Ballistic missile defense, ICBM modernization, and small strategic attacks: out of the frying pan?
Purchase Print Copy
| Format | List Price | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Add to Cart | Paperback39 pages | $20.00 | $16.00 20% Web Discount |
After a decade of relative dormancy, the question of whether to deploy antimissile defenses has reemerged as the subject of intense debate. This paper suggests that any near-term U.S. ABM decision should pay equal heed to another consideration: the consequences of an expanded Soviet ABM system on U.S. and NATO strategy and planning for small, theater conflict-oriented strategic attacks. As the United States makes critical choices over the next few months and years, it is vital to recall that U.S. and Soviet strategic aims and contexts are by no means symmetric ones. It would seem that the net effect of such considerations would be to support every effort possible to devise an MX basing concept that does not rely on active defense.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
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.