The strategic-level effects of long-range strike weapons: A framework for analysis

Bibliography

• Acton, James M., ’Russia and Strategic Conventional Weapons: Concerns and Responses’, The Nonproliferation Review 22/2 (February 2015), 141–54. doi:10.1080/10736700.2015.1105434
   Google Scholar
• Air-Sea Battle Office, Air Sea Battle, Unclassified Summary (Washington, DC: Air-Sea Battle Office 2013).
   Google Scholar
• Australian Army, LWD 1, the Fundamentals of Land Warfare (Canberra: Australian Army 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Beckley, Michael, ’The Emerging Military Balance in East Asia: How China’s Neighbors Can Check Chinese Naval Expansion’, International Security 42/2 (November 2017), 78–119. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beckley, Michael, Zack Cooper, and Allison Schwartz, ’Deterring Coercion and Conflict Across the Taiwan Strait’, in Kori Schake and Allison Schwartz (eds.), Defending Taiwan (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute 2022), 52–66.
   Google Scholar
• Belkin, Aaron, M. Clark, G. Gokcek, R. Hinckley, T. Knecht, and E. Patterson, et al., ’When is Strategic Bombing Effective? Domestic Legitimacy and Aerial Denial’, Security Studies 11/4 ( Summer 2002), 51–88. doi:10.1080/714005350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biddle, Stephen, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle (Princeton: Princeton UP 2006).
   Google Scholar
• Blagden, David, ’Strategic Stability and the Proliferation of Conventional Precision Strike: A (Bounded) Case for Optimism?’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 123–36. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.1799569
   Google Scholar
• Bowers, Ian and Henrik S. Hiim, ’Conventional Counterforce Dilemmas: South Korea’s Deterrence Strategy and Stability on the Korean Peninsula’, International Security 45/3 (January 2021), 7–39. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Builder, Carl H., Strategic Conflict without Nuclear Weapons (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation 1983).
   Google Scholar
• Burke, Edmund J., People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Cancian, Mark F., Matthew Cancian, and Eric Heginbotham, The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Chase, Michael S., ’Second Artillery in the Hu Jintao Era: Doctrine and Capabilities’, in Roy Kamphausen, David Lai, and Travis Tanner (eds.), Assessing the People’s Liberation Army in the Hu Jintao Era (Carlisle: United States Army War College Press 2014), 301–53.
   Google Scholar
• Christman, Ron, ’Conventional Missions for China’s Second Artillery Corps’, Comparative Strategy 30/3 (July 2011), 198–228. doi:10.1080/01495933.2011.587679
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Eliot A., ’A Revolution in Warfare’, Foreign Affairs 75/2 (March-April 1996), 37–54. doi:10.2307/20047487
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham, Fiona S., Maximizing Leverage: Explaining China’s Strategic Force Postures in Limited Wars’, doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Cunningham, Fiona S., ’Strategic Substitution: China’s Search for Coercive Leverage in the Information Age’, International Security 47/1 (July 2022), 46–92. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahl, Erik, ’Network Centric Warfare and the Death of Operational Art’, Defence Studies 2/1 ( Spring 2002), 1–24. doi:10.1080/14702430212331391888
   Google Scholar
• Douhet, Giulio, The Command of the Air (New York: Coward-McCann 1942).
   Google Scholar
• Engstrom, Jeffrey, Systems Confrontation and System Destruction Warfare: How the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Seeks to Wage Modern Warfare (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, Andrew S., ’Doctrinal Sea Change, Making Real Waves: Examining the Maritime Dimension of Strategy’, in Joe McReynolds (ed.), China’s Evolving Military Strategy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press 2016), 102–40.
   Google Scholar
• Eveleth, Decker, People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force Order of Battle 2023 (Middlebury: Center for Nonproliferation Studies 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Evron, Yoram, ’4IR Technologies in the Israel Defence Forces: Blurring Traditional Boundaries’, Journal of Strategic Studies 44/4 (June 2021), 572–93. doi:10.1080/01402390.2020.1852936
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fravel, M. Taylor, ’China’s New Military Strategy: “Winning Informationized Local Wars”’, China Brief 15/13 (July 2015), 3–7.
   Google Scholar
• Fravel, M. Taylor, Active Defense: China’s Military Strategy Since 1949 (Princeton: Princeton UP 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Fravel, M. Taylor, ’China’s “World-Class Military” Ambitions: Origins and Implications’, The Washington Quarterly 43/1 (March 2020), 85–99. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2020.1735850
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Freedman, Lawrence and Efraim Karsh, The Gulf Conflict, 1990-1991 (Princeton: Princeton UP 1995).
   Google Scholar
• Freedman, Lawrence and Jeffrey Michaels, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (London: Palgrave Macmillan 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, B. A., On Operations: Operational Art and Military Disciplines (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Futter, Andrew and Benjamin Zala, ’Advanced US Conventional Weapons and Nuclear Disarmament: Why the Obama Plan won’t Work’, The Nonproliferation Review 20/1 (February 2013), 107–22. doi:10.1080/10736700.2012.761790
   Google Scholar
• Futter, Andrew and Benjamin Zala, ’Emerging Non-Nuclear Technology and the Future of Global Nuclear Order’, in Bård Steen and Olav Njølstad (eds.), Nuclear Disarmament: A Critical Assessment (Abingdon: Routledge 2019), 205–24.
   Google Scholar
• Futter, Andrew and Benjamin Zala, ’Strategic Non-Nuclear Weapons and the Onset of a Third Nuclear Age’, European Journal of International Security 6/3 (February 2021), 257–77. doi:10.1017/eis.2021.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garafola, Cristina L., ’The Evolution of PLAAF Mission, Roles and Requirements’, in Joe McReynolds (ed.), China’s Evolving Military Strategy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press 2016), 75–101.
   Google Scholar
• Gavin, Francis, Nuclear Weapons and American Grand Strategy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Gerring, John, ’Mere Description’, British Journal of Political Science 42/4 (October 2012), 721–46. doi:10.1017/S0007123412000130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goldstein, Avery, ’First Things First: The Pressing Danger of Crisis Instability in U.S. China Relations’, International Security 37/4 ( Spring 2013), 49–89. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gormley, Dennis M., ’US Advanced Conventional Systems and Conventional Prompt Global Strike Ambitions: Assessing the Risks, Benefits, and Arms Control Implications’, The Nonproliferation Review 22/2 (February 2015), 123–39. doi:10.1080/10736700.2015.1117735
   Google Scholar
• Gormley, Dennis M., Andrew S. Erickson, and Jingdong Yuan, A Low-Visibility Force Multiplier (Washington, DC: National Defense UP 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Gray, Collin S., ’Understanding Airpower: Bonfire of the Fallacies’, Strategic Studies Quarterly 2/4 ( Winter 2008), 43–83.
   Google Scholar
• Griffith, Thomas E., ‘Strategic Attack of National Electrical System’, master thesis, Maxwell Air University, 1994.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, Andrew S., ’The Levels of War as Levels of Analysis’, Military Review, November-December 2021, 75–81.
   Google Scholar
• Haun, Phil M., Colin F. Jackson, and Timothy P. Schultz, eds. Air Power in the Age of Primacy: Air Warfare Since the Cold War (Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Helfrich, Emma, ’Taiwan Official Warns Supersonic Cruise Missile can Strike Beijing’, The Drive, 13 Jun. 2022.
   Google Scholar
• Hiim, Henrik S., M. Taylor Fravel, and Magnus Langset Trøan, ’The Dynamics of an Entangled Security Dilemma: China’s Changing Nuclear Posture’, International Security 47/4 (January 2023), 147–87. doi:10.1162/isec_a_00457
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, Fabian, Cruise Missile Proliferation: Trends, Strategic Implications, and Counterproliferation (London: European Leadership Network 2021).
   Google Scholar
• Hoffmann, Fabian and William Alberque, Non-Nuclear Weapons with Strategic Effect: New Tools of Warfare? (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies 2022).
   Google Scholar
• Horowitz, Michael C. and Dan Reiter, ’When does Aerial Bombing Work?: Quantitative Empirical Tests, 1917–1999’’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 45/2 (April 2001), 147–73. doi:10.1177/0022002701045002001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Information Office of the State Council, China’s National Defense in the New Era (Beijing: The State Council Information Office of the People’s Republic of China 2019).
   Google Scholar
• Johnston, Patrick, ’Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns’, International Security 36/4 ( Spring 2012), 47–79. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00076
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahn, Lauren and Michael C. Horowitz, ’Who Gets Smart? Explaining How Precision Bombs Proliferate’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 67/1 (July 2022), 3–37. doi:10.1177/00220027221111143
   Google Scholar
• Kaplan, Edward, To Kill Nations: American Grand Strategy in the Air-Atomic Age and the Rise of Mutually Assured Destruction (New York: Cornell UP 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Knutsen, Dale E., Strike Warfare in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Non-Nuclear Attack by Air and Sea (Annapolis: Naval Institute Press 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Kofman, Michael, Anya Fink, and Jeffrey Edmonds, Russian Strategy for Escalation Management: Evolution of Key Concepts (Arlington: Center for Naval Analyses 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Kramer, Alan, ’Blockade and Economic Warfare’, in Jay Winter (ed.), The First World War - Volume II: The State (Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2016), 460–490.
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, Andrew F., The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & Budgetary Analysis 2002).
   Google Scholar
• Kulesa, Łukasz, ’Operationalizing the ‘Polish Fangs’: Poland and Long-Range Precision Strike’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 49–60. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.1788779
   Google Scholar
• Lambeth, Benjamin S., The Transformation of American Air Power (Ithaca: Cornell UP 2000).
   Google Scholar
• Lee, Carrie A., ’Technology Acquisition and Arms Control: Thinking through the Hypersonic Weapons Debate’, Texas National Security Review 5/4 ( Fall 2022), 29–48.
   Google Scholar
• Levy, Jack S., ’Case Studies: Types, Designs, and Logics of Inference’, Conflict Management and Peace Science 25/1 (March 2008), 1–18. doi:10.1080/07388940701860318
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loo, Bernard F. W., ’Decisive Battle, Victory and the Revolution in Military Affairs’, Journal of Strategic Studies 32/2 (April 2009), 189–211. doi:10.1080/01402390902743118
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maclsaac, David, ’Voices from the Central Blue: The Air Power Theorists’, in Peter Paret, Gordon A. Craig, and Felix Gilbert (eds.), Makers of Modern Strategy from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (Princeton: Princeton UP 1986), 624–47.
   Google Scholar
• Mehta, Aaron, ‘Mattis: No Such Thing as a ‘Tactical’ Nuclear Weapon, but New Cruise Missile Needed’, Defense News, 6 Feb. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Millett, Alan R. and Murray Williamson, ’Lessons of War’, The National Interest ( Winter 1988/9).
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Project, ‘DF-11’, Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 29 Jan. 2018; Missile Defense Project, ‘DF-15’.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Project, ‘DF-15’, Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 11 Jan. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Project, ‘DF-16’, Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 16 Nov. 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Project, ‘DF-21 (CSS-5)’, Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 13 Apr. 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Project, ‘DF-26’, Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 8 Jan. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Missile Defense Project, ‘YJ-18’, Missile Threat, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 25 Jun. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, Patrick M., ’The Impact of the Revolution in Military Affairs’, Journal of Strategic Studies 23/1 ( Winter 2000), 132–62. doi:10.1080/01402390008437781
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O’Brien, Phillips P., How the War Was Won: Air-Sea Power and Allied Victory in World War II (Cambridge: Cambridge UP 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Osborne, Eric, Britain’s Economic Blockade of Germany, 1914–1919 (Abingdon: Routledge 2004).
   Google Scholar
• Overy, Richard, ’Bombed into Defeat? Air Power and the End of the Second World War’, The RUSI Journal 160/4 (July 2015), 10–13. doi:10.1080/03071847.2015.1079037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Panda, Ankit, Indo-Pacific Missile Arsenals: Avoiding Spirals and Mitigating Escalation Risks (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 2023).
   Google Scholar
• Pape, Robert A., Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War (Ithaca: Cornell UP 1996).
   Google Scholar
• Pietrucha, Michael W., ’Airpower and Globalization Effects: Rethinking the Five Rings’, Joint Forces Quarterly 73 (April 2014), 68–75.
   Google Scholar
• PLA Academy of Military Science, Science of Military Strategy, trans. China Aerospace Studies Institute (Beijing: PLA Academy of Military Science 2020).
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, Joshua H., ’Boost-Glide Weapons and US-China Strategic Stability’, The Nonproliferation Review 22/2 (February 2015), 155–64. doi:10.1080/10736700.2015.1119422
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, Joshua H., ’Introduction to the Special Section on Non-Nuclear Armed States, Precision Strike, and Nuclear Risk’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 17–19. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.2005293
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, Joshua H. and Kim Minji, ’South Korea’s Missile Forces and the Emergence of Triangular Strategic (In)stability’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 81–96. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.1809156
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, Joshua H., Cristina Varriale, and Tom Plant, ’The Changing Role of Allied Conventional Precision-Strike Capabilities in Nuclear Decision Making’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 20–37. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.2003561
   Google Scholar
• Powell, Robert, ’Crisis Stability in the Nuclear Age’, The American Political Science Review 83/1 (March 1989), 61–76. doi:10.2307/1956434
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pradun, Vitaly O., ’From Bottle Rockets to Lightning Bolts – China’s Missile Revolution and PLA Strategy against U.S. Military Intervention’, Naval War College Review 64/2 ( Spring 2011), 1–33.
   Google Scholar
• Press, Daryl G., ’The Myth of Air Power in the Persian Gulf War and the Future of Warfare’, International Security 26/2 ( Fall 2001), 5–44. doi:10.1162/016228801753191123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Price, Bryan, ’Targeting Top Terrorists: How Leadership Decapitation Contributes to Counterterrorism’, International Security 36/4 ( Spring 2012), 9–46. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenberg, Richard M. and Carl H. Builder, The Implications of Nonnuclear Strategic Weapons: Concepts of Deterrence (Santa Monica: RAND Corporation 1985).
   Google Scholar
• Ross, Bruce A., ’The Case for Targeting Leadership in War’, Naval War College Review 46/1 ( Winter 1993), 73–93.
   Google Scholar
• Rovner, Joshua, ’Two Kinds of Catastrophe: Nuclear Escalation and Protracted War in Asia’, Journal of Strategic Studies 40/5 (February 2017), 696–730. doi:10.1080/01402390.2017.1293532
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salonius-Pasternak, Charly, ’Friends with (Some) Benefits: How Non-Allied Sweden and Finland View Long-Range Conventional Precision Strike’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 61–79. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.1810888
   Google Scholar
• Sassòli, Marco, Legitimate Targets of Attacks under International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research 2004).
   Google Scholar
• Saunders, Phillip C. and David C. Logan, ’China’s Regional Nuclear Capability, Nonnuclear Strategic Systems, and Integration of Concepts and Operations’, in James M. Smith and Paul J. Bolt (eds.), China’s Strategic Arsenal: Worldview, Doctrine, and Systems (Washington, DC: Georgetown UP 2021), 125–58.
   Google Scholar
• Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge: Harvard UP 1990), 207–30.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, Glenn H., Deterrence and Defense (Princeton: Princeton UP 1961).
   Google Scholar
• Stefanovich, Dmitry, ’Proliferation and Threats of Reconnaissance-Strike Systems: A Russian Perspective’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 97–107. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.1795370
   Google Scholar
• Stone, John, ’Politics, Technology and the Revolution in Military Affairs’, Journal of Strategic Studies 27/3 (September 2004), 408–27. doi:10.1080/1362369042000282967
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sugden, Bruce M., ’Speed Kills: Analyzing the Deployment of Conventional Ballistic Missiles’, International Security 34/1 (July 2009), 113–46. doi:10.1162/isec.2009.34.1.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tominaga, Yasutaka, ’Evaluating the Impact of Repeated Leadership Targeting on Militant Group Durability’, International Interactions 45/5 (September 2019), 865–92. doi:10.1080/03050629.2019.1647836
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tong, Hui, ‘Missiles II’, Chinese Military Aviation, May 8, 2021.
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, Harlan and James Wade, Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance (Washington, DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University 1996).
   Google Scholar
• USAF College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education, ‘Three Levels of War (Excerpt)’, Air and Space Power Mentoring Guide (Montgomery: US Air Force 1997).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, ‘Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2022’, Annual Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense 2022).
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Defense, ‘Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2023’, Annual Report to Congress (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense 2023).
   Google Scholar
• van Hooft, Paul and Davis Ellison, ‘Good Fear, Bad Fear: How European Defence Investments Could Be Leveraged to Restart Arms Control Negotiations with Russia’ (The Hague: The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies 2023)
   Google Scholar
• Warden, John A., ’The Enemy As a System’, Airpower Journal 9/1 ( Spring 1995), 40–55.
   Google Scholar
• Watling, Jack and Sidharth Kaushal, ’The Democratisation of Precision Strike in the Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict’, Royal United Services Institute, 22Oct. 2020.
   Google Scholar
• Werrel, Kenneth P., ’The Strategic Bombing of Germany in World War II: Costs and Accomplishments’, The Journal of American History 73/3 (December 1986), 702–13. doi:10.2307/1902984
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wilkening, Dean, ’Hypersonic Weapons and Strategic Stability’, Survival 61/5 (September 2019), 129–48. doi:10.1080/00396338.2019.1662125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wirtz, James J., ’Counter Proliferation, Conventional Counterforce and Nuclear War’, Journal of Strategic Studies 23/1 (2000), 5–24. doi:10.1080/01402390008437776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao, Tong, ’Conventional Counterforce Strike: An Option for Damage Limitation in Conflicts with Nuclear-Armed Adversaries?’, Science and Global Security 19/3 (October 2011), 195–222. doi:10.1080/08929882.2011.616146
   Google Scholar
• Zhao, Tong, ’Conventional Long-Range Strike Weapons of US Allies and China’s Concerns of Strategic Instability’, The Nonproliferation Review 27/1–3 (August 2020), 109–22. doi:10.1080/10736700.2020.1795368
   Google Scholar