Bias in Weapon Development

Front Cover
ProQuest, 2008 - 267 pages
0 Reviews
In examining the decisions made during the creation of these weapons, I draw four broad conclusions. First, what you see depends on where you look. Analysis focused on engineers or military officers will likely find clear-cut causation patterns, while analysis focused on other actors may reach different conclusions. Second, national security strategy trumps military threat. Though hostile threats are used publicly to support weapon development, strategic considerations dominate weapon development decisions. Third, the Office of the Secretary of Defense is a central actor, and appreciating its relationship to Congress is essential to understanding the final weapon. Finally, the quest for cutting edge technology pervades development to the extent that its impact is both direct, in helping to increase the risk of failure in individual programs, and indirect, in the assumption that all weapons must push the technological boundaries.
  

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.

Contents

Introduction
1
Methodology
15
1 Threat variable coding by decision level
42
The MBT 70Tank Design by Committee
49
1 Variable coding MBT 70
76
5 Tank characteristics
82
The Ml Abrams
85
1 Variable coding Ml Abrams
118
1 Variable coding Tomahawk
167
4 Technology variables Tomahawk
173
Conclusion
175
2 Cumulative interest variables across case studies by decision level
180
7 Interest variables across case studies by development phase
186
11 Advanced technology decisions vs interest and technology variables
192
Creation and Analysis of the Data
204
Table A1 1 Variables
217

Tomahawk
125

Common terms and phrases

Bibliographic information