Comments on 'Defense Planning in Turkey,' by Michael Moodie

by Charles Wolf, Jr.


Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.3 MB

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


Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback8 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

Prepared for a conference on Defense Planning in Less Industrialized States, Columbia University, April 1982. Following a brief, favorable review of Michael Moodie's paper on defense spending in Turkey, the author comments on additional related points: (1) Turkey is unique in the world scene in that it has both important stakes and links with western Europe as well as current and historical linkages with the Middle East. (2) There are complementarities between Turkey's military efforts and its current and future economic development. (3) Theater nuclear weapons should not be considered as an alternative to conventional NATO reinforcement (in disagreement with Moodie). (4) The use of Associated Country Forces is suggested as a free world counter to Soviet proxy forces in the Third World.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Paper series. The paper was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 2003 that captured speeches, memorials, and derivative research, usually prepared on authors' own time and meant to be the scholarly or scientific contribution of individual authors to their professional fields. Papers were less formal than reports and did not require rigorous peer review.

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.