NATO's Strategic Choices

Defense Planning and Conventional Force Modernization

by James A. Thomson

Download

Download eBook for Free

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.7 MB

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

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback31 pages $20.00 $16.00 20% Web Discount

In order to deal with NATO's principal strategic problem--the declining credibility of nuclear escalation threats to deter Warsaw Pact conventional aggression--this paper reviews NATO's present strategy; examines broad strategic alternatives, all of which appear to be ruled out or severely limited by current constraints; and concludes that NATO's recourse is to seek modest improvements in conventional capabilities. The author argues for three changes to improve conventional defenses: (1) changing the NATO defense planning process; (2) correcting deficiencies in the weapons acquisition process; and (3) setting two priority programs--one to preserve the survivability of NATO air operations, and the other to increase NATO's operational reserves.

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.