Cover: The Post-Cold War Force-Sizing Debate

The Post-Cold War Force-Sizing Debate

Paradigms, Metaphors, and Disconnects

Published 1992

by James A. Winnefeld


Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 4.1 MB

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


Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback97 pages $25.00

This report contains four "essays" on strategy and force structure. While related and presented in a natural sequence, each essay can be read as a freestanding commentary on the post-Cold War force-sizing debate between the Bush administration and the Congress. The report outlines the debate, offers different perspectives for restructuring it, and sets out recommendations for defining force requirements. The role of certitude vs. uncertainty in force sizing is discussed. It pays particular attention to the "tyranny of plausible scenarios" and the delays inherent in rebuilding forces if the United States misjudges its security needs. The report is just as relevant for the Clinton administration as it was for the Bush administration, since Secretary of Defense Aspin continues as one of the protagonists in the debate that is described.

This report is part of the RAND report series. The report was a product of RAND from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

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

RAND 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.