Cordesman:+NATO+and+Balance+of+Deterrence++++++++++++++++++++++++AHC+5/2/2017+ + NATO and the Delicate Balance of Deterrence: Strategy versus Burden Sharing By Anthony H. Cordesman February 7, 2017 Please provide comments to
[email protected] + Photo credit: U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Brett Clashman Cordesman:+NATO+and+Balance+of+Deterrence++++++++++++++++++++++++AHC+5/2/2017++ ii+ NATO and the Delicate Balance of Deterrence: Strategy versus Burden Sharing Anthony H. Cordesman Executive Summary There are good reasons that the United States should ask more of several key NATO allies, should seek to modernize NATO, and should seek to expand NATO’s role in dealing with terrorism and Islamist extremism. At the same time, none of these goals justify the sort of U.S. efforts that could undermine the balance of deterrence between NATO and Russia, increase the risk of Russian adventures in Europe, or increase a risk to a return to the level of tension in the Cold War and increase the risk of a serious conflict. NATO does need to change, and put a more systematic emphasis on forward deterrence—in nuclear, conventional and irregular/hybrid warfare terms. It also can do more to fight terrorism and violent Islamic extremism, and carry out more effective out- of-area actions. The goal, however, should be to increase NATO’s deterrent and mission capabilities, and not simply to shift more of the burden to Europe or meet an arbitrary goal of spending 2 percent of the national GDP. A hard look at the current calculations used in burden sharing indicate that it is ridiculous to compare total U.S.