Using major new documentary sources, this book tells the story of why and how China built its nuclear submarine flotilla and the impact of that development on the nation's politics, technology, industry and strategy.

Because of the Soviet Union's heavy emphasis on military prowess and capability, the military-industrial sector in the Soviet Union (and Russia) was larger than its counterparts in other industrialized societies. In addition to military equipment, it produced almost all civilian products with technology content such as appliances, electronic equipment, and aircraft.

With the ending of the Cold War, support for the military production from this sector was radically deemphasized. The necessary adjustment of the military enterprises to this demand shock has been embedded in far more comprehensive economic reforms. As the country has moved to a market economy and privatized much of its economic potential, the managers of the enterprises have found it necessary to convert most of their output to nonmilitary products and services as well as to restructure the enterprises.

The three major areas of restructuring are (1) the relationships of the enterprises with their owners, (2) the internal organization and operational procedures of the enterprises, and (3) the relations between the enterprises and the employees. The degree of success of the national economic reform program and the health of the economy will depend substantially on the degree of success of the defense enterprises in utilizing their residual assets (human, technological, and physical) to generate profitable economic activity.

This report deals with this economic transition, primarily at the enterprise level. We have met the directors of more than forty defense enterprises and worked with approximately ten of them in considerable detail and six in more detail, having spent between one quarter and one person year with managers from each of the six. The report contains case studies of these six enterprises as well as cross-cutting chapters on four critical aspects of enterprise restructuring--privatization, organization, accounting, and social services. These have emerged as the key factors governing the strategies of the enterprises, and they will be some of the primary determinants of the success or failure of an enterprise.

This paper describes the technologies needed for producing nuclear weapons, giving particular attention to those used in electromagnetic separation and laser uranium-235 enrichment.  The complexity of the technologies makes it clear that developing countries, to various degrees, need assistance from the developed world in order to build nuclear weapons.  Complete restriction of assistance could prevent the spread of these weapons.  Unfortunately, knowledge of the technology is already so widespread that preventing further spread is virtually impossible in the long run.  In practice, imposing rigorous control over the availability of key components of all of the possible technologies may delay access to nuclear weapons by the less-developed world for many years.  All of the recommendations in this discussion may be overtaken by the chaotic situation in the former Soviet Union--rumors abound that its nuclear engineers, technology, weapons material, and the weapons themselves are potentially for sale.  A better method of preventing proliferation is needed, and some of the proposals for achieving improvements are discussed in this paper.

Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) started a project on defense conversion in the Soviet Union in early 1990. Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, the project has concentrated on defense conversion in Russia. The objectives of the project are to study and assist the process of demilitarization through the diversion of military production assets, broadly interpreted (facilities, personnel, technology, etc.), and building a civilian industry and infrastructure.

As a part of this project, CISAC sponsored an international conference on defense conversion on December 1-2, 1992. This report summarizes the authors' impressions, following the conference, of the status of privatization and conversion in Russia, and of U.S. government and business involvement in those processes. The conclusions drawn and the recommendations made are our own, based on both conference presentations and our own research.

Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) has undertaken a project to work with elements of the Soviet defense industry to help them convert production from military to civilian uses. In this project we refer to conversion as the use of defense industry facilities, personnel, and/or technology for the production of nondefense products and services. One aspect of this work is to facilitate cooperation between U.S. and Soviet companies. Representative Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee (HASC), asked the Center to initiate this project. The Institute of U.S.A. and Canada Studies (ISKAN) of the Soviet Academy of Sciences is coordinating the Soviet Union's participation.

In recent years issues in international security have been increasingly influenced by economic factors. This is evident in the defense budgets of the major powers as well as in arms transfers to regions such as the Middle East. Furthermore, arms control has taken on a broader meaning, involving unilateral cuts and confidence-building measures to supplement negotiated structural arms-control agreements.

The principal objective of this project is to assist the Soviet defense industry in their defense conversion activities by:

• Analyzing the conversion problem in the Soviet Union and, if appropriate, extracting lessons from the U.S. experience.
• Assisting the Soviets in contacting and exploring cooperative ventures with appropriate U.S. companies.
• Stimulating discussions among Soviet defense experts and U.S. government officials and academics on appropriate changes to trade policy.

Stanford University's Center for International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) started a project in early 1990 following a proposal from Marshal Akhromeyev,specialadvisor to President Gorbachev and Les Aspin, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.  The intent was to bring a delegation of Soviet defense executives, government officials and academicians to the United States. The objectives of the project were to study and assi§t the process of demilitarization through the diversion of military production assets, broadly interpreted (facilities, personnl., technology, etc.), and to building a civilian industry and infrastructure. In spite of changes in the project agenda, the objectives remain the same. These objectives are being addressed by informing the debate in the Russian and American
governments as well as in the international financial institutions, recommending innovative conversion efforts, interacting directly with Russian defense enterprises and American companies interested in cooperative business activities, and participating in scholarly analyses through publications and topical conferences.

The problem of accidental or inadvertent nuclear war has been couched largely in terms of superpower confrontations during a crisis. Whether the focus is on the major powers, or on developing nations with ballistic missiles and probable nuclear weapons capability, stability in those who handle weapons and effective safeguards on use are essential preventive measures. The United States and the USSR have been careful to guard against unauthorized launch. All nuclear nations have been concerned with retaining ultimate control of nuclear weapons in civilian hands; with monitoring the reliability and stability of the forces that handle the weapons; and with preventing weapons from coming into the possession of outsiders. In 1986, an analysis of the sources of human instability in those who handle nuclear weapons concluded that thousands of unstable individuals were involved in "minding our missiles."1 The present paper serves as an update on the problem and links it to potential areas of increasing risk as the world changes.

In recent years, world attention has been drawn to the acquisition by developing countries of delivery systems for nuclear weapons as distinct from the nuclear warheads themselves. In particular, concerns have been raised about the spread of ballistic-missile systems and technologies to areas such as theMiddle East, in which there are strong regional tensions.  The extensive use of ballistic missiles in the "war of the cities" in 1988 during the Iran-Iraq War and the use of Scud missiles by Iraq against Israel and Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm highlighted the rapid proliferation of these weapons, and served as a premonition of worse things to come if and when developing states deploy ballistic missiles armed with weapons of mass destruction.  The ballistic missiles of concern have ranges of a hundred to a few thousand kilometers (km) and can carry payloads of up to one or two thousand kilograms (kg). These systems are becoming increasingly prominent in Third World arsenals, and are perceived as threatening stability and regional military balances.

This study examines the impact of ballistic-missile proliferation, focusing on sixteen regional states which have or soon could have ballistic-missile capabilities.  Specifically, the study: (1) evaluates the military effectlveness of ballistic missiles in comparison with advanced strike aircraft, (2) identifies trends in the supply of and demand for ballistic missiles, (3) identifies key technologies and systems whose control is essential to a successful missile non-proliferation regime, (4) reviews the relevancy and effectiveness of present control mechanisms including the MlssiIe Technology Control Regime (MTCR), and (5) offers policy options for strengthening controls on the acquisition by developing states of longer-range ground strike delivery systems, including ballistic missiles and advanced combat aircraft.

In this report, the author addresses:

(1) the basis for federal government intervention in energy markets;
(2) the mechanisms DOE employed to assist in the commercialization of energy technology;
(3) the energy development cycle and the problem of deciding where government support is best allocated; and
(4) his observations about the lessons learned.

For all the time and frustration that humans expend interacting with computers, it is surprising that more attention is not paid to the impact the computers used by armed forces might have on security and peace. The military, like the rest of us, is dependent on its computers and interacts with them unceasingly, often in critical situations. Never before have our armies been so intimately dependent on their tools, certainly not ones as complex, or as apparently capricious as misapplied computers can be. This paper looks at the ways in which this peculiar human involvement with computer systems requires special attention, most critically in the military context, from policymakers and researchers.