Download eBook for Free
| Format | File Size | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| PDF file | 4.6 MB | Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience. |
A reappraisal of U.S. military posture in Europe to uncover options that policymakers may have neglected in the choice of alternative force structures and operating practices. While accepting the widely held premise of NATO's conventional inferiority to Warsaw Pact forces, the author examines the origin of the premise in an effort to escape the dilemmas that have long confronted U.S. and European decisionmakers. A net military assessment reveals that NATO's deficiencies are a self-imposed assortment of inertia and misunderstanding. For example, NATO has not developed operating procedures and a force structure appropriate to its strategic requirements in European context, as has done the Pact. It currently sustains expensive but weak conventional forces with an emphasis on nuclear weapons. What is needed is a basic rethinking of NATO's military structure. Thereupon, it can readily attain conventional comparability or parity with the Pact and at no increase in military budget or manpower.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.
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.
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.