U.S. Strategic Forces Under the Prospective START Treaty

by James Scouras

Download

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 2.7 MB

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

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback66 pages $25.00 $20.00 20% Web Discount

The prospective START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) treaty imposes constrained set of choices, or tradeoffs, on U.S. strategic force planners. This Note presents these tradeoffs based on the status of negotiations as of January 1990 and discusses their implications for U.S. strategic forces. Alternative U.S. strategic force structures are then developed consistent with either the U.S. or Soviet START negotiating positions. These are evaluated using measures of deterrence, crisis stability, and coercive potential. The study concludes that deterring, stable U.S. force structures are possible under either the U.S. or the Soviet negotiating positions. Thus, for the United States, force structure issues need not be a critical impediment to an agreement. Nevertheless, some force structures are more advantageous to U.S. national security than others. Recommendations regarding both the U.S. START negotiating position and U.S. strategic force programs are provided to realize these advantages.

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.