The financial cost of any arms enhancement must be minimized because of the increasing defense budgetary problems.
The manpower drain must be minimized because of the demographic situation.
American influence over NATO must not be increased by NATO having to adopt US doctrines.
No loss to indigenous West European arms industries should be incurred.
Superpower military presence in Europe as a whole ought to be diminished as much as possible.
NATO’s doctrine and posture should not become more aggressive or threatening.
The independence of individual West European NATO members and their military capacity to defend what they see as vital interests must be protected.
The superpowers’ ability to project forces to protect their vital interests elsewhere than Europe must be maintained.
The possibility of a lengthy, intentional war of attrition should be taken into account in addition to the usual scenarios of short-warning, surprise or accidental wars.
KeywordsForce Reduction Combine Control Vital Interest European Security Defensive Posture
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 3.See Cyril Falls, The First World War (London: Longmans, 1960).Google Scholar
- 10.See Joshua M. Epstein, ‘Dynamic Analysis and the Conventional Balance in Europe’, International Security 12, no. 4 (Spring 1988). See also the debate between Epstein and Mearsheimer in International Security 13, no. 4 (Spring 1989).Google Scholar
- 13.David Robertson, A Dictionary of Modern Defence and Strategy (London: Europa, 1987), p. 163.Google Scholar