From Missile Defense to Preemption: Can (or Should) NATO's Strategic Debates be Managed?

Author: KIRSTEN RAFFERTY

Source: Comparative Strategy, Volume 23, Number 2, April/May/June 2004 , pp. 173-195(23)

Publisher: Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

Buy & download fulltext article:

Price: $50.43 plus tax (Refund Policy)

Abstract:

In the post-Cold War era, two potentially serious strategic debates--over the development and deployment of a US-based missile defense and the use of preemptive war to counter proliferation threats--reflect fundamental, long-standing disagreements over NATO's strategic doctrine, and particularly beliefs concerning the definition of vital interests and the most appropriate strategies and instruments for preserving those interests. This article evaluates the threat these debates really pose to NATO by comparing them to Cold War-era deterrence debates. It suggests the conditions under which such disputes are likely to be most disruptive to the alliance, and it prescribes how member states can handle them to limit permanent damage.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01495930490444662

Affiliations: 1: Berry College, Mt. Berry, Georgia

Publication date: 2004-04-01

More about this publication?