1. John Lewis Gaddis, The United States and the End of the Cold War: Implications, Reconsiderations, Provocations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Gaddis, We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1997). The Cold War `ended' as the former book, which had not correctly predicted how it would end, went to press.

2. The importance of ideology is perhaps best illustrated by the manner in which the `hawks' of the Cold War, many associated with the Hoover Institution, attacked Ted Turner's and CNN's 24-episode history of the Cold War, The Cold War. See Arnold Beichman (ed.), CNN's Cold War Documentary: Issues and Controversy (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2000).

3. Paul Forman, `Behind Quantum Electronics: National Security as Basis for Physical Research in the United States, 1940-1960', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol. 18, Part 1 (1985), 149-229.

4. Each of the authors of the papers in this issue cites some of this literature, and I will therefore not recapitulate it here.

5. The `crowding out' thesis is most closely associated with Seymour Melman and his followers. See Seymour Melman's The Defense Economy: Conversion of Industries and Occupations to Civilian Needs (New York: Praeger, 1970); Our Depleted Society (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965); Pentagon Capitalism: The Political Economy of War (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971); and The Permanent War Economy: American Capitalism in Decline (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974).

6. Scepticism about the value of spinoffs is captured in John A. Alic et al., Beyond Spinoff: Military and Commercial Technologies in a Changing World (Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1992).

7. Mark Solovey, `Project Camelot and the 1960s Epistemological Revolution: Rethinking the Politics-Patronage-Social Science Nexus', Social Studies of Science, Vol. 31, No. 2 (April 2001), 171-206.

8. David K. van Keuren, `Cold War Science in Black and White: US Intelligence Gathering and Its Scientific Cover at the Naval Research Laboratory, 1948-62', ibid., 207-30.

9. John Cloud, `Imaging the World in a Barrel: CORONA and the Clandestine Convergence of the Earth Sciences', ibid., 231-51.

10. Slava Gerovitch, ` “Mathematical Machines” of the Cold War: Soviet Computing, American Cybernetics and Ideological Disputes in the Early 1950s', ibid., 253-87.

11. This list of suggested units of analysis owes its inspiration in large part to Stuart W. Leslie, `Science and Politics in Cold War America', in Margaret C. Jacob (ed.), Politics of Western Science, 1640-1990 (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1994), 199-233. Leslie also includes laboratories (cognates of my scientific institutions) and industrial geographies, which are clearly important units to consider.

12. Van Keuren, op. cit. note 8, 223, 224.

13. Cloud, op. cit. note 9, 245-46.

14. Peter J. Westwick, `Secret Science: A Classified Community in the National Laboratories', Minerva, Vol. 38, No. 4 (2000), 363-91, at 386-87.

15. Westwick makes this point: ibid., 365. See his citations. See also Pamela O. Long and Alex Roland, `Military Secrecy in Antiquity and Early Medieval Europe: A Critical Reassessment', History and Technology, Vol. 11 (1994), 259-90; and Michael Aaron Dennis, `Secrecy and Science Revisited: From Politics to Historical Practice and Back', in Judith Reppy (ed.), Secrecy and Knowledge Production (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Peace Studies: Occasional Paper 23, 1999), 1-16.

16. Information trading has often gone on sub rosa across barriers of classification or secrecy when it has served the purposes of those individuals closest to the production of knowledge.

17. Gerovitch, op. cit. note 10, 254, 255.

18. Ibid., 255.

19. Ibid., 276-77.

20. Solovey, op. cit. note 7, 172.

21. On RAND and the Cold War, see David A. Hounshell, `The Cold War, RAND, and the Generation of Knowledge, 1946-1962', Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, Vol 27, Part 2 (1997), 237-67.

22. David R. Jardini, Thinking through the Cold War: RAND, National Security, and Domestic Policy, 1945-1975 (book manuscript presently under review). The chapter on Vietnam from this manuscript was presented as a seminar paper, `Policymaking in a Cold War Quagmire: RAND and Vietnam, 1954-1972', at the CMU Colloquium on Cold War Science and Technology (5 November 1998).

23. The most powerful criticism of systems analysis was that of Ida R. Hoos: Hoos, Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972).

24. For more information, see Daniel Ellsberg, Papers on the War (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972), and Peter Schrag, Test of Loyalty: Daniel Ellsberg and the Rituals of Secret Government (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974). See also Jardini, op. cit. note 22. One RAND researcher termed the Pentagon Papers `RAND's Bay of Pigs'.

25. This question is inspired by my reading of Michael Aaron Dennis, `Historiography of Science: An American Perspective', in John Krige and Dominique Pestre (eds), Science in the Twentieth Century (Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1997), 1-27.

Rethinking the Cold War;Rethinking Science and Technology in the Cold War;Rethinking the Social Study of Science and Technology

Abstract

Get full access to this article