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, in a letter sent on January 6, 1994. The letter asked the Naval Studies Board, National Research Council, to conduct a study of deterrence in the emerging post-Cold War environment, including attention to nuclear, conventional, economic, diplomatic, and other means of deterring potential adversaries in the acquisition and utilization of military capabilities, state-sponsored terrorism, and interference with international commerce and rights of free passage. The terms of reference for the study resulting from Admiral Ryan's request called for efforts in the following three areas:

• Based on the experience of the past 45 years, and with due attention to the altered environment of international security and the emerging characteristics of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, what constitutes a reasonable set of deterrence objectives and what metrics are available for their quantitative assessment?

• From a comprehensive evaluation of existing deterrence decision aids and simulations, as well as those adaptable to such purposes, and utilizing a definition of the appropriate elements of a deterrence decision aid, determine their adequacy as a tool for shaping the Navy's deterrence posture, and recommend means for their improvement.

• Utilizing the results of the first bulleted item above, and drawing on the results of past Naval Studies Board and related studies, evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of existing and emerging technologies and systems to carry out the various elements of the deterrence mission of the Navy and Marine Corps.

As the Board began its work on the problem, extensive preliminary effort was devoted to devising an approach that would yield credible and useful results for the highest levels of government and the Navy Department. It became clear that the Cold War concept of deterrence had become so imbedded in all aspects of the thinking of the national security community, and therefore the Navy-in terms of Cold War conditions and relationships in the international environment, U.S. understanding of the kinds of threatening activities to be deterred, and U.S. military force structure and force posture--that a study of the subject under the new post-Cold War conditions would have to go back to first principles. This meant that before starting to examine Navy and Marine Corps technology and decision aids relating to deterrence, it would be necessary to explore the meaning and the viability of the deterrence concept itself in the new environment. Only then could the subordinate technical questions posed in the terms of reference be taken up. It was therefore decided to divide the study into

Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page viii

two phases along these lines: first, an effort to define the meaning and the elements of deterrence under the new world conditions, and then, an examination of the significance of this new understanding of the concept of deterrence for the Navy and Marine Corps, including the technical issues raised in the terms of reference.

To carry out the first phase of the study, a special group of participants1 was convened under the chairmanship of GEN Andrew J. Goodpaster, USA (retired), who prepared a detailed outline to guide that part of the study. The group consisted of individuals who could bring to bear from their own experience the knowledge and understanding that had accumulated over the five decades since World War II, in both the practice of deterrence and in the measurement of its effectiveness. The group explored the meaning of deterrence in the post-Cold War world, identified enduring principles for the practice of deterrence, and developed insights for new approaches to the practice of deterrence and to associated analysis, modeling, and planning.

The special group of participants met only twice and received and discussed the inputs reflected in the individual essays presented in the appendixes. They made no attempt to reach consensus on the wide variety of issues introduced. In this respect this study and report differ from what is customary in studies carried out under the aegis of the National Research Council. The study participants' discussions served the valuable purpose of clarifying the various ideas of individuals irrespective of the different views introduced and still remaining after the discussions.

The second phase of the study was carried out under the leadership of David Heebner, the Naval Studies Board's chairman, by Board members2with extensive experience in evaluating, inserting, and using technology in the armed forces, especially in the Navy and Marine Corps. This group also included experts in modeling and simulation and their application to problems arising in evaluation of systems and operations. The group was knowledgeable about instances in the nation's history where actions of military forces and deterrence policy interacted, and about elements of prior Board studies that could contribute to consideration of the subject at hand.

The two groups interacted to ensure a seamless connection in the results of the two phases of the study. GEN Goodpaster was appointed a special advisor to the Naval Studies Board for the duration of the study. Several members of the Board participated in the discussions by the special group of study participants, with one Board member, Seymour Deitchman, serving as GEN Goodpaster's vice chairman for that group. Richard Nelson, a member of the special group of participants, contributed to the Board's deliberations in the second phase of the study.

The chairman and the vice chairman of the special group of study participants, together with Dr. Nelson, prepared this report's first chapter,

1 The participants in this group are listed on page iii.

2 These members are also identified on page iv.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page ix

entitled "Deterrence: An Overview." The chapter represents the authors' summary and interpretation of the key points that emerged from the special group of participants' examination of the meaning of deterrence in the post-Cold War world. In addition, several of these participants prepared papers on different aspects of the problem of deterrence. These papers, signed by and the sole responsibility of their authors, are provided in the appendixes to this report. As a source of the richness of the ideas summarized in Chapter 1's new look at the subject of deterrence, these papers offer an opportunity for deeper understanding, and the reader is therefore urged to explore them.

It is also the case that a subject of this complexity is not easily assimilated during the conduct of urgent business in the policy-making environment. To assist in this process, GEN Goodpaster prepared a "bridging" chapter, Chapter 2, "Implications for Deterrence Policy: Tasks for Policy Makers." This chapter outlines in concrete terms the key changes from the old to the new international environment, the major challenges presented to policy makers by those changes, and the main areas in which important unresolved issues remain.

The Naval Studies Board prepared Chapter 3, "Significance of Post-Cold War Deterrence Concepts for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps." This chapter takes up the specific questions posed in the terms of reference, listing objectives of deterrence as well as qualitative and quantitative measures by which the potential success of any deterrent action might be judged. Specific emphases in naval forces' capabilities that appear to be called for by the review of deterrence policy needs are also presented and discussed, and decision aids and their application in the deterrence context are examined.

It should not be surprising that a subject as broad and fundamental to U.S. national security posture as deterrence should call forth diverse and often contradictory views of both the concept and its implications for policy. As is pointed out in Chapter 1, many such differences remain to be resolved through experience in the international context, and in many cases resolution will await the advent of specific circumstances and the consequent need for decisions in matters of policy and application. Areas of policy requiring continuing attention are highlighted in context throughout the report. Many of the unresolved differences regarding policy were also reflected as differences of view among the study group participants. Every attempt has been made, in Chapter 1, to acknowledge such differences. Special comments made by study group participants in connection with statements in Chapter 1 are included as footnotes at the appropriate points. These views are enlarged on in the papers in the appendixes. All special study group participants and participating Board members also had the opportunity to review, comment on, and influence this, the overall report of the study.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

There was a problem loading page R10.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page xi

Contents

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1

 

WHAT IS DETERRENCE IN THE POST-COLD WAR WORLD?

1

 

ENDURING PRINCIPLES IN DETERRENCE STRATEGY

2

 

DERIVATIVE POLICIES AND KEY ISSUES

3

 

SIGNIFICANCE OF POST-COLD WAR DETERRENCE CONCEPTS FOR THE U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

5

 

METRICS AND DECISION AIDS

6

1

DETERRENCE: AN OVERVIEW

GENAndrew J. Goodpaster, USA (retired) and
C. Richard Nelson, The Atlantic Council
Seymour J. Deitchman, Institute for Defense Analyses (retired)

10

 

INTRODUCTION

10

 

THE MEANING OF DETERRENCE

12

 

THE NEW CONTEXT

15

 

ENDURING PRINCIPLES

21

 

DERIVATIVE POLICIES AND KEY ISSUES

25

 

ANALYSIS, MODELING, AND PLANNING

36

2

IMPLICATIONS FOR DETERRENCE POLICY: TASKS FOR POLICY MAKERS

GEN Andrew J. Goodpaster, USA (retired), The Atlantic Council

39

 

THE NEW DETERRENCE ENVIRONMENT

39

 

CREATING A FABRIC OF DETERRENCE

40

 

SOME DIFFICULT CHOICES

42

 

CONCLUDING REMARKS

44

3

SIGNIFICANCE OF POST-COLD WAR DETERRENCE CONCEPTS FOR THE U.S. NAVY AND MARINE CORPS

45

 

INTRODUCTION

45

 

OBJECTIVES AND METRICS IN DETERRENCE STRATEGY

46

 

ENSURING U.S. NAVAL FORCES' CAPABILITY FOR DETERRENCE

50

 

DECISION AIDS: INTELLIGENCE, GAMES, MODELING, AND SIMULATION

60

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page xii

APPENDIX A: REVISING THE PRACTICE OF DETERRENCE

John D. Steinbruner, Brookings Institution

64

 

CHANGING CONTEXT

65

 

STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS

67

 

THE RUSSIAN CASE

68

 

THE SUBORDINATION AND REVISION OF DETERRENCE

69

 

CONCLUDING PERSPECTIVE

74

APPENDIX B: CONTEMPORARY STRATEGIC DETERRENCE AND PRECISION-GUIDED MUNITIONS

Paul H. Nitze and J.H. McCall, Johns Hopkins University

75

 

WHAT IS DETERRENCE? WHY AND HOW?

75

 

COLD WAR DETERRENCE AND THE LIMITS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

76

 

POST-COLD WAR STRATEGIC DETERRENCE AND THE PERSIAN GULF WAR

78

 

CURRENT CHALLENGES

80

APPENDIX C: EXTENDED NUCLEAR DETERRENCE AND COALITIONS FOR DEFENDING AGAINST REGIONAL CHALLENGERS ARMED WITH WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION

Victor Utgoff, Institute for Defense Analyses

83

 

INTRODUCTION

83

 

POTENTIAL FOR CHALLENGES TO A VITAL U.S. REGIONAL INTEREST

84

 

NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN CONFRONTATIONS WITH REGIONAL PROLIFERATORS

85

 

CHANGED ASPECTS OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

87

 

IMPLEMENTING NUCLEAR DETERRENCE UNILATERALLY

91

 

IMPLEMENTING NUCLEAR DETERRENCE THROUGH A COALITION

93

 

INCENTIVES TO JOIN THE COALITION AND SUPPORT ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENCE STRATEGY

96

 

ADVANCE PREPARATIONS FOR COALITION INVOLVEMENT IN NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

98

 

CONCLUSIONS

102

Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page xiii

APPENDIX D: THE REMAINING UNIQUE ROLE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN POST-COLD WAR DETERRENCE

Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky, Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (Emeritus)

104

 

BACKGROUND

104

 

THE HISTORY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

106

 

FUTURE NUCLEAR WEAPONS MISSION

107

 

CONCLUSIONS

111

APPENDIX E: NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN POST-COLD WAR DETERRENCE

John C. Hopkins (retired) and Steven A. Maaranen, Los Alamos National Laboratory

113

 

INTRODUCTION: A DEFINITION OF DETERRENCE

113

 

NUCLEAR VS. CONVENTIONAL DETERRENCE

115

 

DETERRENCE VIA NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE FUTURE

119

 

REQUIREMENTS FOR MAINTAINING NUCLEAR DETERRENCE

121

APPENDIX F: NOTES ON THE ''BAND" BETWEEN "EXISTENTIAL DETERRENCE" AND THE ACTUAL USE OF FORCE

Helmut Sonnenfeldt, Brookings Institution

123

APPENDIX G.1: SPECIAL CHALLENGES IN EXTENDING DETERRENCE IN THE NEW ERA

Paul K. Davis, Rand

132

 

A PROVOCATIVE PREMISE

132

 

TOWARD A STRATEGY FOR DETERRING THREATS TO NONVITAL INTERESTS

132

 

POTENTIAL ACTIONS

140

APPENDIX G.2: DECISION MODELING AS AN AID TO STRATEGIC PLANNING AND CRISIS ACTION

Paul K. Davis, Rand

141

 

ABSTRACT

141

 

INTRODUCTION

141

 

MODELING OPPONENTS AND THEIR ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS

142

 

FACTORS TENDING TO INCREASE RISK TAKING

150

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page xiv

 

A GENERIC SITUATION ENCOURAGING AGGRESSION

151

 

CONCLUSIONS

152

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

152

APPENDIX G.3: PROTECTING WEAK AND MEDIUM STRENGTH STATES: ISSUES OF DETERRENCE, STABILITY, AND DECISION MAKING

Paul K Davis, Rand

153

 

ABSTRACT

153

 

INTRODUCTION

153

 

DETERRENCE AT THE BEGINNING OF A NEW CENTURY

154

 

AN APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF DETERRENCE

158

 

DETERRING STRONG NEIGHBORS: STRATEGIES FOR WEAK OR MEDIUM-STRONG STATES

167

 

EXTENDING DETERRENCE IN DEFENSE OF WEAK OR MEDIUM STRONG STATES

172

 

RECOGNIZING THAT IMMEDIATE EXTENDED DETERRENCE MAY FAIL

176

 

CONCLUSIONS: CHALLENGES FOR SECURITY STRATEGY, DEFENSE PLANNING, AND CRISIS DECISION MAKING

177

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

APPENDIX H: THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE, NATIONAL ABM SYSTEMS, AND THE FUTURE OF DETERRENCE

Richard L. Garwin, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center

182

 

CONTEXT

182

 

BACKGROUND

183

 

THE PROBLEM

184

 

NEAR-TERM OPTIONS FOR U.S. THEATER MISSILE DEFENSE

186

 

WHAT IS THE THREAT?

186

 

THE BIG PROBLEM FOR CITY DEFENSE

188

 

REGIONAL MISSILE DEFENSE IN RELATION TO THE ABM TREATY

191

 

CONCLUSIONS

198

APPENDIX I: DETERRENCE: CLASH AND UTILIZATION OF VALUE SYSTEMS

Robert B. Oakley, National Defense University

201

 

INTRODUCTION

201

 

BACKGROUND

202

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

Page xv

 

VALUE SYSTEMS IN THE CURRENT WORLD

204

 

CASE STUDIES

208

 

CONCLUSION

212

 

NAVY- AND MARINE CORPS-SPECIFIC IMPLICATIONS

213

APPENDIX J: CONTROLLING INSTABILITIES CAUSED BY ROGUE GOVERNMENTS

Glenn A. Kent, Rand

215

 

THE EMERGING THREAT

215

 

IMPLICATIONS OF THIS THREAT

215

 

A DEFENSE IN DEPTH

215

 

AN APPROACH TO INTERCEPTING BALLISTIC MISSILES AFTER LAUNCH

216

 

SUGGESTED ACTIONS

218

APPENDIX K: DETERRENCE-QUO VADIS?

David L. Stanford, Science Applications International Corporation

220

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×

There was a problem loading page R16.

Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R14
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R15
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1997. Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5464.
×
Page R16
Next: Executive Summary »
Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $67.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Deterrence as a strategic concept evolved during the Cold War. During that period, deterrence strategy was aimed mainly at preventing aggression against the United States and its close allies by the hostile Communist power centers—the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and its allies, Communist China and North Korea. In particular, the strategy was devised to prevent aggression involving nuclear attack by the USSR or China. Since the end of the Cold War, the risk of war among the major powers has subsided to the lowest point in modern history. Still, the changing nature of the threats to American and allied security interests has stimulated a considerable broadening of the deterrence concept.

Post-Cold War Conflict Deterrence examines the meaning of deterrence in this new environment and identifies key elements of a post-Cold War deterrence strategy and the critical issues in devising such a strategy. It further examines the significance of these findings for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Quantitative and qualitative measures to support judgments about the potential success or failure of deterrence are identified. Such measures will bear on the suitability of the naval forces to meet the deterrence objectives. The capabilities of U.S. naval forces that especially bear on the deterrence objectives also are examined. Finally, the book examines the utility of models, games, and simulations as decision aids in improving the naval forces' understanding of situations in which deterrence must be used and in improving the potential success of deterrence actions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!