Abstract
While the fundamental decisions about nuclear antiaircraft arms were made during President Eisenhower’s term, his immediate successor agreed with the need for the weapons and accepted the ideas upon which they were predicated. Indeed, it was not until John F. Kennedy’s administration that atomic anti-bomber armament reached its peak deployment in the United States. Shortly afterward, however, the nation’s defense preparations underwent substantial change. After the advent of Soviet intercontinental ballistic missiles, which were more difficult to counter and which could almost assuredly inflict enormous destruction, policy makers believed it was impractical and illogical to maintain extensive preparations to defend against an aircraft raid that might take place before or after an ICBM barrage. Partly for this reason, and also because atomic air-defense weapons were costly to retain, and because BOMARC never performed as intended, they began to be removed from service. Although a substantial number were dismantled by the end of the 1960s, others remained in the inventory longer.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Chuck Hansen, U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History (Arlington, TX: Aerofax, 1988), p. 177; Air Force Association information on “AIR-2 Genie” in author’s possession.
Mary T. Cagle, History of the Nike Hercules Weapon System (U.S. Army Missile Command: Redstone Arsenal, Alabama), 1973, pp. 242–243.
Raymond L. Garthoff, Reflections on the Cuban Missile Crisis (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1987), Garthoff, p. 66, note 101; Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, “One Hell of a Gamble”: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958–1964 (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1997), p. 210. Anatoli I. Gribkov and William Y. Smith, Operation ANADYR; U.S. and Soviet Generals Recount the Cuban Missile Crisis (Chicago: Edition Q, Inc., 1994), pp. 4, 27.
Scott D. Sagan, The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993), pp. 95–98, 135.
John C. Lonnquest, To Defend and Deter: The Legacy of the United States Cold War Missile Program (Rock Island, Illinois: Defense Publishing Service, 1996), pp. 329–330; War Room Journal, October 24, 1962, CMC document no. CC01120, items 13 and handwritten 33. Rail transit is noted in “Status of ADA units being deployed to SE US” attachment to War Room Journal, October 31, 1962, CMC document no. CC01773; and in Brugioni, p. 371. The date is shown as October 23 in Memorandum for General Parker et al., p. 38. The Air Defense Command History reports the date as October 27. (See “The Air Defense Command in the Cuban Crisis,” p. 282.)
Laurence Martin, Arms and Strategy: An International Survey of Modern Defence (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973), p. 132.
Lloyd Mallan, Peace is a Three-Edged Sword (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964), pp. 68–69.
Mark L. Morgan and Mark A. Berhow, Rings of Supersonic Steel: Air Defenses of the United States Army, 1950–1979: An Introductory History and Site Guide (San Pedro, California: Fort MacArthur Press, 2002). South Dakota’s Ellsworth Air Force Base also had a Nike-Hercules battery between 1958 and 1961, at which time the equipment was moved to Hartford, Connecticut. This is probably because by this point the base became the headquarters of an ICBM unit. Since in the event of war, the associated missiles would presumably have been launched by the time the field could have come under attack by planes, it did not require anti-bomber defenses. See Morgan and Berhow, pp. 82–83. In addition, the conventional Nike-Ajax was considered outmoded almost immediately after the introduction of its successor missile. All Ajax sites were shut down between 1961 and 1964. See Morgan and Berhow.
Michael Getler, “Big Cut Set in U.S. Air Defense Force,” Washington Post, October 7, 1973, p. A2.
Bill Keller, “A Venerable Line of Defense Is about to Get a Facelift,” New York Times, January 27, 1985, p. E3.
John W. Finney, “U.S. May Tighten Atomic Control,” New York Times, March 19, 1976, p. 69.
Walter Pincus, “Nuclear Missile Has Navy in a Quandary,” Washington Post, January 14, 1984, p. A10.
Thomas B. Cochran, William M. Arkin, and Milton M. Hoenig, Nuclear Weapons Databook, vol. 1, “U.S. Nuclear Forces and Capabilities” (Cambridge: Ballinger, 1984), p. 41.
Lloyd Mallan, Peace is a Three-Edged Sword (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1964), p. 50.
Steven J. Zaloga, Target America: The Soviet Union and the Strategic Arms Race, 1945–1964 (Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1993), pp. 63–88; David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 242–245, 322–324.
Copyright information
© 2010 Christopher J. Bright
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bright, C.J. (2010). Conclusion. In: Continental Defense in the Eisenhower Era. Palgrave Studies in the History of Science and Technology. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230112926_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230112926_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-38469-3
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11292-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)