Abstract
Whatever strategic concepts or conventional defence options they may choose to pursue through force improvement plans, NATO leaders will have to contend on the one hand with domestic demands for concomitant progress in arms control and, on the other, with increasingly sophisticated Soviet military and political counter-measures. The Warsaw Pact is acutely concerned with the implications of emerging developments in NATO doctrine and weaponry, and has already established the broad outlines of an integrated political and military response. Even before NATO’s renewed attention to its conventional defences, the Warsaw Pact was engaged in a series of initiatives designed to improve the capabilities of its forces to manoeuvre and strike deep into NATO’s rear areas. In addition, the Soviet leadership under Gorbachev has shown remarkable skill in its public diplomacy towards the West. In the wake of the INF treaty, Moscow seems sure to advance further dramatic proposals for sharply reducing battlefield nuclear weapons and conventional forces, such as those put forward in the June 1986 Warsaw Pact ‘Budapest Appeal’ and elaborated in the May 1987 Berlin Statement. The nature and credibility of the Alliance’s response to Moscow’s overtures will be critical. NATO governments cannot realistically expect to obtain domestic support for conventional force improvement plans without parallel efforts towards arms control. Thus, dealing with these Soviet military and political activities and shaping effective, broadly-supported military and arms control initiatives will be the twin challenges to NATO as it pursues its conventional defence options.
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 and References
M. Proskurin, ‘The Aggressive Nature of the Rogers Plan’, Krasnaya Zvezda 29 October 1983, p. 5. Reprinted in Foreign Broadcast Information Service — Soviet Union 4 November 1983, p. Cl.
Ben J. Wattenberg and Karl Zinsmeister, ‘The Birth Dearth: The Geopolitical Consequences’, Public Opinion, December/January 1986, p. 9.
William E. Odom, ‘Soviet Force Posture: Dilemmas and Directions’, Problems of Communism, July–August 1985, pp. 6–14.
Mary C. Fitzgerald, ‘Marshal Ogarkov on the Modern Theater peration’, Naval War College Review, Autumn 1986, pp. 6–22.
Stephen M. Meyer, Soviet Theatre Nuclear Forces, Part II: Capabilities and Implications, Adelphi Paper No. 188 (London: IISS, 1984), pp. 24–53.
US Department of Defense, Soviet Military Power 1985 (Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office, 1985), pp. 67–8.
F. D. Sverdlov, ‘The Tactical Maneuver’, in Joint Periodical Reference Service, LI 11388, 16 June 1983, p. 84.
John G. Hines and Phillip A. Peterson, ‘The Soviet Conventional Offensive in Europe’, Military Review, April 1984, pp. 3–29.
See Clarence A. Robinson, Jr, ‘U.S. Develops Antitactical Weapon for Europe Role’, Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9 April 1984, p. 49.
Jonathan Dean, Watershed Europe (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1987), p. 155.
Copyright information
© 1988 International Institute for Strategic Studies
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Flanagan, S.J. (1988). Twin Challenges. In: NATO’s Conventional Defences. Studies in International Security. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19484-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19484-1_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-46368-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-19484-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)