View the Executi" /> NATO Missile Defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach: The Implications of Burden-Sharing and the Underappreciated Role of the U.S. Army

Text Browser Navigation Bar: Main Site Navigation and Search | Current Page Navigation | Current Page Content

U.S. Army War College >> Strategic Studies Institute >> Publications >> NATO Missile Defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach: The Implications of Burden-Sharing and the Underappreciated Role of the U.S. Army

Login to "My SSI" Contact About SSI Cart: 0 items

Strategic Studies Institute

United States Army War College

The Source for National Security

Research & Analysis

U.S. Army War College >> Strategic Studies Institute >> Publications >> Details

NATO Missile Defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach: The Implications of Burden-Sharing and the Underappreciated Role of the U.S. Army

Authored by Mr. Steven J. Whitmore, Dr. John R. Deni.

NATO Missile Defense and the E... Cover Image

Brief Synopsis

View the Executive Summary

In 2010, NATO decided to expand its ballistic missile defense program, in part because of the American offer to include its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) as the centerpiece of an expanded effort. For the Allies' part, few have actually contributed tangible ballistic missile defense assets, in terms of missile interceptors, radars or other sensors, or ballistic missile defense-related platforms. This is likely to have significant implications for the U.S. Army, which has an important but largely underappreciated role in NATO missile defense today. In particular, the Army is likely to face increased manpower demands, materiel requirements, and training needs in order to meet the demand signal created by the NATO ballistic missile defense program. Additionally, Army units involved directly in or in support of ballistic missile defense are likely to face a higher OPTEMPO than currently projected. Ultimately, this will exacerbate the perceived imbalance in transatlantic burden-sharing, particularly if the EPAA provides little, if any, benefit to the defense of U.S. territory, given Washington’s decision to cancel Phase 4 of that framework.

You may also be interested in the following titles:

Survey: NATO Missile Defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach: The Implications of Burden-Sharing and the Underappreciated Role of the U.S. Army

1. How would you rate the writing and overall quality? (5 best - 1 Worst)

2. Is the content relevant for influencing present and future debates?

Also by the Authors/Editor:

Augmenting Our Influence: Alliance Revitalization and Partner Development
The Future of American Landpower: Does Forward Presence Still Matter? The Case of the Army in Europe

View other pubs in the following categories:

Europe and Russia
Homeland Security and Defense
Landpower Employment & Sustainment
Landpower Roles
Weapons of Mass Destruction

  • Download it Now!

  • Hardcopies

    • Study is: Available
    • Add to Cart
    • View Cart
    • All hardcopies are free of charge, shipping inclusive.
    • For out of stock publications, refer to the new GPO on-demand site. For a small fee, recieve many prior publications. Click here to visit.
    • All materials on our website are available as a free download.

Subscribe using RSS Website Subscriptions