The Politics of Defense Policy Communication

The “Threat” of Soviet Strategic Defense

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12782833
AutoresRodger A Payne (0000-0001-8151-6807, University of Chicago, autor de correspondencia)
Año1989
Volumen8
Número3
Páginas505-526
Fecha de publicación1989-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaReview of Policy Research (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1541-132X • E-ISSN: 1541-1338
EditorialWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/j.1541-1338.1989.tb00977.x
OpenAlexW2056461848
IdiomaEN
Referencias citadas23

This paper suggests a technique for evaluating threat assessments when reliable data is unavailable. Previously, scholars have found that political leaders manipulated threat assessments to achieve desired defense policy outcomes. Yet contemporary communication about threats are not easily studied, leading some writers to call for new studies of Clausewitz's so‐called “social” dimension of strategy – the efforts by governments to assure domestic support for defense policies. To apply the suggested technique, this paper examines the Reagan Administration's claim that the threats from Soviet strategic defenses justify the U.S. Strategic Defense Initiative. The Administration's arguments are found to be unclear and internally inconsistent. Despite some fear appeals about Soviet threats, Reagan officials typically noted that American offensive forces will continue to render Soviet defenses impotent and obsolete for the forseeable future. Indeed, vague and inconsistent statements about Soviet forces may have undermined Administration efforts to fulfill SDI funding goals, to codify early deployment plans, and even to establish Manhattan or Apollo‐type policy preeminince

Administration (probate law · Cold war · Economics · Management · Offensive · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Reagan administration · Sociology · Software deployment · Strategic Defense Initiative · Engineering · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Nuclear Issues and Defense · Public Administration