IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v35y2008i10p703-715.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ballistic missile defence and the politics of testing: the case of the US ground-based midcourse defence

Author

Listed:
  • Graham Spinardi

Abstract

One of the arguments of the Bush administration for the early deployment of a ballistic missile defence system was not only that this would provide some limited defensive capability, but also that it would facilitate ‘learning by doing’. In practice, however, this ‘capability-based’ deployment has failed to facilitate such technological advancement. Instead of enabling the improvement of the technology, early deployment, coupled with a series of flight-test failures, has led to a shift towards less demanding tests. Deployment has actually proved counterproductive because the need for the tests to be successful ‘public experiments’ has overridden any significant progression to more realistic testing. Copyright , Beech Tree Publishing.

Suggested Citation

  • Graham Spinardi, 2008. "Ballistic missile defence and the politics of testing: the case of the US ground-based midcourse defence," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 35(10), pages 703-715, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:10:p:703-715
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.3152/030234208X394688
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stewart Russell & Nils Markusson & Vivian Scott, 2012. "What will CCS demonstrations demonstrate?," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 17(6), pages 651-668, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:35:y:2008:i:10:p:703-715. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.