From the book's Foreword: In the early 1970s, the U.S. Army Center of Military History contracted with BDM Corporation for a history of U.S. efforts to counter Soviet air and missile threats during the Cold War. The resulting two-volume History of Strategic Air and Ballistic Missile Defense covers the years 1945-1972 when the strategic arms competition between the United States and the Soviet Union was at its height. The study was first published for limited distribution in 1975 and recently declassified with minimal redaction. These volumes address the passive and active defense strategies, technologies, and techniques adopted by both U.S. and Soviet defense planners. Much of their actions centered around three common questions: How might we be attacked? How shall we defend our country? What can technology do to solve the basic problems of defending against this new intercontinental threat?
This is a print on demand edition of a hard to find publication. This is the second of two vol. on the history of strategic air and ballistic missile defense from 1945 to 1972. It covers 1955¿1972, and is organized into five interrelated chapters. Chapter I provides a comparison of U.S. and Soviet strategies, Chapters II and III deal with U.S. strategy and Soviet strategy, while Chapters IV and V cover U.S. systems and Soviet systems. The Executive Summary has three major groupings: one, to reflect the contextual setting of decision-making, circa 1955; the second, to highlight strategic air defense policy comparisons and contrasts, 1955¿1972; and a third, to present judgments and conclusions about the results of the play of factors and perceptions which molded air defense decisions during these years. Illustrations.
In 1975, U.S. Army Center of Military History commissioned a report on the History of Strategic Air and Ballistic Missile Defense, Volume I (1945-1955) and Volume II (1956-1972), which was part of a larger study of the strategic arms competition that developed between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II. The report addresses each country's approach to civil defense against the threat from the air and each country's emphasis on specific elements of air defense strategy at various periods between 1945 and 1972. Two central questions concerned the U.S. and Soviet defense planners: "How might we be attacked?" and "How shall we defend our country?" Overall, technological changes were the predominant factor affecting air and missile defense strategy during the period primarily as they related to the developing offensive threat. The scope and pace of technological innovations introduced a measure of uncertainty, placed considerable strain on the stability of the U.S.-Soviet relationship, and raised fundamental challenges to previous concepts of how best to defend the United States. U.S. strategy was built on the variety of new weapon system developments; while Soviet defense trends demonstrated Soviet awareness and responded to developments in U.S. strategic offensive forces. The basic patterns of action were set by initial, and early, strategic choices. Thereafter, the strategic problem centered on technological development. Threat perceptions increasingly involved possible application of new technologies by the Soviets in order to define or delimit future threats. Perceptions of future threats were influenced by the view of available technologies, whether or not the Soviets had demonstrated the capacity to apply them. Available or known technologies were extrapolated to assess future threats. However, a direct action-reaction cycle was not seen as a factor in the development of U.S. and Soviet strategic air and missile defense systems.
This is the second of two draft volumes on the history of strategic air and ballistic missile defense from 1945 to 1972. It covers the 1955-1972 portion of the larger period, and is organized into five interrelated and progressively more detailed chapters. Chapter I provides a comparison of U.S. and Soviet strategies, Chapters II and III deal with U.S. strategy and Soviet strategy, while Chapters IV and V cover U.S. systems and Soviet systems. This Executive Summary is drawn directly from, and highlights critical judgments of, these five chapters. As such, it outlines the substance of the much larger body of primary evidence contained in the separate books in this draft volume which was gathered to address the reasons underlying policy formulation and decision making for strategic defense and the relationship between the superpowers within that highly complex security policy arena. Results of research concerning factors influencing attitudes of policy/decision makers at critical times appear in Chapters II and III. This Executive Summary has three major groupings: one, to reflect the contextual setting of decision- making, circa 1955; the second, to highlight strategic air defense policy comparisons and contrasts, 1955-1972; and a third, to present judgments and conclusions about the results of the play of factors and perceptions which molded air defense decisions during these years. These three sections derive from and are firmly tied to an evidential base; however, time and documentation constraints have limited the effort to develop that base. Consequently, important elements of the story may appear to be slighted. The essential and significant, however, are here. Central questions faced the U.S. and Soviet defense planners. Fundamentally they asked: "How to defend the country?" and "How may we be attacked?"
In 1975, U.S. Army Center of Military History commissioned a report on the History of Strategic Air and Ballistic Missile Defense, Volume I (1945-1955) and Volume II (1956-1972), which was part of a larger study of the strategic arms competition that developed between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II. The report addresses each country's approach to civil defense against the threat from the air and each country's emphasis on specific elements of air defense strategy at various periods between 1945 and 1972. Two central questions concerned the U.S. and Soviet defense planners: "How might we be attacked?" and "How shall we defend our country?" Overall, technological changes were the predominant factor affecting air and missile defense strategy during the period primarily as they related to the developing offensive threat. The scope and pace of technological innovations introduced a measure of uncertainty, placed considerable strain on the stability of the U.S.-Soviet relationship, and raised fundamental challenges to previous concepts of how best to defend the United States. U.S. strategy was built on the variety of new weapon system developments; while Soviet defense trends demonstrated Soviet awareness and responded to developments in U.S. strategic offensive forces. The basic patterns of action were set by initial, and early, strategic choices. Thereafter, the strategic problem centered on technological development. Threat perceptions increasingly involved possible application of new technologies by the Soviets in order to define or delimit future threats. Perceptions of future threats were influenced by the view of available technologies, whether or not the Soviets had demonstrated the capacity to apply them. Available or known technologies were extrapolated to assess future threats. However, a direct action-reaction cycle was not seen as a factor in the development of U.S. and Soviet strategic air and missile defense systems.
Domination and Resistance illuminates the twin themes of superpower domination and indigenous resistance in the central Pacific during the Cold War, with a compelling historical examination of the relationship between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. For decision makers in Washington, the Marshall Islands represented a strategic prize seized from Japan near the end of World War II. In the postwar period, under the auspices of a United Nations Trusteeship Agreement, the United States reinforced its control of the Marshall Islands and kept the Soviet Union and other Cold War rivals out of this Pacific region. The United States also used the opportunity to test a vast array of powerful nuclear bombs and missiles in the Marshalls, even as it conducted research on the effects of human exposure to radioactive fallout. Although these military tests and human experiments reinforced the US strategy of deterrence, they also led to the displacement of several atoll communities, serious health implications for the Marshallese, and widespread ecological degradation. Confronted with these troubling conditions, the Marshall Islanders utilized a variety of political and legal tactics—petitions, lawsuits, demonstrations, and negotiations—to draw American and global attention to their plight. In response to these indigenous acts of resistance, the United States strengthened its strategic interests in the Marshalls but made some concessions to the islanders. Under the Compact of Free Association (COFA) and related agreements, the Americans tightened control over the Kwajalein Missile Range while granting the Marshallese greater political autonomy, additional financial assistance, and a mechanism to settle nuclear claims. Martha Smith-Norris argues that despite COFA's implementation in 1986 and Washington's pivot toward the Asia-Pacific region in the post–Cold War era, the United States has yet to provide adequate compensation to the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the extensive health and environmental damages caused by the US testing programs.
In 1975, U.S. Army Center of Military History commissioned a report on the History of Strategic Air and Ballistic Missile Defense, Volume I (1945-1955) and Volume II (1956-1972), which was part of a larger study of the strategic arms competition that developed between the United States and the Soviet Union after World War II. The report addresses each country's approach to civil defense against the threat from the air and each country's emphasis on specific elements of air defense strategy at various periods between 1945 and 1972. Two central questions concerned the U.S. and Soviet defense planners: "How might we be attacked?" and "How shall we defend our country?" Overall, technological changes were the predominant factor affecting air and missile defense strategy during the period primarily as they related to the developing offensive threat. The scope and pace of technological innovations introduced a measure of uncertainty, placed considerable strain on the stability of the U.S.-Soviet relationship, and raised fundamental challenges to previous concepts of how best to defend the United States. U.S. strategy was built on the variety of new weapon system developments; while Soviet defense trends demonstrated Soviet awareness and responded to developments in U.S. strategic offensive forces. The basic patterns of action were set by initial, and early, strategic choices. Thereafter, the strategic problem centered on technological development. Threat perceptions increasingly involved possible application of new technologies by the Soviets in order to define or delimit future threats. Perceptions of future threats were influenced by the view of available technologies, whether or not the Soviets had demonstrated the capacity to apply them. Available or known technologies were extrapolated to assess future threats. However, a direct action-reaction cycle was not seen as a factor in the development of U.S. and Soviet strategic air and missile defense systems.
