{"id":{"repo_id":"mo-state","oai_identifier":"oai:bearworks.missouristate.edu:theses-1697"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/mo-state/oai:bearworks.missouristate.edu:theses-1697","repository":{"repo_id":"mo-state","name":"Missouri State University","base_url":"https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"Force Requirements vs. Capabilities: United States Strategic Nuclear Policy in Transition, 1981-2001","abstract":"United States' strategic nuclear policy has long been at the center of debate over military and foreign policy. The awesome power of strategic nuclear weapons (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, and long-range manned bombers) and the possibility of massive damage and casualties remain the single greatest threat to United States national security. Nuclear use policies and force requirements are carefully crafted by the President and his advisors to contribute to the accomplishment of the overall goals and missions of United States' foreign policy. Strategic nuclear policies and force requirements, no matter how carefully and throughtfully crafted, do not always match the United States' real-world capabilities or the capabilities of its potential enemies. When this occurs, the dichotomy between policy requirements and capabilities can cause a dangerous level of instability that could, under the wrong conditions, result in a damaging and costly war. This thesis examines the relationship between strategic nuclear policy requirements and capabilities during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations and the impact of these policies on the United States overall security posture.","abstract_html":"United States' strategic nuclear policy has long been at the center of debate over military and foreign policy. The awesome power of strategic nuclear weapons (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, and long-range manned bombers) and the possibility of massive damage and casualties remain the single greatest threat to United States national security. Nuclear use policies and force requirements are carefully crafted by the President and his advisors to contribute to the accomplishment of the overall goals and missions of United States' foreign policy. Strategic nuclear policies and force requirements, no matter how carefully and throughtfully crafted, do not always match the United States' real-world capabilities or the capabilities of its potential enemies. When this occurs, the dichotomy between policy requirements and capabilities can cause a dangerous level of instability that could, under the wrong conditions, result in a damaging and costly war. This thesis examines the relationship between strategic nuclear policy requirements and capabilities during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations and the impact of these policies on the United States overall security posture.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Pyle, Trevor Paul"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science in Defense and Strategic Studies","degree_level":"Masters","degree_discipline":"Defense and Strategic Studies","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["William Van Cleave"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2002,"date_issued":"2002-07-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2002-07-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:15:42Z","subjects":["Defense and Security Studies"],"languages":[],"rights":["© Trevor Paul Pyle"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/696","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["William Van Cleave"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Pyle, Trevor Paul"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Defense and Strategic Studies"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Masters"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science in Defense and Strategic Studies"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Defense and Security Studies"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["© Trevor Paul Pyle"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/696"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["United States' strategic nuclear policy has long been at the center of debate over military and foreign policy. The awesome power of strategic nuclear weapons (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, and long-range manned bombers) and the possibility of massive damage and casualties remain the single greatest threat to United States national security. Nuclear use policies and force requirements are carefully crafted by the President and his advisors to contribute to the accomplishment of the overall goals and missions of United States' foreign policy. Strategic nuclear policies and force requirements, no matter how carefully and throughtfully crafted, do not always match the United States' real-world capabilities or the capabilities of its potential enemies. When this occurs, the dichotomy between policy requirements and capabilities can cause a dangerous level of instability that could, under the wrong conditions, result in a damaging and costly war. This thesis examines the relationship between strategic nuclear policy requirements and capabilities during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations and the impact of these policies on the United States overall security posture."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Force Requirements vs. Capabilities: United States Strategic Nuclear Policy in Transition, 1981-2001"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["William Van Cleave"],"dc:creator":["Pyle, Trevor Paul"],"dc:description.abstract":["United States' strategic nuclear policy has long been at the center of debate over military and foreign policy. The awesome power of strategic nuclear weapons (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Submarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles, and long-range manned bombers) and the possibility of massive damage and casualties remain the single greatest threat to United States national security. Nuclear use policies and force requirements are carefully crafted by the President and his advisors to contribute to the accomplishment of the overall goals and missions of United States' foreign policy. Strategic nuclear policies and force requirements, no matter how carefully and throughtfully crafted, do not always match the United States' real-world capabilities or the capabilities of its potential enemies. When this occurs, the dichotomy between policy requirements and capabilities can cause a dangerous level of instability that could, under the wrong conditions, result in a damaging and costly war. This thesis examines the relationship between strategic nuclear policy requirements and capabilities during the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations and the impact of these policies on the United States overall security posture."],"dc:identifier":["https://bearworks.missouristate.edu/theses/696"],"dc:rights":["© Trevor Paul Pyle"],"dc:subject":["Defense and Security Studies"],"dc:title":["Force Requirements vs. Capabilities: United States Strategic Nuclear Policy in Transition, 1981-2001"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Defense and Strategic Studies"],"thesis:degree_level":["Masters"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science in Defense and Strategic Studies"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:15:42Z"}