Advertisement

From SDI to EDI — Elements of a European Defence Architecture

  • Hans Günter Brauch

Abstract

SDI has been a controversial political, strategic, technological and arms control issue in the domestic politics of most West European countries — within coalition governments (most visibly between Chancellor Kohl and Foreign Minister Genscher), among the NATO allies and between the United States and the Soviet Union.1 The call for an EDI,2 for a TDI3, for an ATBM4 or more recently for an extended air defence has become the lowest common denominator within the West German coalition government,5 between the West German and French defence ministers6 and among those defence experts who have stressed ‘damage limitation’7 as a preferable goal in relation to ‘mutual assured destruction’ (MAD).8

Keywords

Ballistic Missile Cruise Missile Defence Expert Missile Defence United States Government Printing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See chapters 4–9 in this volume. Hans Günter Brauch, ‘From Strategic to Tactical Defence? European political, strategic, technological reactions to the “Star Wars” vision and to the Strategic Defence Initiative: Eureka and/or EDI’, in John McIntyre (ed.), International Space Policy (New York: American Astronautical Society, 1986).Google Scholar
  2. 4.
    Richard L. Hudson, ‘West Europe Debates Controversial Push to Develop Its Own “Star Wars” Program’, Wall Street Journal, 22 October 1985; Hans Günter Brauch, Antitactical Missile Defence -Will the European Version of SDI undermine the ABM-Treaty? AFES Papier 1 (Stuttgart: AG Friedensforschung und Europäische Sicherheitspolitik, July 1985).Google Scholar
  3. 5.
    Konrad Seitz, ‘SDI: the technological challenge for Europe’, in The World Today (August/September 1985) pp. 154–7; Lothar Rühl, ‘Eine Raketenabwehr auch für Europa — Voraussetzungen und Folgen für Strategie und Rüstungskontrolle im Ost-West-Verhältnis’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 17 January 1986. A shift in the evaluation can be observed with Hans Rühle, ‘Löcher im Drahtverhau der Sicherheitsdoktrin-Das Defensivkonzept der Zukunft löst Europas Probleme kaum’, Rheinischer Merkur, 1 April 1983 and his more favourable pro SDI article ‘An die Grenzen der Technologie’, Der Spiegel, 48/1985, 25 November 1985.Google Scholar
  4. 8.
    For a recent high-level criticism of MAD, see Fred Iklé, ‘Nuclear Strategy: Can There Be a Happy Ending?’, Foreign Affairs 63 (Spring 1985) pp. 810–26;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fred S. Hoffman, ‘Nukleare Bedrohung, Sowjetische Macht und SDI’, Europa-Archiv 40/21 (10 November 1985) pp. 643–52.Google Scholar
  6. 11.
    Fred S. Hoffman, Study Director, Ballistic Missile Defenses and US National Security, Summary Report, prepared for the Future Security Strategy Study (Washington: October 1983), reprinted in US Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, Hearings, Strategic Defense and Anti-Satellite Weapons (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1984) pp. 125–40.Google Scholar
  7. 16.
    See Dickson; Gerd Schmückle, ‘Wir dürfen die Zukunft nicht verschlafen’, Rheinischer Merkur, 30 March 1985; G. C. Berkhof, Duel om de ruimte. Aspecten van Westeuropese veiligheid (The Hague: Clingendael, 1985).Google Scholar
  8. 23.
    Hans Rühle et al., Standpunkte zu SDI in Ost und West (Melle: Verlag Ernst Knoth, 1985).Google Scholar
  9. 25.
    Manfred Wörner, ‘A Missile Defense for NATO Europe’, Strategic Review, vol. 14, no. 1 (Winter 1986), p. 13;Google Scholar
  10. Thomas Enders, Missile Defense as Part of an Extended NATO Air Defense (Sankt Augustin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, May 1986) Interne Studien, Nr. 2/1986; see also bibliography.Google Scholar
  11. 27.
    Robert P. Berman and John C. Baker, Soviet Strategic Forces — Requirements and Responses (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1982) p. 135.Google Scholar
  12. 28.
    William Arkin, Frank von Hippel and Barbara Levi, ‘The Consequences of a “Limited” Nuclear War in East and West Germany’, Ambio — A Journal of the Human Environment, 11, 2–3 (1982) pp. 163–73.Google Scholar
  13. 31.
    IISS, The Military Balance 1985–1986 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1985) pp. 165–6.Google Scholar
  14. 32.
    See Hans Günter Brauch, Militärische Komponenten einer europäischen Verteidigungsinitiative (EVI). Amerikanische militärische Planungen zur Abwehr sowjetischer ballistischer Raketen in Europa, AFES Papier 3 (Stuttgart: AG Friedensforschung und Europäische Sicherheitspolitik, February 1986) pp. 10–11.Google Scholar
  15. The data have been updated to July 1986, based on IISS, Military Balance 1986–1987 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1986) pp. 200–8.Google Scholar
  16. 33.
    William Arkin and Richard W. Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefields. Global Links in the Arms Race, (Cambridge, Mass. Ballinger, 1985) pp. 265–7.Google Scholar
  17. 34.
    John Tirman (ed.), The Fallacy of Star Wars (New York: Vintage Books, 1984).Google Scholar
  18. 40.
    David Yost, ‘Ballistic Missile Defence and the Atlantic Alliance’, International Security 7 (Fall 1982) pp. 143–74; David Yost, ‘Soviet Ballistic Missile Defence and NATO’, Orbis (Summer 1985) pp. 281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 41.
    Department of Defense, Soviet Military Power, 1984 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1984) p. 34.Google Scholar
  20. 42.
    Sayre Stevens, ‘The Soviet BMD Program’, in Ashton B. Carter and David N. Schwartz (eds), Ballistic Missile Defense (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1984) pp. 215–16.Google Scholar
  21. 50.
    Uwe Nerlich (ed.), Sowjetische Macht und westliche Verhandlungspolitik im Wandel militärischer Kräfteverhältnisse (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1982);Google Scholar
  22. Uwe Nerlich, Die Einhegung sow- jetischer Macht (Baden-Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, 1982).Google Scholar
  23. 52.
    Uwe Nerlich, ‘Missile Defences: Strategic and Tactical’, Survival 27 (May/June 1985) pp. 119–27 especially pp. 120–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 65.
    Karsten Voigt, Interim Report of the Sub-Committee on Conventional Defence in Europe, Military Committee, NAA, (Brussels: North Atlantic Assembly, November 1984) pp. 21; 25.Google Scholar
  25. 72.
    David S. Sorenson, ‘Ballistic Missile Defence for Europe’, Comparative Strategy 5, 1985, pp. 159–78 especially p. 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 76.
    Gregory H. Canavan, Theater Applications of Strategic Defense Concepts (Los Alamos: Los Alamos National Laboratory, June 1985) LA-UR-85–2117 (P/AC:85–149) pp. 19–20.Google Scholar
  27. 77.
    Department of Defense, Report to the Congress on the Strategic Defense Initiative (Washington, DC: Department of Defence, April 1985) p. 20.Google Scholar
  28. 89.
    For additional details see Hans Günter Brauch, Militärische Komponenten einer Europäischen Verteidigungsinitiative (EVI). Amerikanische militärische Planungen zur Abwehr sowjetischer ballistischer Raketen in Europa. AFES Papier 3 (Stuttgart: AG Friedensforschung und Europäische Sicherheitspolitik, February 1986).Google Scholar
  29. 90.
    Arthur Knoth, ‘EDI — A European Defence Initiative?’, Military Technology 12 (1985) p. 23.Google Scholar
  30. 102.
    US Congress, Senate, Armed Services Committee, Hearings, Department of Defense, Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1981, part 4 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1980) p. 2200.Google Scholar
  31. 103.
    US Congress, House, Committee on Armed Services, Report on Department of Defense Authorization Act 1985 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1984) p. 152.Google Scholar
  32. 104.
    US Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Hearings, Department of Defence Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1985, part 5 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1984) p. 117.Google Scholar
  33. 108.
    US Congress, House, Appropriations Committee, Hearings, Department of Defense Authorization and Oversight, Fiscal Year 1984, part 5 (Washinton, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 709.Google Scholar
  34. 109.
    US Congress, House, Committee on Appropriations, Department of Defense Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1984, part 4 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 273.Google Scholar
  35. 112.
    See Brauch Militärische Komponenten, p. 55; US Congress, House, Appropriations Committee, Hearings, Department of Defense Appropriations, Fiscal Year 1984, part 4 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 274;Google Scholar
  36. Department of Defense, Congressional Action on Fiscal Year 1985 Appropriation Request, OASD (Comptroller) (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 12 October 1984).Google Scholar
  37. 118.
    Thomas Longstreth and John Pike, A Report on the Impact of the US and Soviet Ballistic Missile Defense Programs on the ABM Treaty for the National Campaign to Save the ABM Treaty (Washington, DC: National Campaign, June 1984) p. 24; See also chapter 12 in this volume. For my own criticism, see Antitactical Missile Defence, pp. 50–3;Google Scholar
  38. Hans Günter Brauch, 30 Thesen und 10 Bewertungen zur Strategischen Verteidigungsinitiative (SDI) und zur Europäischen Verteidigungsinitiative (EVI) (Stuttgart: AG Friedensforschung und Europäische Sicherheitspolitik, January 1986);Google Scholar
  39. Brauch, ‘Zur Militarisierung des Weltraums. Auswirkungen auf die Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, Die Friedens-Warte 65 (1982–1985) pp. 134–48;Google Scholar
  40. Hans Günter Brauch, Angriff aus dem All. Der Rüstungswettlauf im Weltraum (Berlin, Bonn: Dietz Verlag, 1984).Google Scholar
  41. 119.
    Stephen Weiner, ‘Systems and Technology’, in Ashton B. Carter and David N. Schwartz (eds), Ballistic Missile Defense (Washinton: Brookings Institution, 1984) pp. 73–5.Google Scholar
  42. 123.
    Ludvigsen, ‘Light Forces’; Melissa Healy, ‘JTACMS, Split Asunder, Now Black’, Defense Week, 25 June 1984, p. 30; ‘Senate Wants Army JTACMs Based on Patriot’, Defense Daily, 11 June 1984, p. 218; James P. Wade Jr, ‘New Strategies and Technologies’, Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael (ed.), Conventional Balance in Europe: Problems, Strategies and Technologies (The Hague, Clingendael: 1984).Google Scholar
  43. 125.
    US Congress, House, Committee on Armed Services, Hearings, Defense Department Authorization and Oversight, on HR 2287, Department of Defense Authorization of Appropriations for FY 1984, part 3 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 1983) p. 452.Google Scholar
  44. 130.
    During 1985, and especially in 1986, an increasing number of conferences and workshops have focused on EDI, extended air defence and on AT(B)M options. In late autumn of 1986 the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (Chatham House) in co-operation with the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in Boston organised an ATBM conference in London, while the Free University of Amsterdam held a two-day workshop on ATBM in late November 1986. Two German-American conferences in December 1986 in Bad Homburg and in Tutzing partly focused on the ATBM issue. A preliminary proposal of a military proponent of a European Aerospace Defence Initiative was offered by the Dutch Brigadier General G. C. Berkhof, ‘The American Strategic Defence Initiative and West European Security: A Dutch view’, in The Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael (ed.), The American Strategic Defence Initiative: Implications for the West European Security. Report on a Workshop, The Hague, 26–27 April 1985 (The Hague: Clingendael, 1986) pp. 215–60.Google Scholar
  45. 135.
    Thomas Enders, Missile Defense as Part of an Extended NATO Air Defense (Sankt Augustin: Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, May 1986) Interne Studien Nr. 2/1986, pp. 14–16.Google Scholar
  46. 138.
    Manfred Wörner, ‘A Missile Defense for NATO Europe’, Strategic Review, vol. 14, no. 1 (Winter 1986), p. 13; Manfred Wörner, ‘Europa braucht Raketenabwehr’, Die Zeit, Nr. 10, 28 February 1986, pp. 45–6;Google Scholar
  47. Manfred Wörner, ‘Strategie im Wandel, Grundrichtungen und Eckwerte der Strategie aus dem Blickwinkel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland’, speech to the Wehrkunde Conference in Munich, 1 March 1986.Google Scholar
  48. 146.
    US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Ballistic Missile Defense Technologies, OTA-ISC-254 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, September 1985).Google Scholar
  49. 153.
    See also Arnold Kanter, ‘Thinking about the strategic defence initiative: an alliance perspective, International Affairs (London) 61 (1985) pp. 449–64; Canavan Theater Applications’, Berkhof The American Strategic Defence Initiative’; Ian Bellany, ‘Ballistic Missile Defence and Strategic Stability’, in Clingendael (ed.), pp. 39–49; Dean Wilkening, ‘Strategic Defences and Stability’, in Clingendael (ed.) pp. 127–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 155.
    G. W. Rathjens, Abram Chayes, J. P. Ruina, Nuclear Arms Control Agreements: Process and Impact (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1974);Google Scholar
  51. Hans Günter Brauch, Entwicklungen und Ergebnisse der Friedensforschung (1969–1978). Eine Zwischenbilanz und konkrete Vorschläge für das zweite Jahrzehnt (Frankfurt, 1979).Google Scholar
  52. 156.
    Hans Günter Brauch, ‘Der NATO-Doppelbeschluss und die Strategie der Allianz: Ein Plädoyer für die Seestützung’, Die Friedens-Warte 64 (November 1983) pp. 37–109.Google Scholar
  53. 161.
    Hans-Henrik Holm, ‘SDI and European Security’, Alternatives 10 (1985) p. 529.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Hans Günter Brauch 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Günter Brauch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations