American politicians have long been troubled by the question of
whether or not to deploy a national missile defense system. The
argument has focused upon the questions of cost, both political and
fiscal, plus the reliability of the technologies. This study places
that debate within the context of an ongoing controversy over the
direction of American foreign and defense policy since the 1950s.
Since that time several distinct worldviews (labeled Believers,
Pragmatists, and Wilsonians) have been articulated, views which
predetermine decision-makers' positions on national missile
defense. Those worldviews structure how technology tests and costs
are evaluated regardless of outcomes. Politics, not technological
proficiency, drives policy decisions.
In effect, the debate has been a dialogue of the deaf and blind
wherein each perceives only that which fits their predetermined
views. This controversy raises questions regarding the use of
deterrence as the basis for national policy and the role of
technology in making such decisions. Handberg places this debate
within the historical flow of events, dating back to the first
inkling that national missile defense might be possible. The
arrival of the George W. Bush administration moves national missile
defense to the forefront with the question of deployment now
considered a near reality.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!