Analyzing alternative concepts for the defense of NATO

Milton G. Weiner

Expert InsightsPublished 1984

This paper considers three different concepts for the conventional defense of the NATO Central Region as a way of providing a perspective on the analysis of alternative defense concepts for NATO. The three defense concepts are fortified barrier, forward response, and distributed area defense. The author analyzed each of these concepts using a computer model called MASTER (Mass and Space/Time Evaluation Routine). His analysis identified military, political, and cost factors affecting the implementation and effectiveness of each of the three defense concepts.

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 1984
  • Pages: 23
  • Document Number: P-7032

Citation

Chicago Manual of Style

Weiner, Milton G., Analyzing alternative concepts for the defense of NATO. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1984. https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P7032.html.
BibTeX RIS

This publication is part of the RAND paper series. The paper series was a product of RAND 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.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND 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.