DOCSLIB.ORG

A Fleeting Or Permanent Military Presence? the Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Fleeting Or Permanent Military Presence? the Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland The US in Iceland A Fleeting or Permanent Military Presence? The Revival of US Anti-Submarine Operations from Iceland Valur Ingimundarson Increased Russian naval activities in the North Atlantic have refocused Western military attention on Iceland’s geostrategic importance. But even if the US has resumed irregular Cold War-style maritime and anti-submarine patrols from Iceland, there are no plans to reopen the American military base on the island. ince the 2014 Ukrainian crisis, irregular rotational Cold War-style represented the Soviet Northern Fleet’s there have been increased calls maritime and anti-submarine (ASW) outlet to the Atlantic Ocean as a strategic for NATO’s return to the North patrols with long-range aircraft from choke point. One scenario featured Atlantic to ‘revitalise’ collective Iceland. This development has led in the exercise was a disinformation Sdefence against Russian assertiveness. some Western security analysts to take campaign in Iceland – supposedly The establishment of the new Atlantic a step further, arguing that the time is stemming from Russia – that had altered Command is consistent with such ripe to reopen the US Naval Air Station the outcome of national elections. This arguments, even if it is not comparable in Keflavik, which the Americans had put into power a leader intent on with its Cold War predecessor, which was closed down in 2006. From a long-term reducing US military activities and disbanded in 2002. The same applies to perspective, the US might contemplate ending NATO air policing and future the recent UK–Norwegian decision to such a move in the context of increased military deployments to Iceland. cooperate on maritime reconnaissance geopolitical tensions. But there are Ironically, the idea for the plot seems and anti-submarine warfare in the North currently no plans for the return of to have been borrowed from another Atlantic. Western military interest in the US troops to Iceland. A request for more familiar script – the 2016 US North has not only been accompanied a permanent US presence would not presidential elections – which inevitably by the recycling of Cold War concepts, only require new base negotiations brings attention to US President such as ‘deterrence’, the ‘Greenland– with Iceland, which could fuel Donald Trump’s own vagarious attitude Iceland–UK (GIUK) gap’ and ‘maritime domestic political opposition. It could towards NATO. Yet, no matter how supremacy’, and by the introduction also potentially destabilise the Icelandic fanciful, game plans, bordering on the of new ones, such as ‘hybrid warfare’ government. For the US, the status quo conspiratorial, can sometimes provide and ‘hyperwar’. It has also renewed has, in fact, many advantages, allowing some political insights. While the CNAS attention on the geostrategic position it to conduct North Atlantic ASW scenario does not in any way correspond of Iceland, whose military importance operations as part of the 1951 US– with current political realities in Iceland, had evaporated following the end of the Icelandic defence agreement, which is it can be used as a point of departure Cold War. Old metaphors describing based on the North Atlantic Treaty. because it raises questions about Iceland as ‘the unsinkable aircraft carrier Iceland’s commitment to the Western in the middle of the Atlantic’ have been Alliance and evokes memories of past resurrected to make the case for the Iceland’s Defence disputes with it. It also spurs speculation island’s ‘enduring importance’ for the about how Iceland would react to a defence of the region. Policy – Past and Present potential future bid by the US to reopen While Russia’s nuclear-powered its Keflavik military base. undersea fleet has become more Many proponents of establishing a For one thing, the current Icelandic sophisticated, with additional more robust Western military presence government – a three-party coalition capabilities such as cruise missiles, its in the North Atlantic have engaged in spanning the left–right political navy is much smaller and far less active a variety of advocacy projects. The spectrum – is headed by Prime Minister in the North Atlantic than it was during Center for a New American Security Katrín Jakobsdóttir, whose party, the Soviet times. But due to an increase (CNAS) conducted, for example, a table Left–Green Movement, opposes the in Russian submarine activities in the top exercise in 2017, focusing on the US–Icelandic defence agreement and North Atlantic, the US has resumed re-emergence of the GIUK gap, which Iceland’s NATO membership. Second, August 2018, Vol. 38, No. 7 1 RUSI Newsbrief The US Naval Air Station in Keflavik, Iceland on 19 August 1982. The base was used to conduct marine and anti-submarine patrols in the North Atlantic as part of the 1951 US–Iceland defence agreement, until the base was closed in 2006. Though US troops have not officially returned to the base, the US military spent 153 days operating out of Keflavik in 2017.Courtesy of August 2018, Vol. 38, No. 7 2 US Department of Defense/Wikimedia The US in Iceland during the Cold War, two left-wing to the Icelandic government, except for While the operations have been less governments in the 1950s and 1970s a small listening post near Keflavik. frequent this year, US interest has been unsuccessfully sought to terminate the Betting correctly that the Icelandic sustained. In addition, the US Navy US military presence without leaving government would, in the end, not make was awarded approximately $36 million NATO. Finally, during a protracted good on its promise to abrogate the to renew hanger facilities for P-8 diplomatic dispute between Iceland defence agreement, the US reiterated Poseidon reconnaissance planes in and the US from 2003 to 2006, a right- its commitment to Iceland through Iceland. When the Americans decided wing prime minister, Davíð Oddsson, projected or non-territorial defence after to embark on this project in 2016, then threatened to abrogate the defence withdrawing its troops from Keflavik. Icelandic Prime Minister Sigmundur agreement if the Americans unilaterally But since the agreement was originally Davíð Gunnlaugsson admitted that removed fighter jets stationed in Iceland, made to legalise and institutionalise the he had not been informed beforehand on the grounds that it represented a stationing of US troops in Iceland, it and that he had ‘heard it on the news’. violation of its terms. was, in effect, reinterpreted as a defence Even if Gunnlaugsson claimed to Thus, it should be no surprise guarantee without a permanent military welcome renewed military US interest that the Icelandic government may presence. Iceland’s 2007 agreement in Iceland – not because it contributed question Western military interests in with NATO on temporary air policing to collective defence but because it Iceland or use them as bargaining chips arrangements with individual member created jobs for Icelanders – the lack in diplomatic disputes with NATO states, including the US, was seen as of consultation with the Icelandic Allies, as happened during the ‘Cod partial compensation for the base government irked some officials. They Wars’ with the UK over the extension closure. The US continued, however, to did not want to be put in a position of Iceland’s fishery limits from the show limited military interest in Iceland. where they would be required to 1950s until the 1970s. Yet, such Bilateral annual defence talks, which rationalise decisions on US military political challenges have not led to an were mostly symbolic, did nothing to activities in Iceland that had been abandonment of Iceland’s pro-Western change that perception. At the same made unilaterally by the Americans, as foreign and security policy, which is time, the Americans knew that they had was frequently the case during the Cold rooted in its NATO membership and access to Iceland through the defence War. Neither did it help that when the the US–Icelandic defence agreement. agreement in the case of changed US military newspaper Stars and Stripes This political orientation was by no military circumstances in the North broke the story, a US Navy source was way uncontested in a country that has Atlantic. quoted as stating that the US could never had its own military and that ‘eventually establish regular patrol had adopted a neutrality policy when rotations at the base, which would it gained sovereignty from Denmark It should be no surprise likely resemble the Navy’s maritime 100 years ago. Indeed, the US military patrol force at its air base in Sigonella, presence was – for extended periods of that the Icelandic Sicily, where the squadrons rotate out time during the Cold War – the most government may question every six months’. Since about 4,000 controversial issue in Icelandic domestic Western military interests US personnel are stationed at the politics. But when the US closed down Sigonella base, this seemed to suggest the Keflavik base in 2006, the question in Iceland or use them the return of US troops to Iceland. was rather whether this unilateral act as bargaining chips in A centre-right Icelandic – which was vigorously opposed by a diplomatic disputes with government was quick to contain the centre-right Icelandic government – potential political damage by making it signalled a temporary or a permanent NATO Allies clear that there were no plans to reopen withdrawal from a geostrategic area the US base. The current government, whose military significance had been which was formed in late 2017 made abundantly apparent during the following the scandal-related fall of two Second World War and the Cold War. successive governments in 2016–2017, In the mid-2000s, it seemed that the Returning to a Cold War has reinforced this position. While it US had opted for the latter course. It is led by the anti-military Left–Green saw no military value in Iceland when Practice: US Maritime Movement, the other two parties, the its attention was focused on wars in Patrolling Missions centre-right Independence Party, the Afghanistan and Iraq, claiming that largest political force in Iceland, and Russia was no longer a hostile power.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fellow Submarines by Jan Joel Andersson
    32 2016 AL E X A ND E RZ E ML IA N ic H E NKO/AP/SIPA Fellow submarines by Jan Joel Andersson Ever since the occupation of Crimea in 2014, commercial, and military transport. Moreover, Russian military activity has increased in and the growing importance of secure maritime bor- around Europe. Russian air and land exercises have ders and the protection of vital undersea global also become more assertive and frequent compared communication cables make it both prudent and to previous years. Fighter jets of the Swedish and necessary for Europe to collectively manage, de- Finnish air forces, as well as NATO fighters pro- ter, and counter any undersea provocations. tecting the air space of the three Baltic republics of Countering enemy submarines is, however, very Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are scrambled on a difficult, time consuming and costly as the best regular basis to intercept approaching Russian air- underwater defences are submarines themselves. craft. Similarly, the Russian navy has stepped up its operations and engages in naval exercises and Complex and competitive deployments of increasing scope and scale. Containing more parts than jet airliners and be- Perhaps most worryingly to Western observers is ing more complicated than surface vessels, sub- the increase in underwater activity in the Baltic marines can be compared to space ships in their Sea and North Atlantic: senior NATO naval com- complexity. There are only a handful of companies manders have confirmed that “Russian submarine in the world capable of designing advanced sub- activity is reaching levels unseen since the end of marines and the majority of them are European.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Draft DSCTC Report
    DEFENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE (DSC) Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation (DSCTC) EVOLVING SECURITY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC Draft Report by Nicholas SOAMES (United Kingdom) Rapporteur 077 DSCTC 19 E | Original: English | 23 April 2019 Until this document has been adopted by the Defence and Security Committee, it only represents the views of the Rapporteur. 077 DSCTC 19 E TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 II. IMPORTANCE OF THE ATLANTIC ....................................................................................... 2 III. THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE GIUK-N GAP AND NEW RUSSIAN PRESENCE AND CAPABILITIES .............................................................................................................. 3 A. INCREASED RUSSIAN CAPABILITIES AND PRESENCE........................................... 3 B. RUSSIA IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND ARCTIC ..................................................... 4 C. THE NORTHERN FLEET AND RUSSIAN DEFENCE ARCHITECTURE IN THE ATLANTIC .................................................................................................................... 5 IV. NATO’S NORTH ATLANTIC PRESENCE AND NEW INITIATIVES ....................................... 5 A. NATO MARITIME COMMAND ...................................................................................... 6 B. ICELAND AND RENEWED NATO ANTI-SUBMARINE EFFORTS ............................... 7 V. INTERIM
    [Show full text]
  • Fixed Sonar Systems the History and Future of The
    THE SUBMARINE REVIEW FIXED SONAR SYSTEMS THE HISTORY AND FUTURE OF THE UNDEWATER SILENT SENTINEL by LT John Howard, United States Navy Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California Undersea Warfare Department Executive Summary One of the most challenging aspects of Anti-Submarine War- fare (ASW) has been the detection and tracking of submerged contacts. One of the most successful means of achieving this goal was the Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) developed by the United States Navy in the early 1950's. It was designed using breakthrough discoveries of the propagation paths of sound through water and intended to monitor the growing submarine threat of the Soviet Union. SOSUS provided cueing of transiting Soviet submarines to allow for optimal positioning of U.S. ASW forces for tracking and prosecution of these underwater threats. SOSUS took on an even greater national security role with the advent of submarine launched ballistic missiles, ensuring that U.S. forces were aware of these strategic liabilities in case hostilities were ever to erupt between the two superpowers. With the end of the Cold War, SOSUS has undergone a number of changes in its utilization, but is finding itself no less relevant as an asset against the growing number of modern quiet submarines proliferating around the world. Introduction For millennia, humans seeking to better defend themselves have set up observation posts along the ingress routes to their key strongholds. This could consist of something as simple as a person hidden in a tree, to extensive networks of towers communicating 1 APRIL 2011 THE SUBMARINE REVIEW with signal fires.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring Requirements for Effective Deterrence of Interstate Aggression
    What Deters and Why Exploring Requirements for Effective Deterrence of Interstate Aggression Michael J. Mazarr, Arthur Chan, Alyssa Demus, Bryan Frederick, Alireza Nader, Stephanie Pezard, Julia A. Thompson, Elina Treyger C O R P O R A T I O N For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2451 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-1-9774-0064-2 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Cover: Three ROK soldiers watching the border at Panmunjeom in the DMZ between North and South Korea/Henrik Ishihara via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface This report documents research and analysis conducted as part of a project enti- tled What Deters and Why: Lessons of Deterrence Theory and Practice for U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • FORGOTTEN WATERS Minding the GIUK Gap a Tabletop Exercise
    MAY 2017 FORGOTTEN WATERS Minding the GIUK Gap A Tabletop Exercise Julianne Smith and Jerry Hendrix Foreword by Robert D. Kaplan CNAS Celebrating 10 Years About the Authors JULIANNE SMITH is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and Director of its Transatlantic Security Program. She previously served as the Deputy National Security Advisor to the Vice President of the United States and as the Principal Director for European and NATO Policy in the Office of the Secretary of Defense in the Pentagon. JERRY HENDRIX is a Senior Fellow at the Center for a New American Security and Director of its Defense Strategies and Assessments Program. As a Captain in the United States Navy (now retired), his staff assignments include tours with the Chief of Naval Operation’s Executive Panel (N00K), the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, and the Office of Net Assessment. Most recently, he served as the Director of Naval History. Acknowledgements This report is the final product of a project entitled, “Forgotten Waters: Minding the GIUK Gap,” co-sponsored by the CNAS Transatlantic Security Program and the CNAS Defense Strategies and Assessments Program. This project was made possible by the generous support of the Ministries of Defense of Norway, the United Kingdom, and France. Although many people played crucial roles in the development and execution of this project, we would like to single out a few of our colleagues. We wish to thank our partners at the British, French, and Norwegian embassies in Washington, DC, including Steve McCarthy, Simond de Galbert, Keith Eikenes, and Harald Støren.
    [Show full text]
  • GLOBAL WAR GAME NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island
    GLOBAL WAR GAME NAVAL WAR COLLEGE Newport, Rhode Island CENTER FOR NAVAL WARFARE STUDIES Newport Paper #4 June 1993 “The Newport Papers” series is a vehicle for distribution of substantial work by members of the Naval War College’s teaching and research faculty and stu- dents. Papers are drawn generally from manuscripts not scheduled for publica- tion either as articles in the Naval War College Review or as books from the Naval War College Press but that nonetheless merit extensive distribution. Candidates are considered by an editorial board under the auspices of the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. The views expressed in The Newport Papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Naval War College or the Department of the Navy. Correspondence concerning The Newport Papers should be addressed to the Dean of Naval Warfare Studies. Requests for additional copies or for perma- nent distribution should be directed to the President, Code 32A, Naval War College, 686 Cushing Road, Newport, Rhode Island 02841-1207. Telephone (401) 841-2236 or DSN 948-2236, and Fax (401) 841-3579. Second printing July 1993. GLOBAL WAR GAME The First Five Years Bud Hay and Bob Gile Contents Note to the Reader ............................. vii Executive Summary............................. viii Series Development ............................. 1 Game Scenarios ............................... 4 1979 ................................. 4 1980 ................................. 5 1981 ................................. 8 1982 ................................
    [Show full text]
  • Enhancing Deterrence and Defence on NATO's Northern Flank
    Enhancing deterrence and defence on NATO’s northern flank Allied perspectives on strategic options for Norway James Black, Stephen Flanagan, Gene Germanovich, Ruth Harris, David Ochmanek, Marina Favaro, Katerina Galai, Emily Ryen Gloinson For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR4381 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK © Copyright 2020 RAND Corporation Cover images © Norwegian Armed Forces R® is a registered trademark. RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps to improve policy and decision making through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org www.randeurope.org III Preface This study examines strategic options and NATO in the High North. Finally, it outlines a for enhancing deterrence and defence on number of proposed Strategic Options (SOs) for the northern flank of the North Atlantic consideration as the Norwegian MOD continues Treaty Organisation (NATO).
    [Show full text]
  • CANADA and NATO: an ALLIANCE FORGED in STRENGTH and RELIABILITY Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence
    CANADA AND NATO: AN ALLIANCE FORGED IN STRENGTH AND RELIABILITY Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence Stephen Fuhr, Chair JUNE 2018 42nd PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons SPEAKER’S PERMISSION The proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees are hereby made available to provide greater public access. The parliamentary privilege of the House of Commons to control the publication and broadcast of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees is nonetheless reserved. All copyrights therein are also reserved. Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate and is not presented as official. This permission does not extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this permission or without authorization may be treated as copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act. Authorization may be obtained on written application to the Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons. Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not constitute publication under the authority of the House of Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes briefs to a Standing Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in accordance with the Copyright Act. Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of Commons and its Committees.
    [Show full text]
  • Evolving Security in the North Atlantic
    DEFENCE AND SECURITY COMMITTEE (DSC) Sub-Committee on Transatlantic Defence and Security Cooperation (DSCTC) EVOLVING SECURITY IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC Report Sir Nicholas SOAMES (United Kingdom) Rapporteur 138 DSCTC 19 E fin | Original: English | 13 October 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 2 II. IMPORTANCE OF THE ATLANTIC ....................................................................................... 2 III. THE STRATEGIC IMPORTANCE OF THE GIUK-N GAP AND NEW RUSSIAN PRESENCE AND CAPABILITIES .............................................................................................................. 3 A. INCREASED RUSSIAN CAPABILITIES AND PRESENCE........................................... 3 B. RUSSIA IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC AND ARCTIC ..................................................... 4 C. THE NORTHERN FLEET AND RUSSIAN DEFENCE ARCHITECTURE IN THE ATLANTIC .................................................................................................................... 5 IV. NATO’S NORTH ATLANTIC PRESENCE AND NEW INITIATIVES ....................................... 6 A. NATO MARITIME COMMAND ...................................................................................... 6 B. ICELAND AND RENEWED NATO ANTI-SUBMARINE EFFORTS ............................... 7 V. INTERIM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NATO PARLIAMENTARIANS 9 ANNEX A: UNDERSEA CABLES IN THE NORTH ATLANTIC ............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: an Intersectional Analysis
    Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology Volume 24 Issue 1 Article 4 December 2015 Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An Intersectional Analysis Tara Davenport Yale Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jlt Part of the Admiralty Commons, Communications Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Fourth Amendment Commons, International Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, National Security Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Tara Davenport, Submarine Cables, Cybersecurity and International Law: An Intersectional Analysis, 24 Cath. U. J. L. & Tech (2015). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jlt/vol24/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUBMARINE CABLES, CYBERSECURITY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW: AN INTERSECTIONAL ANALYSIS Tara Davenport* The international community’s ever-increasing reliance on the Internet and web-based information and communications technologies (“ICT”) has meant that cybersecurity is becoming one of the most pressing concerns in the 21st century. The International Telecommunications Union (“ITU”)1 has defined cybersecurity to mean “the collection of tools, policies, security concepts,
    [Show full text]
  • A Cold War Conundrum: the 1983 Soviet War Scare
    CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY An Intelligence Monograph " IT IS TIME THEY STOPPED A Cold War Conundrum: INVENTING NEW PLANS ON HOW TO UNLEASH A The 1983 Soviet War Scare NUCLEAR \VAR. by Ben B. Fischer YURI ANDROPOV HEY ARE TIIE FOCUS "T OF EVIL IN THE MODERN vv'ORLD. RONALD REAGAN CSI 97-10002 September 1997 CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF INTELLIGENCE This publication is prepared for the use of US Government officials, and the format, coverage, and content are designed to meet their specific requirements Requesters outside the US Government may obtain subscriptions to publications similar to this one by addressing inquiries to Documents Expediting Project (DOCEX) Exchange and Gift Division Library of Congress 101 Independence Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20540 or National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 Requesters outside the US Government not interested in subscription service may purchase specific publications either in paper copy or microform from Photoduplication Service Library of Congress Washington, DC 20540 Or National Technical Information Service 5285 Port Royal Road Springfield, VA 22161 To expedite service, call the NTIS Order Desk (703-487-4650) Comments and queries on this publication may be directed to the DOCEX Project at the above address or by phone (202-707-9527) or fax (202-707-0380), or to the NTIS Office of Customer Services at the above address or by phone (703487-4660) This study will be available on the Internet after mid-September 1997 at www ode goy/cm . An Intelligence Monograph A Cold War Conundrum: The 1983 Soviet War Scare by Ben B.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Views of the US Navy and NATO on the Northern Flank, 1917-1991
    Strategic Views of the US Navy and NATO on the Northern Flank, 1917-1991 Dean C. Allard American recognition of the strategic significance of Europe's Northern Flank, stretching from the Danish Straits to Norway's North Cape, is not entirely a phenomenon of the Cold War. More than eighty years ago, in November 1917, Admiral William S. Benson, the US Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), visited Europe to confer with British leaders on future naval strategy for World War I. At this time, President Woodrow Wilson was on record as opposing what he viewed as the overly defensive stance of the Royal Navy's Grand Fleet. Based far from the European war zone at Scapa Flow, that force obviously deterred the German High Seas Fleet from seizing control of the North Sea. But Wilson and Benson preferred an aggressive, close-in assault on the enemy, a strategic objective shared by many British leaders who invoked memories of the Royal Navy's Nelsonian tradition. The targets proposed by both British and US critics were two-fold: the ships and facilities located at the enemy's bases, which represented the source of German naval strength; and the maritime transit routes connecting these bases to the high seas.' These criticisms influenced British naval strategy in the latter part of the war. In 1917 the Royal Navy stepped up its mining campaign in the Heligoland Bight of the North Sea, as well as in the Danish Straits that provided an alternate German access route to the high seas. In addition, during Benson's visit Royal Naval (RN) officers revealed plans to intensify the mine and ship barrage of the Dover Straits.
    [Show full text]