West German Alternatives for Reducing Reliance on Nuclear Weapons

  • Hans Günter Brauch


Nuclear deterrence in general and the US doctrinal concept of mutual assured destruction as well as the common strategic understanding of mutual vulnerability, codified by the SALT process, and the nuclear first use option of NATO’s flexible response strategy (MC14/3) have come under attack,1 both from official2 and unofficial circles,3 in the United States and Europe likewise. In spite of the general agreement, that the time may have come to search for alternatives, to move from MAD to MAS (mutual assured security), as President Reagan indicated in a New York Times interview4 or for a ‘Common Security’ posture, as called for by the Palme Commission,5 nevertheless major disagreements and contradictions exist as to how European security could be enhanced with a defensive posture beyond deterrence.


Nuclear Weapon Security Policy Ballistic Missile European Security Defence Expenditure 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Horst Afheldt, Verteidigung und Frieden (München: Hanser 1976);Google Scholar
  2. K.-Peter Stratmann, NATO-Strategie in der Krise?- Militärische Optionen von NATO und Warschauer Pakt in Mitteleuropa ( Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Daniel Graham, High Frontier, A Strategy for National Survival ( New York: Tom Doherty Associates, 1983 );Google Scholar
  4. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, ‘The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our Response’, A Pastoral Letter on War and Peace, 3 May 1983, (Washington, 1983 );Google Scholar
  5. Edward M. Kennedy and Mark O. Hatfield, Freeze! How you can help prevent nuclear war ( Toronto, New York, London, Sydney: Bantam, 1982 ) p. 169–70.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R. Levine, T. T. Connors, M. G. Weiner, R. A. Wise, ‘A Survey of NATO-Defense Concepts’, RAND Note N-1871-AF, June 1982;Google Scholar
  7. Steven Canby, ‘The Alliance and Europe: Part IV: Military Doctrine and Technology’, Adelphi Paper 109 ( London: IISS, 1975 );Google Scholar
  8. Steven Canby, ‘Light Infantry Perspective’, Paper presented to Infantry Commander’s Conference, Ft Benning’, Ga., 6 March 1984;Google Scholar
  9. J. J. Mearsheimer, ‘Why the Soviets Can’t Win Quickly in Central Europe’, International Security, Summer 1982, pp. 5–39;Google Scholar
  10. J. J. Mearsheimer, ‘Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in Europe’. International Security, Winter 1984–85, pp. 19–76;Google Scholar
  11. Dietrich Fischer, Preventing War in the Nuclear Age ( London and Canberra: Croom Helm, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    Frank Barnaby and Egbert Boeker, Non-Provocative, Non-Nuclear Defense of Western Europe’, Paper for the conference on Non-Nuclear War in Europe, Groningen, 28–30 November 1984;Google Scholar
  13. Adam Roberts, ‘The Possible Role of Territorial Defense in NATO Strategy’, in Hylke Tromp (ed.), Non-Nuclear War in Europe — Alternatives for Nuclear Defence ( Groningen: Groningen University Press, 1986 ) pp. 139–78.Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    Hans Günter Brauch and Lutz Unterseher, ‘Review Essay: Getting Rid of Nuclear Weapons: A Review of a Few Proposals for a Conventional Defence of Europe’, Journal of Peace Research 21, 2, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 9.
    See Frank Barnaby and Egbert Boeker, ‘Defence without Offense: non-nuclear defence for Europe’, Peace Studies Papers, 8, London, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. 10.
    Studiengruppe Alternative Sicherheitspolitik (Ed.), Strukturwandel der Verteidigung. Entwürfe für eine konsequente Defensive, ( Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  17. 11.
    Hans W. Hoffmann, Reiner K. Huber and Karl Steiger, ‘On Reactive Defense Options’, in R. K. Huber (ed.), Modelling and Analysis of Conventional Defence in Europe: Assessment of Im-provement Options ( London & New York: Plenum 1985 ).Google Scholar
  18. 12.
    Hans Günter Brauch, ‘Rejoinder’, in Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael (ed.), Conventional Balance in Europe: Problems, Strategies and Technologies, (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands, 11–13 May 1984, pp. 43–49;Google Scholar
  19. see Hans Günter Brauch (ed.), Sicherheitspolitik am Ende? Eine Bestandsaufnahme, Perspektiven und neue Ansätze, ( Gerlingen: Bleicher: 1984 ).Google Scholar
  20. Wolfgang R. Vogt, ‘The Acceptance Question and the Legitimacy of NATO’s Nuclear Defense Posture in the FRG’, (working title) in Hans Günter Brauch and Robert Kennedy (eds), Alternative Conventional Defense Postures in the European Theater. The Future of the Military Balance and Domestic Constraints (forthcoming in 1988).Google Scholar
  21. 16.
    Lawrence Freedman, ‘NATO Myths’, in Foreign Policy, 45, Winter 1981–2, p.48.Google Scholar
  22. 17.
    Kurt Biedenkopf, ‘Domestic Consensus, Security, and the Western Alliance’, Adelphi Paper 182 ( London: IISS, 1983 ) pp. 6–13.Google Scholar
  23. 21.
    Hartmut Bebermeyer and Bernd Grass, ‘Unsere Streitkräfte auf dem Wege in die Ressourcenkrise’, in Hans Günter Brauch (ed.), Sicherheitspolitik am Ende? ( Gerlingen: Bleicher, 1984 ), p. 176–89.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hans Günter Brauch, ‘Elements of a Tectical Defense Architecture’, in Brauch (ed.), Star Wars and European Defence, Implications for Europe - Perceptions and Assessments ( London: Macmillan, 1987 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 27.
    Jeffrey Record and Robert J. Hanks, US Strategy at the Crossroads: Two Views (Cambridge Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  26. 30.
    Caspar W. Weinberger, Annual Report to the Congress, Fiscal Year 1983, (Washington: U.S. Department of Defense, 8 February 1982 ), p. 111–12f.Google Scholar
  27. 32.
    Wilhelm Bruns, Horst Ehmke, Christian Krause (eds), Bedrohungsanalysen. Eine Sachverständign-Anhörung ( Berlin, Bonn: Dietz, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  28. 33.
    Andreas von Bülow, Die eingebildete Unterlegenheit. Das Kräfteverältnis West-Ost, wie es wirklich ist ( München: Beck, 1985 ).Google Scholar
  29. 37.
    Hans Günter Brauch, ‘Sicherheitspolitik im Umbruch? Außenpolitische Rahmenbedingungen und Entwicklungschaneen sicherheitspolitischer Alternativen’, in Wolfgang R. Vogt (ed.), Streitfall Frieden. Positionen und Analysen zur Sicherheitspolitik und Friedensbewegung ( Heidelberg: C. F. Müller Juristischer Verlag, 1984 ), pp. 145–59.Google Scholar
  30. 39.
    Caspar W. Weinberger, Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 1986, 4 February 1985, ( Washington: U.S. Department of Defense, 1985 ), p. 221.Google Scholar
  31. 40.
    William M. Arkin, Thomas B. Cochran and Milton Hoenig, ‘Resource Paper on the U.S. Nuclear arsenal’, in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Aug./Sep. 1984. pp. 12s - 14s.Google Scholar
  32. 42.
    Huba Wass de Czege, L. D. Holder, ‘The New FM 100–5’, in Military Review, vol. Lxn, no. 7, July 1982, p. 53–70.Google Scholar
  33. 44.
    Franz Borkenhagen, ‘FOFA — “Konventionalisierung” und Auswitung des Gefechtsfeldes — Der “Rogers-Plan” im Rahmen der NATO-Strategie “Flexible Response”’, Manuscript, 1985.Google Scholar
  34. James P. Wade, Jr, ‘New strategies and technologies’, in Netherlands Institute of International Relations, Clingendael (ed.), Conventional Balance in Europe: Problems, Strategies and Technologies, (Zoetermeer, the Netherlands, 11–13 May 1984) pp. 21–9.Google Scholar
  35. 46.
    Hans Günter Brauch (ed.), Vertrauensbildende Maßnahmen und Europäische Abrüstungskonferenz, Zehn Jahre KSZE — Analysen, Dokumente und Vorschläge ( Gerlingeu: Bleicher, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  36. 47.
    Bernard W. Rogers, ‘Die langfristige Planungsrichtlinie FOFA: Behauptungen und Tatsachen’, in NATO-Brief, Nr. 6/1984, p. 3–11.Google Scholar
  37. 51.
    Edgar Ulsamer, ‘The Battle for SDI’, in Air Force Magazine, February 1985, pp. 45–53.Google Scholar
  38. 53.
    Hans Günter Brauch, ‘Antitactical Missile Defense — Will the European Version of SDI Undermine the ABM-Treaty?’, AFES-Papier no. 1, AG Friedensforschung und Europäische Sicherheitspolitik, Institute für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Stuttgart, (July 1985).Google Scholar
  39. 54.
    Hans Günter Brauch, ‘Elements of a Tactical Defense Architecture’, in Hans Günter Brauch (ed.), Star Wars and European Defence Implications for Europe — Perceptions and Assessments, ( London: Macmillan, 1987 ).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 55.
    Fred S. Hoffman, ‘The “Star Wars” Debate: The Western Alliance and Strategic Defense: Part II’, in Adelphi-Papers, no. 199, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, London 1985, pp. 25–33;Google Scholar
  41. Joseph Fitchett, ‘First Part of U.S. “Star Wars” Defense Advocated by Mid-90’s’, in International Herald Tribune, 27 September 1984.Google Scholar
  42. 58.
    Hans Günter Brauch, Angriff aus dem All — Der Rustungswettlauf im Weltraum (Berlin, Bonn: Dietz, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  43. 61.
    Lutz Unterseher, ‘Konventionelle Verteidigung Mitteleuropas: Etablierte Struktur und Alternativen im Test’, in Hans Günter Brauch (ed.), Sicherheitspolitik am Ende? ( Gerlingen; Bleicher, 1984 ). pp. 214–22.Google Scholar
  44. 63.
    Guy Brossollet, Essai sur la non-bataille, (Paris, 1975); Alain Carton, Discussion infranucleaire — l’école allemand de techno-guerrilla, ( Paris: CIRPES, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  45. 64.
    Bogislaw von Bonin, Opposition gegen Adenauers Sicherheitspolitik. Eine Dokumentation, zusammengestellt von Heinz Brill ( Hamburg: Verlag Neue Politik, 1976 );Google Scholar
  46. F. O. Miksche, ‘Präzisionswaffen veränden das Kriegsbild’, in Wehrtechnik 5/1977, p. 17–23.Google Scholar
  47. 65.
    J. F. C. Fuller, ‘Armor and Counter-Armor, Part 3: Defense Against Armored Attack’, in Infantry Journal, 1944, p. 39–43;Google Scholar
  48. B. H. Liddell Hart, Geschichte des Zweiten Weltkrieges (Wiesbaden: Fourier, 1970), pp. 611ff.Google Scholar
  49. 67.
    Jochen Löser, Weder rot noch tot. Überleben ohne Atomkrieg — Eine sicherheitspolitische Alternative. ( München: Günter Olzog Verlag, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  50. 68.
    Norbert Hannig, Abschreckung durch konventionelle Waffen. Das David-Goliath Prinzip ( Berlin: Berlin Verlag Arno Spitz, 1984 ).Google Scholar
  51. 69.
    F. Uhle-Wettler, Gefechtsfeld Mitteleuropa — Gefahr der Übertechnisierung von Streitkräften ( München: Bernard Graefe, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  52. 71.
    E. Afheldt, ‘Verteidigung ohne Selbstmord: Vorschlag für den Einsatz einer leichten Infanterie’, in Horst Afheldt, Defensive Verteidigung ( Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1983 ).Google Scholar
  53. 72.
    Johannes Gerber, Bundeswehr im Atlantischen Bündnis, sec. 10: ‘Analytischer Rückblick und prognostischer Ausblick’ (Regensburg: Walhalla & Praetoria, 1984); Gerber, ‘Fordert die Wirtschaftlichkeit eine neue Struktur des Heeres?’ in Heere International, vol. 3, Herford 1984.Google Scholar
  54. 80.
    R. K. Huber, K. Steiger and B. Wobith, ‘Ober ein analytisches Modell zur Untersuchung der Gefechtswirksamkeit von Heeresstrukturen’, in Wehrwissenschaftliche rundschau 1/1981, pp. 1–10;Google Scholar
  55. R. K. Huber, ‘The Systems Approach to European Defense — A Challenge for Operational Research Gaming’, Phalanx, vol. 15, no. 3, September 1982.Google Scholar
  56. 82.
    R. E. Simpkin, Mechanized Infantry (Oxford: Brassey’s Publishers, 1980), Lutz Unterseher, ‘Für eine tragfähige Verteidigung der Bundesrepublik: Grundgedanken und Orientierungen’, in Studiengruppe Alternative Sicherheitspolitik, op. cit., pp. 108–130 and the SAS-papers in the Appendix.Google Scholar
  57. 93.
    G. Füreder, Non-Nuclear Defense of Europe: Example Germany, Part I and II, Working Paper 1983.Google Scholar
  58. 96.
    R. K. Huber, K. Steiger and B. Wobith, ‘On an Analytical Quick Game to Investigate the Battle Effectiveness of Forward Defence Concepts’, in Journal of the Korean Operations Research Society, 6, 1, April 1981, pp. 33–55.Google Scholar
  59. 97.
    D. Farwick, ‘Flexible Reaktion und alternative Strategien. Eine vergleichende Betrachtung’, in Soldat und Technik, 4/1984, pp. 16–39.Google Scholar
  60. 99.
    Egbert Boeker and Lutz Unterseher, ‘Emphasising Defence’, in Frank Barnaby and Marliester Bora, eds., Emerging Technologies and Military Doctrine. A Political Assessment ( Basingstoke–London: Macmillan, 1986 ) pp. 89–109.Google Scholar
  61. 101.
    Komitee Grundrechte und Demokratie (ed.), Frieden mit anderen Waffen ( Reinbek: Rowohlt, 1981 ).Google Scholar
  62. 102.
    Theodor Ebert, Soziale Verteidigung, 2 vols ( Waldkirch: Waldkir-cher Verlagsgesellschaft, 1987 ).Google Scholar
  63. 103.
    Eckardt Afheldt, ‘Verteidigung ohne Selbstmord. Vorschlag für den Einsatz einer leichten Infanterie’, in Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, ed. Die Praxis der defensiven Verteidigung (Hameln: Sponholtz, 1984), pp. 41–88. A shortened English version will be published in Hans Günter Brauch and Robert Kennedy (eds), Alternative Conventional Defense Posture in the European Theater — The Future of the Military Balance and Domestic Constraints, Lada: Macmillan).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© P. Terrence Hopmann and Frank Barnaby 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hans Günter Brauch

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations