Flexible Response and the INF (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force) Treaty: What Next

The prospect of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Force (INF) Treaty led the former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, GEN Bernard Rogers, to claim that NATO would lose weapons vital to the Alliance's defense when Pershing II (PII) and Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCM) were withdrawn from Europe. Nuclear weapons and the NATO strategy of flexible response are inseparably dependent upon each other. GEN Rogers' comments focus directly on the capability which PII and GLCM provided NATO to strike Soviet territory in event of conflict and if such an escalatory step was deemed necessary. Various sources were researched to determine if the INF Treaty will cripple the flexible response strategy; while it should not, certain changes in NATO's approach to defense are suggested. Specifically, conventional and nuclear improvements, the latter within the terms of the INF Treaty, are suggested, as are conventional force reduction negotiations and the 'Europeanization' of NATO.