Review Essay : Getting Rid of Nuclear Weapons: A Review of a Few Proposals for a Conventional Defense of Europe
| Author | Hans Günter Brauch,Lutz Unterseher |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338402100209 |
| Date | 01 June 1984 |
| Published date | 01 June 1984 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Review
Essay:
Getting
Rid
of
Nuclear
Weapons:
A
Review
of
a
Few
Proposals
for
a
Conventional
Defense
of
Europe*
HANS
GÜNTER
BRAUCH
Institute
for
Political
Science,
Stuttgart
University
LUTZ
UNTERSEHER,
Research
and
Consulting
Firm
SALSS,
Bonn,
and
Study
Group
on
Alternative
Security
Policy
The
review
of
proposals
for
a
conventionalization
of
the
defense
of
Europe
confronts
basic
conclusions
suggested
by
the
ESECS-team
(namely
enriching
the
structure
of
traditional
mechanized
forces
by
enhanced
options
for
deep
strikes)
with
three
West
German
concepts
(Afheldt,
Hannig,
Löser)
that
advocate
a
gradual
change
towards
a
pattern
of
’pure’
defensivity.
Finally,
the
British
report
’Defence
without
the
Bomb’
is
discussed
in
a
broader
political
perspective.
A
cautious
evaluation
of
these
proposals
indicates
that
a
’defensive
defense’
promises
pay-offs
in
terms
of
crisis
stability
and
prevention
of
escalation.
Moreover,
there
seem
to
be
respectable
arguments
that
alternative
structures
might
be
more
in
accordance
with
our
increasingly
limited
resources
than
a
continuation
or
high-tech
version
of
the
current
posture.
1.
Introduction
In
reviewing
several
of
the
most
recent
proposals
that
advocate
improving
the
conventional
defense
of
Europe,
we
shall
start
with
a
study
that
favors
a
continuation,
and
at
the
same
time
strengthening
of,
the
present
structure
of
NATO’s
non-nuclear
forces
by
enriching
them
with
elements
from
high
technology’s
wonderland.
We
interpret
the
ESEC
study:
’Strengthening
Conventional
Deterrence
in
Europe’
(ESECS
1983)
as
an
attempt
to
back
up
the
’Rogers
Plan’
with
a
certain
professional
reputation.
It
should
also
be
seen
in
the
context
of
the
most
recent
change
in
U.S.
Army
doctrine
(AirLand
Battle
concept
as
contained
in
Field
Manual
FM
100-5
Operations
of
August
1982).
Members
of
the
steering
group
for
this
effort
included
such
well-known
defense
experts
as:
McGeorge
Bundy,
Lord
Carver,
Andrew
Goodpaster,
Karl
Kaiser,
Klaus
Ritter,
Sir
Alas-
tair
Steedman
and
Johannes
Steinhoff.
We
shall
confront
their
proposal
with
three
altern-
ative
models
that
have
recently
been
published
in
the
Federal
Republic
of
Germany
calling
for
a
’defensive
defense’.
We
have
selected
three
concepts
proposed
by
Horst
l4jheldt:
’Area
defense’
(Raumver-
teidigung),
Jochen
L6ser:
’Area
Covering
Defense’
(Raumdeckende
Verteidigung),
and
Norbert
Hannig:
’Fire
Barrier’
(Grenznahe
Feuerzone).
They
provide
clear
and
contrasting
’pure’
structural
designs
which
other
authors
have
modified
or
combined
with
elements
of
the
present
structure
(Afheldt
1982;
Canby
1980;
Gerber
1982;
SAS
1984;
Uhle-Wettler
1980).
After
a
brief
review
of
the
basic
components
of
these
four
proposals,
they
will
be
discussed
against
the
background
of
four
sets
of
questions,
thereby
undergoing
a
test
which,
we
think,
*
The
books
under
review
are:
Report
of
the
European
Security
Study
(ESECS)
1983.
Strengthening
Conventional
Deterrence
in
Europe.
Proposals
for
the
1980s.
London
and
Basingstoke:
Macmillan.
Afheldt,
Horst
1983.
Defensive
Verteidigung.
Reinbek:
Rowohlt.
L6ser,
Jochen
1981.
Weder
rot
noch
tot.
Uberleben
ohne
Atomkrieg -
Eine
sichèrheitspolitische
Alternative.
München:
Günter
Olzog.
Hannig,
Norbert
1984.
Abschreckung
durch
konventionelle
Waffen.
Das
David-Goliath-Prinzip.
Berlin:
Arno
Spitz.
The
Report
of
the
Alternative
Defence
Commission
1983.
Defence
without
the
Bomb.
London
and
New
York:
Taylor
&
Francis.
To continue reading
Request your trial