Abstract
New institutions like the High Level Group, and the political saliency of the INF issue in the early 1980s changed the decision-making process and relative influence between military and civilian NATO officials. Nuclear requirements before 1979 were largely SACEUR’s responsibility with his staff at SHAPE at Mons, Belgium.1 The 1979 INF decision, the HLG Montebello process, and the INF negotiations generated considerable civil-military friction between 1980 and 1987 in two areas: (1) formulation of nuclear requirements; (2) substance and process of INF negotiations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Walter Pincus, ‘NATO to Remove 1,400 of 6,000 Stockpiled A-Arms’, The Washington Post, 28 October 1983, p. 29.
Charles W. Corddry, ‘NATO Planning to Eliminate Nuclear Anti-Aircraft Missiles’, The Baltimore Sun, 10 November 1983, p. 14
Richard Halloran, ‘US Aide Warns Soviet About Missile Stockpile’, New York Times, 10 November 1983, p. 13.
William Drozdiak, ‘NATO Says 9 SS-20s Set Up in Past Month’, International Herald Tribune, 12 January 1984.
Equipping the United States Army, a statement to the Congress on the FY 1983 Army RDTE and Procurement Appropriations. For further details, see Jeffrey Arthur Larsen, The Politics of NATO Short-Range Nuclear Modernization 1983–1990: The Follow-On to Lance Missile Decisions. (Princeton: PhD thesis for Department of Politics, 1991), pp. 139–149.
Defense Authorization Act for 1985 Section 1635 B3; see also Walter Pincus, ‘Hill Votes for Nuclear Shells’, The Washington Post, 6 October 1984, p. 10.
James O’Shea, ‘Army Plays Nuclear Shell Game’, Chicago Tribune, 17 February 1985, p. 1.
Karen DeYoung, ‘Transatlantic Lobbies Snipe at A-Weapon’, The Washington Post, 23 June 1985, p. 16.
Bernard Rogers, ‘Strengthening Deterrence: Post INF’, The Atlantic Community Quarterly, 25:2, Summer 1987.
Elizabeth Pond, ‘NATO Chief: Flexibility Key to Deterrence’, Christian Science Monitor, 27 April 1987, p. 14.
These ideas were included in a prominent article which he wrote days after retirement as SACEUR from SHAPE HQ in Mons. Bernard W. Rogers, ‘Why Compromise Our Deterrent Strength in Europe?’, The New York Times, 28 June 1987.
Copyright information
© 1995 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Halverson, T.E. (1995). An Untold Story — Civil-Military Tensions over Nuclear Policy and the Reevaluation of Nuclear Requirements. In: The Last Great Nuclear Debate. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377882_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230377882_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-39325-1
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-37788-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)