Cover: A follow-on strategic echelon for NATO

A follow-on strategic echelon for NATO

Published 1985

by Peter A. Wilson, Kevin N. Lewis

Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback23 pages $20.00

A variety of U.S. combat and mobility force structure initiatives are being undertaken to enhance U.S. potential for both major and minor third-area contingencies. This paper reviews some options for designing and/or exploiting new force increments for Central European as well as third-area requirements, which might be considered as a second or even third strategic echelon mobilization and reinforcement option for NATO. The authors consider the issues of rapid deployment, strategic lift, "light" infantry divisions, motorized units, heavier Marine divisions, and French and Spanish participation. They conclude that the tendency to view the defense of NATO and third areas as separate planning problems could result in lost opportunities to introduce combat and mobility options suited to a range of contingencies.

This report is part of the RAND paper series. The paper 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.