Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO.pdf - Program on Strategic ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Security was an additional problem. Long before the McNamara era’s permissive action links (PAL) <strong>and</strong> <strong>NATO</strong>-centralized nuclear weapons storage sites, each nuclear-capable field artillery battalion stored its atomic weapons more or less as it saw fit. There were few economies to be found under this system, <strong>and</strong> the security costs to an already overburdened unit were high, but suffice it to say that no weapons were compromised during this period. I explain all this simply to highlight the complexity of <strong>NATO</strong>’s decision to adopt a strategy of tactical nuclear weapons deployment to offset a perceived conventional forces disadvantage against the Soviet army <strong>and</strong> its allies. There were recognized costs involved that limited conventional capabilities in the area of fire support. However, <strong>NATO</strong>’s bet on the utility of tactical nuclear weapons as a deterrent apparently paid off. After returning to the United States in the early 1960s, I found myself undergoing the routine field artillery officer’s training <strong>and</strong> assignments. After the Comm<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> General Staff Course at Fort Leavenworth, KS, we received a “prefix 5” to our military skill identification number, meaning that we were a qualified nuclear weapons fires planner equipped to analyze a target <strong>and</strong> deliver a nuclear explosive device according to prescription: maximize target damage, minimize collateral damage, <strong>and</strong> do not make it too difficult for friendly forces—because of tree blowdown or radiation contamination, for example—to traverse the damaged territory in a future advance. The Army then went to Vietnam, Europe was left with field artillery units stripped of its officers <strong>and</strong> key noncommissioned officers, <strong>and</strong> the nuclear mission lost its priority. For those who believed—<strong>and</strong> perhaps xv
still believe—that the then Soviet Union was simply awaiting the opportunity to strike effectively, the nagging question should arise, why not then? After returning from Vietnam, I was sent to pursue an advanced degree. During this process, I was assigned for the summer of 1968 on temporary duty to the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s <strong>Nuclear</strong> Planning Group, my only higher staff assignment up to that time. I was immersed in the burning tactical nuclear weapons argument of the day: In the event of hostilities, should we fire our first nuclear round as a warning—as we said, for demonstrative use—<strong>and</strong> not aim at an enemy target? Various <strong>NATO</strong> partners had different ideas of a demonstration—the United Kingdom wanted a round fired at sea, West Germany wanted a round fired high in the sky by an air defense missile, etc. Wisely, in my opinion, the United States declined to jump on the demonstrative-use b<strong>and</strong>wagon, seeing it as a sign of weakness rather than a demonstration of strength. In the late 1960s <strong>and</strong> early 1970s, I comm<strong>and</strong>ed two nuclear-capable field artillery battalions, both in the United States. Times were lean for nondeployed units at the time, but we continued to maintain our nuclear readiness. After graduation from the Army’s institution of higher learning—you might have read of the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, PA—I was assigned to the faculty <strong>and</strong> for a few years had little to do with nuclear issues. Counterinsurgency was the relevant strategy even as the war in Vietnam was winding down. Some, however, raised questions regarding how technical innovation was changing the battlefield <strong>and</strong> how this in turn would affect tactical nuclear weapons. This re-look grew in importance as the Army xvi
Page 1 and 2: Visit our website for other free pu
Page 3 and 4: ***** Comments pertaining to this r
Page 5 and 6: 6. Aspects of the Current Russian P
Page 7 and 8: 21. Arms Control after START ......
Page 9 and 10: this incredible amount of destructi
Page 11 and 12: hundreds of U.S. weapons (a
Page 14 and 15: TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND <stron
Page 18 and 19: embraced lessons learned from the 1
Page 20: I learned here of some of the deep
Page 24 and 25: CHAPTER 1 THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT Ri
Page 26 and 27: as just another kind of military op
Page 28 and 29: it, the Allies were unlikely to agr
Page 30 and 31: • Assets for future arms control
Page 32 and 33: ments are dissimilar. Whereas Europ
Page 34 and 35: CHAPTER 2 TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Page 36 and 37: ombs in Europe as strategic weapons
Page 38 and 39: experiences of war, in a less moral
Page 40 and 41: Strangelovian image for NAT
Page 42 and 43: II. 1953-1963. U.S. STRATEGIC SUPER
Page 44 and 45: • For what political purposes mig
Page 46 and 47: widely heralded move to flexible re
Page 48 and 49: clear sentiment for the Alliance <s
Page 50 and 51: Nevertheless, Germany underst<stron
Page 52 and 53: first in order to break up his forc
Page 54 and 55: saw Pact lines to interdict strateg
Page 56 and 57: The Democratic People’s Republic
Page 58 and 59: given release authority by the Sovi
Page 60 and 61: III. 1963-1967. EMERGING DOUBTS CON
Page 62 and 63: esponse: without it, the Allies wer
Page 64 and 65: ous arms control groups argue that
Page 66 and 67:
Why Did NATO Keep
Page 68 and 69:
France were equipped with nuclear w
Page 70 and 71:
slowly changing deterrence ethos wa
Page 72 and 73:
through widespread protests, openly
Page 74 and 75:
although it decided that the remain
Page 76 and 77:
e concealed by the regular annual <
Page 78 and 79:
However, concerned by the post-Viet
Page 80 and 81:
ously create a public and</
Page 82 and 83:
ers have repeatedly reemphasized th
Page 84 and 85:
judged to generate (but which may n
Page 86 and 87:
5. “The position we have reached
Page 88 and 89:
24. Marc Trachtenberg, A Constructe
Page 90 and 91:
49. Catherine McArdle Kelleher, “
Page 92 and 93:
76. Joseph F. Pilat and</st
Page 94 and 95:
100. Corroborated by Catherine Kell
Page 96 and 97:
CHAPTER 3 U.S. NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLI
Page 98 and 99:
the North Atlantic Treaty Organizat
Page 100 and 101:
delivery exercised a dominant influ
Page 102 and 103:
conventional strength. 14 In the Pa
Page 104 and 105:
the capability to employ such weapo
Page 106 and 107:
ground-launched short-range nuclear
Page 108 and 109:
curity policy in Asia, and<
Page 110 and 111:
lies. 31 At the strategic a
Page 112 and 113:
mediate postwar period. Washington
Page 114 and 115:
ons throughout the Cold War <strong
Page 116 and 117:
These shifts are the products both
Page 118 and 119:
power and the prol
Page 120 and 121:
7. Robert S. Norris et al., “Wher
Page 122 and 123:
frey A. Larsen and
Page 124 and 125:
near Central Europe and</st
Page 126:
47. Available from armedservices.ho
Page 130 and 131:
CHAPTER 4 RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVES ON T
Page 132 and 133:
Russian Navy would be particularly
Page 134 and 135:
ers to produce income from Russian
Page 136 and 137:
3. These are the results of polls o
Page 138 and 139:
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE FE
Page 140 and 141:
Russia’s anticipated spending of
Page 142 and 143:
arms race was on, and</stro
Page 144 and 145:
heads; and improve
Page 146 and 147:
national security strategy. Current
Page 148 and 149:
On April 23, 1999, Viktor Nikolaevi
Page 150 and 151:
First of all, the word “obligatio
Page 152 and 153:
By 2004, a young scholar, Aleksei F
Page 154 and 155:
time, it seems to believe that, in
Page 156 and 157:
ence as the chief factor that limit
Page 158 and 159:
their modernization as a response.
Page 160 and 161:
in areas affecting Russian national
Page 162 and 163:
armed struggle at sea for the perio
Page 164 and 165:
centric warfare. Citing both Chines
Page 166 and 167:
tation to maintain security <strong
Page 168 and 169:
PROSPECTS FOR A U.S.-RUSSIAN TREATY
Page 170 and 171:
uild a missile defense system in so
Page 172 and 173:
10. “Ktokhitree: Mir vstupil v er
Page 174 and 175:
36. Sergei Karaganov “Global Zero
Page 176 and 177:
CHAPTER 6 ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT RU
Page 178 and 179:
NATO countries. Du
Page 180 and 181:
allistic missile defense (BMD), <st
Page 182 and 183:
Meanwhile, the factor of China (wit
Page 184 and 185:
Today, in fact, only the nuclear um
Page 186 and 187:
By the same logic, preventing a pot
Page 188 and 189:
diminishes still further Russian in
Page 190 and 191:
1989 —April 12 SHORT-RANGE NUCLEA
Page 192 and 193:
where Russian interest is higher th
Page 194 and 195:
6. Kozin, “Five obstacles.” 7.
Page 196 and 197:
CHAPTER 7 INFLUENCES ON RUSSIAN POL
Page 198 and 199:
general and its ow
Page 200 and 201:
are show of unanimity from nearly a
Page 202 and 203:
ally; it is just that others are ac
Page 204 and 205:
to direct Russian toward multilater
Page 206 and 207:
armor, like T-62 tanks and<
Page 208 and 209:
Reducing Non-Strategic Nucl
Page 210 and 211:
The Russian inventory has been redu
Page 212 and 213:
Under present conditions, the range
Page 214 and 215:
Ws should be multilateral, with the
Page 216 and 217:
continue the practice of conducting
Page 218 and 219:
the General Staff Nikolai Makarov o
Page 220 and 221:
CHAPTER 8 RUSSIAN PERSPECTIVES ON N
Page 222 and 223:
Yet these concerns are most likely
Page 224 and 225:
Bush and Mikhail G
Page 226 and 227:
anyone’s guess. As mentioned abov
Page 228 and 229:
STRATEGY Russian NSNWs attracted in
Page 230 and 231:
lored damage” (zadannyi ushcherb)
Page 232 and 233:
intrigue pertaining to nuclear weap
Page 234 and 235:
eaching political, military, <stron
Page 236 and 237:
Inertia. The longer this position i
Page 238 and 239:
In a similar vein, the Foreign Mini
Page 240 and 241:
THE RUSSIAN NSNW POSITION: LIMITS A
Page 242 and 243:
tated to what it calls an “integr
Page 244 and 245:
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 8 1. “Zayavlen
Page 246 and 247:
13. The 12th Main Department of the
Page 248:
PART III EUROPEAN PERSPECTIVES 227
Page 251 and 252:
ope is illustrative of a more funda
Page 253 and 254:
maintaining these weapons or their
Page 256 and 257:
CHAPTER 10 THE ROLE AND PLACE OF TA
Page 258 and 259:
positions, preoccupations,
Page 260 and 261:
cohesion and solid
Page 262 and 263:
ferred to by the now familiar term
Page 264 and 265:
The second track is an effort to de
Page 266 and 267:
The United States. The traditional
Page 268 and 269:
the nuclear discussions apply only
Page 270 and 271:
supported by other members. However
Page 272 and 273:
cerning its nuclear posture. On the
Page 274 and 275:
tial expert on the dangers of nucle
Page 276:
8. This is reminiscent of the posit
Page 279 and 280:
a London or Paris perspective, thei
Page 281 and 282:
One of the most important factors w
Page 283 and 284:
mer Vice-Chairman of the Joint Chie
Page 285 and 286:
Armed Service Air and</stro
Page 287 and 288:
Nunn in 2007 and 2
Page 289 and 290:
that the debate on a nuclear-free w
Page 291 and 292:
modify the Alliance’s nuclear pos
Page 293 and 294:
years. Signs of progress include th
Page 295 and 296:
on a modified CFE regime an
Page 297 and 298:
9. See Miles A. Pomper, William Pot
Page 299 and 300:
Paper, No. 7, Washington, DC: Arms
Page 301 and 302:
eventual elimination are considered
Page 303 and 304:
In the post-bipolar international s
Page 305 and 306:
levels of enthusiasm, most European
Page 307 and 308:
DIFFERING THREAT ASSESSMENTS AND AL
Page 309 and 310:
troops in 2008 and
Page 311 and 312:
that NATO as a who
Page 313 and 314:
distinction between tactical <stron
Page 315 and 316:
12. Author’s interview with a sen
Page 317 and 318:
19. NATO’s argum
Page 319 and 320:
31. Valasek, p. 24. 32. Lukasz Kule
Page 322 and 323:
CHAPTER 13 EUROPE, NATO</st
Page 324 and 325:
not reached a clear consensus on wh
Page 326 and 327:
In an environment in which there is
Page 328 and 329:
ing of signals within the Alliance.
Page 330 and 331:
NATO foreign minis
Page 332 and 333:
mean that the strategic lan
Page 334 and 335:
weapon holdings did not exceed 225
Page 336 and 337:
attitude to how nuclear weapons wil
Page 338 and 339:
ghanistan will also help to determi
Page 340 and 341:
German territory. On the other h<st
Page 342:
PART IV AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES 321
Page 345 and 346:
siles and aircraft
Page 347 and 348:
ment of U.S. nuclear weapons in Eur
Page 349 and 350:
that these weapons still have a rol
Page 351 and 352:
with nuclear weapons, and</
Page 353 and 354:
homeland. The trad
Page 355 and 356:
However, if the United States were
Page 357 and 358:
(estimated, to be 150-200) of U.S.
Page 359 and 360:
er-projection capabilities, <strong
Page 361 and 362:
ventional weapons. Unlike the perce
Page 363 and 364:
any U.S. NSNWs deployed or stored i
Page 365 and 366:
ganizational changes in recent year
Page 367 and 368:
It is unrealistic to believe, as so
Page 369 and 370:
Prague agenda with its goal of glob
Page 371 and 372:
has a different set of critical qua
Page 373 and 374:
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 15 1. Assistant
Page 375 and 376:
15. Ibid., p. xii. 16. Ibid. 17. Ib
Page 377 and 378:
Hans M. Kristensen, “Nucl
Page 379 and 380:
52. See Jeffrey A. Larsen a
Page 381 and 382:
Hence, whatever course the Allies s
Page 383 and 384:
self from the conflict. Of course,
Page 385 and 386:
arguments by and l
Page 387 and 388:
cal to the later stages of this cam
Page 389 and 390:
The fundamentals of Smart Defense a
Page 391 and 392:
deterrence and def
Page 393 and 394:
ENDNOTES - CHAPTER 16 1. These are
Page 396 and 397:
CHAPTER 17 ROLE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Page 398 and 399:
Two of the greatest enduring threat
Page 400 and 401:
a monkey to an altitude of 120 km (
Page 402 and 403:
including a “dual capable” (nuc
Page 404 and 405:
By the end of the Cold War, in 1991
Page 406 and 407:
U.S. Focus and Int
Page 408 and 409:
eset by conflict, deterrence seeks
Page 410 and 411:
Command in 2010. H
Page 412 and 413:
y arms control and
Page 414 and 415:
into account the disparity between
Page 416 and 417:
Furthermore, the United States <str
Page 418 and 419:
table price human beings must pay t
Page 420 and 421:
16. See www.tradereform.org/wp-cont
Page 422:
PART V ARMS CONTROL AS AN OPTION 40
Page 425 and 426:
ise as a vehicle for regulating <st
Page 427 and 428:
arms control to address the perceiv
Page 429 and 430:
posite discussion within the contex
Page 432 and 433:
CHAPTER 19 ARMS CONTROL OPTIONS FOR
Page 434 and 435:
U.S. AND RUSSIAN NON-STRATEGIC NUCL
Page 436 and 437:
into the discussion is that it woul
Page 438 and 439:
get missiles on NATO</stron
Page 440 and 441:
ficials have announced a major 10-y
Page 442 and 443:
the INF Treaty banned all INF missi
Page 444 and 445:
Others have also suggested that tra
Page 446 and 447:
ample of the latter, in 1991 Presid
Page 448 and 449:
certain percentage, say 50 percent.
Page 450 and 451:
heads. Nondeployed strategic warhea
Page 452 and 453:
ily in Washington’s judgment, <st
Page 454 and 455:
publican president is less clear at
Page 456 and 457:
10. “Strategic Concept for the De
Page 458 and 459:
CHAPTER 20 TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Page 460 and 461:
Most of the attempted adaptation <s
Page 462 and 463:
ight metric (and t
Page 464 and 465:
weapons (NSNWs)? A look at the key
Page 466 and 467:
other, has ever gained serious cons
Page 468 and 469:
who occasionally address other thea
Page 470 and 471:
most of the other parties. Russia
Page 472 and 473:
security concerns and</stro
Page 474 and 475:
objectives and out
Page 476 and 477:
CHAPTER 21 ARMS CONTROL AFTER START
Page 478 and 479:
withdrawal as part of a wider disen
Page 480 and 481:
ience with the Anti-Ballistic Missi
Page 482 and 483:
strengthening of first-strike stabi
Page 484 and 485:
ons away from the territory of <str
Page 486 and 487:
is the relationship between them th
Page 488 and 489:
would have added credibility were i
Page 490 and 491:
still making a substantial contribu
Page 492 and 493:
tionship between transparency <stro
Page 494 and 495:
NATO WILL SURVIVE
Page 496:
As in the past, the most likely cau
Page 499 and 500:
summit on the effective control of
Page 501 and 502:
deployed to Europe to approximately
Page 503 and 504:
NATO policymakers.
Page 505 and 506:
One of the alliances, the Warsaw Pa
Page 507 and 508:
Hungary, and Slova
Page 509 and 510:
statement at the conclusion of the
Page 511 and 512:
anti-ballistic missiles on Polish t
Page 513 and 514:
Following the meeting of OSCE forei
Page 515 and 516:
inform Russia of any significant ch
Page 517 and 518:
are difficult to correlate complete
Page 519 and 520:
West. President Obama noted such a
Page 521 and 522:
ing agreements. It must also combin
Page 523 and 524:
19. Ibid. 20. Lachowski, p. 5. 21.
Page 526:
PART VI CONCLUSION 505
Page 529 and 530:
that means. Today, this seems to be
Page 531 and 532:
more prosaic level, the presence of
Page 533 and 534:
fence and Foreign
Page 535 and 536:
JEFFREY A. LARSEN is a Senior Scien
Page 537 and 538:
GUY B. ROBERTS was until recently <
Page 539:
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE Major General
show all

Tactical Nuclear Weapons and NATO.pdf - Program on Strategic ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?