Europe and America: The Future of SALT and Western Security in Europe
The problem of including medium-range nuclear missiles in an eventual SALT III negotiation is bound to become, in the coming months and probably years, one of the basic issues between the Western nations and the Soviet Union on the one hand, and within the Atlantic Alliance on the other, as well as a problem of internal policy for a good many European nations.
François de Rose served as France's Ambassador to NATO from 1970 to 1975. For many years he has been connected with French military and civilian nuclear programs. He is the author of La France et la Défense de l'Europe.
The problem of including medium-range nuclear missiles in an eventual SALT III negotiation is bound to become, in the coming months and probably years, one of the basic issues between the Western nations and the Soviet Union on the one hand, and within the Atlantic Alliance on the other, as well as a problem of internal policy for a good many European nations.
This, in itself, is already a new phenomenon. Up till recently, questions related to doctrine of use or the deployment of nuclear weapons in Europe have not been subjects of public debate and, on the whole, were decided upon by the United States. Only France, at the beginning of the 1960s, made objections to the concept of flexible response (although not proposing another solution). But since she left the integrated military organization in 1966, it looks as if the most perfect harmony of views has prevailed in the Defense Planning Committee or the Nuclear Planning Group of the Alliance.
As for the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, although they concern one leg of the triad on which European security is founded (conventional forces, theater nuclear forces, and strategic forces) and the most important component of deterrence, the consultations in NATO, from 1969 right to the present, have been more in the nature of a sharing of information by the U.S. representatives than of a discussion among equally interested partners. The Europeans have in the main left it to Washington to take care of the interests of the West as long as forward-based systems were excluded-that is, the aircraft stationed in Western Europe (land-based or on carriers) but capable, in terms of range, of reaching the territory of the Soviet Union, and above all the strategic nuclear systems of France and the United Kingdom.
This is a premium article
You must be a Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you are already a print subscriber, click here to activate your online access.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Defends the traditional, pessimistic evaluation of NATO's conventional capabilities against revisionists, and argues that "NATO is highly unlikely to make the conventional force improvements seemingly dictated by the INF treaty". Predicts a Soviet arms control offensive upon "a vulnerable and divided NATO... the alliance has painted itself into a corner, and the paint will not dry". Despite all this, NATO will continue to prevent war in Europe.
In the light of the anticipated INF agreement the question is whether confrontation is entering a genuine phase of de-escalation or merely a tactical one. Most NATO commanders agree that a surprise attack by conventional Soviet forces is improbable. NATO should develop a plan for exploiting the potential for reductions in conventional weapons and make a serious effort to achieve an agreement. There may be room for trade-offs in economic credits and managerial skills for large-scale Soviet force reductions.
At the fringes of public attention to the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT), the United States and its European allies are considering changes in NATO nuclear arrangements that bear on two decades of Alliance practice. The issue is what to do about the nuclear threat to Western Europe, and to NATO's deterrent, posed by Soviet systems targeted on Western Europe-the SS-20 mobile missile and other Soviet weapons in the "gray area" between the strategic and the tactical. Those weapons, coupled with strategic parity between the United States and the Soviet Union, have sharpened a long-standing European concern about the commitment of the American central nuclear deterrent to Europe's defense. This issue will rank behind only the dollar on the agenda of U.S. relations with Europe in the several years ahead.
