Citation

Møller B. J. Peace Res. 1987; 24(1): 61-74.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1987, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338702400106

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article identifies two of the main problems facing NATO: The futile quest for 'balance' and the associated reliance on nuclear escalation It evaluates two proposed solutions to these problems in the light of a dual criterion: A viable defence policy must avoid a never-ending arms race, and it must avoid war -- be it a premeditated aggression or a crisis escalating to war. The most prominent reform adopted in recent years is reliance on 'deep strikes' as implied by the Follow-On Forces Attack (FOFA) doctrine. It represents a 'fallacy of the last step', by not taking into account the likely Warsaw Pact response. The outcome will thus be increased instability in crises as well as another round in the arms race. An alternative solution would be a non-offensive defence relying on dispersed, de-centralized and short- range forces. This might increase crisis stability as well as eliminate the need for 'balance', thus acting as a break on the arms race.