Advertisement

NATO’s Strategy: Past, Present, and Future

  • Steven L. Rearden

Abstract

By the mid-1990s, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) faced an uncertain future, its traditional strategy in disarray now that the Cold War was over. Some critics argued that, because of the disintegration of the Soviet Union, NATO strategy, like the alliance itself, had outlived its usefulness.1 But as new dangers from ethnic and religious tensions along the periphery of the old Soviet empire erupted, the reasons for keeping NATO alive and well arguably remained strong. Even former members of the Warsaw Pact were clamoring to be part of NATO. The alliance was, in other words, a rallying point for peace and stability in a troubled world, and as such continued to serve a useful purpose. Accordingly, in preparing for the years ahead, NATO still needed an up-to-date strategic concept around which its members could organize themselves, plan for future contingencies, and allocate their national resources.

Keywords

Nuclear Weapon Flexible Response North Atlantic Treaty Organization Ballistic Missile Cruise Missile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See, for example, Jonathan Clarke, “Replacing NATO,” Foreign Policy 93 (Winter 1993–94): 22–40.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The best overview of NATO’s origins and the ideas behind it is Lawrence S. Kaplan, The United States and NATO: The Formative Years (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Such was Marshall’s attitude as recounted in Paul H. Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost: At the Center of Decision—A Memoir (New York: Grove, Weidenfeld, 1989), 59.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    For a fuller discussion see Samuel R. Williamson, Jr., and Steven L. Rearden, The Origins of U.S. Nuclear Strategy, 1945–1953 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    U.S. Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1949 (Washington, 1975), 4:356–58;Google Scholar
  6. Christian Grenier, “Strategic Concepts for the Defence of Western Europe, 1948–1950,” in The Western Security Community, ed. Norbert Wiggershaus and Roland G. Foerster (Oxford: Berg Publishers, 1993), 313–41.Google Scholar
  7. 6.
    Robert A. Wampler, “Conventional Goals and Nuclear Promises: The Truman Administration and the Roots of the NATO New Look,” in NATO: The Founding of the Atlantic Alliance and the Integration of Europe, ed. Francis H. Heller and John R. Gillingham (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1992), 353–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. See also Ernest R. May, “The American Commitment to Germany, 1949–55,” Diplomatic History 13 (Fall 1989): 431–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 7.
    For the development of NATO strategy under MC 48 see Robert J. Watson, The Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Policy, 1953–1954 (Washington: Historical Division, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 1986), 311–21.Google Scholar
  10. 8.
    For the controversy over Soviet strategic strength see John Prados, The Soviet Estimate: U.S. Intelligence Analysis and Russian Military Strength (New York: Dial Press, 1982), 67–126;Google Scholar
  11. and Lawrence Freedman, U.S. Intelligence and the Soviet Strategic Threat, 2d ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 62–80.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    The best analysis is Jane E. Stromseth, The Origins of Flexible Response: NATO’s Debate over Strategy in the 1960s (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. See also Richard A. Aliano, American Defense Policy from Eisenhower to Kennedy: The Politics of Changing Military Requirements, 1957–1961 (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1975);Google Scholar
  14. and Lawrence Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1981), chap. 19.Google Scholar
  15. 10.
    Quoted in Alain C. Enthoven and K. Wayne Smith, How Much is Enough? (New York: Harper and Row, 1971), 122.Google Scholar
  16. 11.
    Ivo H. Daalder, The Nature and Practice of Flexible Response: NATO Strategy and Theater Nuclear Forces since 1967 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 74–76.Google Scholar
  17. 15.
    James R. Schlesinger, “The Theater Nuclear Force Posture in Europe: A Report to the U.S. Congress in Compliance with P.L. 93–365” (Washington: Department of Defense, 1975), 11–13.Google Scholar
  18. 16.
    For a summary of the evolution of army doctrine see John L. Romjue, From Active Defense to Airland Battle: The Development of Army Doctrine, 1973–1982 (Ft. Monroe, VA: Historical Office, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 1984).Google Scholar
  19. 17.
    Bernard W. Rogers, “Greater Flexibility for NATO’s Flexible Response,” Strategic Review 11 (Spring 1983): 11–19.Google Scholar
  20. 18.
    Testimony by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman and CNO Adm. James D. Watkins, 14 March 1984, in U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Hearings on Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1985, 98th Cong., 2d sess., 1985, Pt. 8, 3852–94.Google Scholar
  21. 19.
    For a summary of criticism see John J. Mearsheimer, “A Strategic Misstep: The Maritime Strategy and Deterrence in Europe,” International Security 11 (Fall 1986): 3–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 20.
    The case for the maritime strategy was best made in a set of navy-sponsored articles published as The Maritime Strategy, Supplement to the U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings 112 (January 1986). See also Linton F. Brooks, “Naval Power and National Security: The Case for the Maritime Strategy,” International Security 11 (Fall 1986): 58–88;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. and Francis J. West, Jr., “Maritime Strategy and NATO Deterrence,” Naval War College Review 38 (September–October 1985): 5–19.Google Scholar
  24. 21.
    Robert S. Jordan, Alliance Strategy and Navies: The Evolution and Scope of NATO’s Maritime Dimension (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990), 139–41.Google Scholar
  25. 22.
    For an overview of the SALT negotiations see Thomas W. Wolfe, The SALT Experience (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1979).Google Scholar
  26. 23.
    The most persistent critic of what became the SALT II Treaty was Paul H. Nitze, who had served as a member of the U.S. SALT I delegation. For a summary of his views on how SALT II threatened to damage U.S. and Western security see Kenneth W. Thompson and Steven L. Rearden, eds., Paul H. Nitze on National Security and Arms Control (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1990), 149–240; and Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, chaps. 16–18.Google Scholar
  27. 24.
    Raymond L. Garthoff, Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1985), 856–67; Daalder, Flexible Response, 166–68.Google Scholar
  28. See also Lawrence Freedman, “Negotiations on Nuclear Forces in Europe, 1969–83,” in The European Missile Crisis: Nuclear Weapons and Security Policy, ed. Hans-Henrik Holm and Nikolaj Petersen (New York: St. Martins Press, 1983), 123–28.Google Scholar
  29. 25.
    Phil Williams, “The United States and Détente: A European View,” in The Cold War Past and Present, ed. Richard Crockatt and Steve Smith (London: Allen and Unwin, 1987), 110–27.Google Scholar
  30. 26.
    Helmut Schmidt, “The 1977 Alastair Buchan Memorial Lecture,” Survival 20 (January–February 1978): 2–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 29.
    J. Michael Legge, Theater Nuclear Weapons and the NATO Strategy of Flexible Response, RAND Rpt. No. R-2964 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp., 1983), 74.Google Scholar
  32. 30.
    Lynn Davis (assistant deputy undersecretary of defense for policy planning, 1977–1981), cited in David S. Yost, “The History of NATO Theater Nuclear Force Policy: Key Findings from the Sandia Conference,” Journal of Strategic Studies 15 (June 1992): 236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 31.
    Jimmy Carter, Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President (New York: Bantam Books, 1982), 225–29Google Scholar
  34. 32.
    Zbigniew Brzezinski, Power and Principle: Memoirs of the National Security Adviser, 1977–1981 (New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1983), 301–6.Google Scholar
  35. See also James A. Thomson, “The LRTNF Decision: Evolution of US Theatre Nuclear Policy, 1975–9,” International Affairs 60 (Autumn 1984): 601–14;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. and Jeffrey Herf, War by Other Means: Soviet Power, West German Resistance, and the Battle of the Euromissiles (New York: Free Press, 1991).Google Scholar
  37. 33.
    Two good overviews of the Reagan buildup are William P. Snyder and James Brown, eds., Defense Policy in the Reagan Administration (Washington: National Defense University Press, 1988);Google Scholar
  38. and Daniel Wirls, Buildup: The Politics of Defense in the Reagan Era (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  39. 34.
    Quoted in Richard J. Barnet, The Alliance—America, Europe, Japan: Makers of the Postwar World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 434.Google Scholar
  40. 35.
    Margaret Thatcher, The Downing Street Years (New York: HarperCollins, 1993), 463–69.Google Scholar
  41. 36.
    Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, 366–98. See also Strobe Talbott, The Master of the Game: Paul Nitze and the Nuclear Peace (New York: Knopf, 1988).Google Scholar
  42. 39.
    See Joseph P. Harahan, On-Site Inspections under the INF Treaty: A History of the On-Site Inspection Agency and INF Treaty Implementation, 1988–1991 (Washington: On-Site Inspection Agency, Department of Defense, 1993).Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    See Ashton B. Carter, William J. Perry, and John D. Steinbruner, A New Concept of Cooperative Security (Washington: Brookings Institution, 1992).Google Scholar
  44. 46.
    Joel J. Sokolsky, Seapower in the Nuclear Age: The United States Navy and NATO, 1949–80 (Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 1991), 122.Google Scholar
  45. 49.
    Thomas A. Keaney and Eliot A. Cohen, Gulf War Air Power Summary Report (draft in galley proofs), chap. 9. See also Eliot A. Cohen, “The Mystique of U.S. Air Power,” Foreign Affairs 73 (January–February 1974): 109–12; and Gulf War Air Power Survey, Vol. 2, Operations and Effects and Effectiveness (Washington: G.P.O., 1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 50.
    The Patriot’s controversial performance is discussed in Theodore A. Postoi, “Lessons of the Gulf War Experience with Patriot,” International Security 16 (Winter 1991/92): 119–71. The Patriot’s manufacturer, Raytheon, published a separate rebuttal. See Robert M. Stein, “Patriot ATBM Experience in the Gulf War,” ibid. 17 (Summer 1992): 199–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© S. Victor Papacosma and Mary Ann Heiss 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven L. Rearden

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations