Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.3 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback59 pages $23.00 $18.40 20% Web Discount

The effect that defenses have on crisis stability is one of the central issues in the current debate over the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Crisis stability would be threatened in a situation in which either the United States or the Soviet Union feels pressure to strike first in the hope of producing a more favorable outcome to what appears to be inevitable nuclear war. This Note examines various issues surrounding the question of crisis stability. In particular, it considers options for ameliorating any potential instabilities that might arise during a transition to higher levels of strategic defense. The authors suggest that a crisis-stable transition is possible, that the mutual survivability of strategic offensive forces is crucial to maintaining crisis stability, that space-based defenses of strategic offensive forces (SOF) are potentially crisis destabilizing unless they are backed up by terminal defenses of SOF, and that the mutual survivability of strategic defenses and defense suppression forces is also critical to crisis stability.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation note series. The note was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1979 to 1993 that reported other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.