This book deals with the security of the European continent. It particularly concerns itself with problems in European security in the new environment that follows the abolition of intermediate-range nuclear forces (INF). These missiles, capable of delivering nuclear warheads with ranges between 500 and 3000 kilometers, have been central to security thinking for more than a decade. This book is therefore almost entirely devoted to what have come to be known as ‘conventional’ weapons. There is a problem of nomenclature that runs throughout the study. Some would call this an exercise in the study of ‘arms control’, others in ‘strategic theory’. Our use of the anodyne ‘security policy’ is an attempt to get around the labelling problem. Were it not too verbose (and too presumptuous), we would describe the essay as a study of ‘war avoidance and war limitation.’ We intend to investigate ways in which European powers, operating either in conjunction with or even in concert against the superpowers, can diminish the chance of a war in Europe. We examine how a major arms reduction treaty has raised new, and increased the urgency of old, questions about such an aim.
KeywordsNuclear Weapon Weapon System European Security Cruise Missile Conventional Force
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.Military Doctrine of the Warsaw Treaty Member States (Berlin: Political Consultative Committee of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, May 1987). Also Mikhail Gorbachev, Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World (New York: Harper & Row, 1987).Google Scholar
- 2.Relevant texts and a discussion can be found in A. N. Dupuy and G. Hammerman, A Documentary History of Arms Control and Disarmament (New York: Carnegie Institute, 1973).Google Scholar
- 7.See Serge Schmemann, ‘Polls Say Kohl is in Political Trouble’, New York Times, 30 March 1989, p. A10.Google Scholar
- 9.‘US F-111 Set for the UK to Fill INF Gap’, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 2 July 1988, p. 1335.Google Scholar
- 10.David Fouquet, ‘NATO Air Power Review after INF’, Jane’s Defence Weekly, 3 March 1989, p. 391.Google Scholar