A Political-Military Game of Protracted Conventional War in Europe

by John Setear


Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.8 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.


Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback26 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

In 1987, a group of RAND researchers played a political-military game of protracted conventional war between the NATO and Warsaw Pact countries to take place in 1993. This Note discusses such issues as the prospect that strategic nuclear weapons would signal the strength of the U.S. commitment to NATO and re-establish extended deterrence despite obvious risks of escalation; whether ending a NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict would be difficult to achieve, particularly if either side occupies some part of the Federal Republic of Germany; whether attacking ballistic missile submarines would have any impact on the escalation level of the conflict; and whether waging protracted war in Central Europe is possible under some assumptions. While the results obtained here were clearly a reflection of the particular players and scenarios used, both teams were relatively cautious and conservative in exercising their options, and achieved insights that will be useful to those who conduct political-military games.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Note series. The note was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1979 to 1993 that reported other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.