Euromissiles

Online Description

In Euromissiles, Susan Colbourn tells the story of the height of nuclear crisis and the remarkable waning of the fear that gripped the globe. In the Cold War conflict that pitted nuclear superpowers against one another, Europe was the principal battleground. Washington and Moscow had troops on the ground and missiles in the fields of their respective allies, the NATO nations and the states of the Warsaw Pact. Euromissiles—intermediate-range nuclear weapons to be used exclusively in the regional theater of war—highlighted how the peoples of Europe were dangerously placed between hammer and anvil. That made European leaders uncomfortable and pushed fearful masses into the streets demanding peace in their time. At the center of the story is NATO. Colbourn highlights the weakness of the alliance seen by many as the most effective bulwark against Soviet aggression. Divided among themselves and uncertain about the depth of US support, the member states were riven by the missile issue. This strategic crisis was, as much as any summit meeting between US president Ronald Reagan and Soviet general secretary Mikhail Gorbachev, the hinge on which the Cold War turned. Euromissiles is a history of diplomacy and alliances, social movements and strategy, nuclear weapons and nagging fears, and politics. To tell that history, Colbourn takes a long view of the strategic crisis—from the emerging dilemmas of allied defense in the early 1950s through the aftermath of the INF Treaty thirty-five years later. The result is a dramatic and sweeping tale that changes the way we think about the Cold War and its culmination.

🔫 Author Background

• Susan Colbourn (b. 1987) is a historian of the Cold War, NATO, and transatlantic security, trained at the University of Toronto, where mentors like Lynne Viola and Timothy Sayle helped shape her focus on alliance history and nuclear strategy (p. ix–x).

• She spent time at Yale’s International Security Studies program, teaching seminars such as “NATO in Crisis,” and held a year-long position at Johns Hopkins SAIS, which sharpened her thinking on transatlantic order (p. ix).

• Colbourn completed this project while at the Triangle Institute for Security Studies (TISS) at Duke University, embedded in a policy-focused security community bridging academic and practitioner audiences (p. ix–x).

• Her work is heavily archival, drawing on multinational sources in Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK, and the US, as well as oral history projects, positioning her as a leading historian of NATO’s late Cold War nuclear politics (p. x).

🔍 Author’s Main Issue / Thesis

• Colbourn argues that the Euromissiles—Soviet SS‑20s and NATO’s Pershing II and ground-launched cruise missiles—nearly destroyed NATO not because of their destructive power alone, but because they exposed deep fractures in the alliance over strategy, democracy, and nuclear risk (pp. 1–3, 261–262).

• She contends that the 1979 Dual-Track Decision and the 1987 INF Treaty were fundamentally political acts: attempts to manage alliance cohesion, domestic legitimacy, and extended deterrence in an age of nuclear parity, rather than purely military-technological solutions (pp. 13, 90–91, 108–109, 261–263).

• The crisis revealed enduring structural dilemmas for NATO—how to deter the Soviet Union, bind the United States to Europe, rely on nuclear weapons without using them, and manage Germany’s centrality—under conditions of mass politics and widespread nuclear skepticism (pp. 3–7, 32–34, 47–49).

• She stresses contingency: Euromissile deployment and eventual elimination were not preordained but the product of interacting choices by US and European leaders, Soviet decisions (especially Gorbachev’s “new thinking”), and powerful anti-nuclear movements (pp. 115–118, 133–135, 216–219, 261–265).

🧭 One-Paragraph Overview

Colbourn traces the Euromissiles story from the 1960s “stalemate,” when NATO adopted flexible response and began pairing defense with détente, through the SS‑20 deployments, NATO’s 1979 Dual-Track Decision, the explosion of mass protest, and the INF Treaty that eliminated all ground-launched missiles in the 500–5,500 km range. She shows how nuclear parity and “gray-area” forces made NATO’s strategy of flexible response increasingly hard to sell at home, even as allies clung to theater nuclear weapons as talismans of US commitment. The deployment of Pershing II and Gryphon missiles was as much about symbolism and alliance politics as about warfighting; the same weapons later served as bargaining chips that enabled Gorbachev and Western leaders to remove an entire category of nuclear systems. Throughout, Colbourn highlights limits—political, doctrinal, and technological—on what missiles and nuclear threats could achieve, and how those limits forced adaptation via arms control, new doctrines, and reimagined alliance roles. For SAASS 628, the book is a case study in how long-range missiles intersect with airpower, extended deterrence, alliance management, and the persistent tension between military strategy and democratic politics.

🎯 Course Themes Tracker

• Limits on airpower / missile power: Nuclear and missile capabilities are bounded by alliance politics, mass publics, escalation risk, and doctrinal ambiguity.

• Expectations vs. reality: Planners expected flexible response and LRTNF modernization to bolster deterrence; instead they triggered crises of legitimacy and cohesion.

• Adaptation & learning: Repeated attempts to repair doctrine (Harmel Report, Dual Track, common security, “last resort” nuclear posture) show iterative learning and mislearning.

• Efficacy: Tactical and theater nuclear deployments produced large strategic and political effects—often unintended—well before any potential use.

• Alliance/coalition dynamics & arms control: NATO operates through consensus, burdensharing, and linkage between modernization and arms control.

• Domain interplay: Missiles, aircraft, and sea-based systems are substitutes and complements within an evolving “deep strike” toolkit; INF missiles complicate classic notions of airpower.

🔑 Top Takeaways

• NATO’s flexible response relied centrally on nuclear weapons—especially theater systems—as the political and operational bridge between conventional defenses and US strategic forces; Euromissiles exposed how fragile that bridge really was (pp. 26–29, 32–34, 90–95, 153–159).

• The Dual-Track Decision was “primarily a political exercise,” modernizing theater forces to shore up Allied faith and bargaining leverage while signaling a willingness to eliminate the same systems through arms control (pp. 90–91, 94–95, 108–109).

• Anti-nuclear movements and Warsaw Pact influence operations made domestic publics a decisive constraint, demonstrating that deterrent forces can fail politically long before they fail militarily (pp. 69–72, 77–79, 115–120, 133–135).

• The Euromissiles were ambiguous instruments—simultaneously portrayed as warfighting tools (deep strike, decapitation) and as rungs in a “seamless robe of deterrence,” a conceptual fuzziness that undermined their credibility and legitimacy (pp. 94–95, 174–179).

• Long-range missiles competed and overlapped with airpower, offering deep-strike options immune to air defenses but raising acute concerns about warning time, command and control, and escalation, all of which reshaped strategic thinking about aerospace power.

• The INF Treaty owed as much to Gorbachev’s domestic and ideological “new thinking” as to NATO’s deployments, underscoring that adversary adaptation and regime politics can decisively alter the payoff of military capabilities (pp. 216–220, 261–265).

• The crisis left a durable legacy of arms control as alliance management and of nuclear weapons as “last resort,” shaping post–Cold War NATO strategy and contemporary debates over renewed long-range missile deployments (pp. 240–244, 265–267).

📒 Sections

Introduction: Security and Survival

Summary:

Colbourn opens by framing the Euromissiles crisis as a moment when nuclear weapons “nearly destroyed NATO,” revealing deep fissures inside the alliance (pp. 1–3).  She identifies four enduring dilemmas: how to contain the Soviet threat, bind the US and Canada to Europe, rely on nuclear deterrence without sacrificing democracy, and manage the centrality of divided Germany (pp. 3–7).  The introduction situates Euromissiles within a longer trajectory from NATO’s founding through détente and nuclear parity, stressing that “crisis” was a recurring condition for the alliance, not an anomaly (pp. 3–4, 17–22).   She emphasizes how nuclear weapons allowed NATO to adopt a forward defense strategy without matching Warsaw Pact conventional forces, but at the cost of living with weapons whose use would be catastrophic (p. 6).  The book promises a multi-level story, combining diplomatic history, alliance politics, and social movements to show that Euromissiles were as much about perceptions and politics as about kilotonnage or CEP. Colbourn also signals the role of contingency—particularly Gorbachev’s rise—in making the INF Treaty possible and averting an internal NATO rupture (pp. 261–265).

Key Points:

• NATO’s enduring functions: bind North America to Europe and contain German power as much as the Soviet Union (pp. 3–7).

• Nuclear weapons enabled a forward strategy while avoiding the cost of matching Soviet conventional forces: “Nuclear weapons offered a way out” (p. 6).

• Euromissiles crisis is recast as a long 1960s–1990 story, not a narrow 1979–87 episode.

• Analytical focus on gray-area forces, flexible response, extended deterrence, and alliance legitimacy.

• Method: multi-archival, multi-national, blending high politics and grassroots activism.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Limits of nuclear deterrence as a political project in democracies.

• Repeated tension between defense and détente as twin pillars of NATO strategy.

• The centrality of West Germany to alliance strategy and nuclear posture.

• Questioning the assumption that more or better weapons = more security.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political: Domestic publics and coalition governments in Europe constrained nuclear deployments; origin exogenous/endogenous; partially relaxable via messaging and arms control; effects at strategic and political levels.

• Strategic: Need to deter Soviet attack while avoiding decoupling or escalation; largely endogenous to NATO’s doctrine; adjustable via new concepts (flexible response, later “last resort” nuclear posture).

• Technological/Capability: Reliance on nuclear to offset conventional inferiority; exogenous (Soviet strength) plus endogenous (NATO budget choices); partly relaxable through conventional modernization but politically difficult.

• Alliance Cohesion: Requirement for consensus gave every ally veto leverage, making NATO both robust and fragile.

---

Chapter 1: The Sixties Stalemate

Summary:

This chapter explores NATO’s “crisis of success” in the 1960s, as prosperity and reduced fear of war made the alliance’s purpose less obvious (pp. 17–22).  With the perceived Soviet threat receding after Berlin and Cuba, critics asked why NATO should persist and why arms racing should continue. This debate fueled support for arms control and détente, while also reviving the older rationale that NATO was needed to manage West German power and prevent another Rapallo-style German–Soviet rapprochement (p. 22).  Belgian foreign minister Pierre Harmel’s initiative led to a “Future Tasks” study and the 1967 Harmel Report, which codified NATO’s dual mission of defense and détente (pp. 22–23).  Simultaneously, NATO replaced massive retaliation with flexible response (MC 14/3), relying on a spectrum of nuclear options to bridge conventional weakness and strategic deterrence (pp. 26–29).  The chapter shows that flexible response was adopted amidst unresolved questions—when to go nuclear, who decides, and how to reassure publics—that would haunt later Euromissile debates.

Key Points:

• NATO’s success in preventing war paradoxically undermined its perceived necessity (“Has Success Spoiled NATO?”) (p. 22).

• Harmel Report formalized defense + détente as twin tasks, encouraging later dual-track approaches.

• Flexible response (MC 14/3) introduced a ladder of nuclear use, including tactical and theater systems, to restore credibility under nuclear parity (pp. 26–29).

• Concerns about West German power and potential German–Soviet deals remained a key reason to preserve NATO (p. 22).

• The seeds of later debates over parity, coupling, and escalation control were planted in this decade.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Early institutionalization of the “dual track” logic: security through strength and dialogue.

• Flexible response as both a solution to and a source of credibility problems.

• NATO’s role as a political order, not just a military alliance.

• Emergence of alliance management as a central strategic task.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political: Growing prosperity and reduced fear of war created public pressure for peace dividends and arms control; exogenous; partially relaxable through narrative framing (e.g., NATO as a precondition for détente).

• Strategic: Nuclear parity and Soviet ICBMs removed US sanctuary, complicating extended deterrence; largely exogenous; prompted flexible response as adaptation.

• Operational: NATO’s forward defense concept depended on nuclear reinforcement due to insufficient conventional strength; endogenous; only gradually adjustable via MBFR and later conventional improvements.

---

Chapter 2: Parity’s Problems

Summary:

Colbourn examines how US–Soviet strategic parity—achieved and codified in part through SALT—generated new problems for NATO in the 1970s (pp. 32–35).  While parity stabilized the superpower relationship, it aggravated European fears about decoupling and the credibility of extended deterrence. As strategic nuclear forces became an “instrument of last resort,” European leaders worried that Washington might hesitate to trade US cities for European ones (p. 33).  The chapter traces debates over how to respond: modernizing theater nuclear forces, strengthening conventional forces, or pursuing arms control like MBFR. Economic constraints and domestic politics, however, limited NATO’s ability to increase conventional spending, pushing leaders back towards nuclear fixes (pp. 34–36).  Colbourn shows how perceptions of parity—more than raw capabilities—drove West German anxiety and set the stage for Helmut Schmidt’s later warnings about an emerging Eurostrategic imbalance (pp. 32–35, 84–85).

Key Points:

• Strategic parity transformed US strategic forces into a last-resort deterrent, heightening European concerns about decoupling (p. 33).

• NATO lacked consensus on whether to emphasize nuclear modernization, conventional buildup, or arms control to address the new situation.

• Economic austerity and social priorities constrained defense outlays, limiting conventional options (pp. 34–36).

• Parity debates reframed theater nuclear forces as critical political symbols of US commitment.

• West German perceptions of vulnerability, not just objective imbalances, became central drivers of policy.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Expectations vs. reality: Parity was expected to stabilize deterrence but instead destabilized alliance psychology.

• Nuclear weapons as political reassurance devices as much as warfighting tools.

• Early recognition that numbers and range bands create “gray-area” dilemmas.

Limits Map (mini):

• Strategic: Parity reduced the plausibility of US strategic first use in a European war; exogenous; not fixable, but could be worked around via theater systems and doctrines.

• Resource/Time: Fiscal constraints in Europe and the US limited conventional buildup; exogenous/endogenous; partially relaxable but politically costly.

• Information: Perception-driven fears (“question of changed perceptions, not capabilities”) distorted threat assessment (p. 84).

---

Chapter 3: Shades of Gray

Summary:

This chapter introduces the “gray area” between strategic and battlefield nuclear weapons, focusing on Soviet SS‑20 deployments and NATO anxieties about a Eurostrategic gap (pp. 47–52).  The SS‑20’s mobility, accuracy, and MIRVs made it a potent symbol of Soviet modernization, though its military novelty was contested. For some US officials, the SS‑20 was just an upgrade to existing systems; for West Germans and other Europeans, it signified a new capacity to strike European targets without threatening the US homeland (pp. 49–51).  Colbourn shows how the gray-area discourse crystallized West German worries about being squeezed between Soviet pressure and superpower arms control that ignored European interests. Allied consultations began to grapple with whether to respond one-for-one to the SS‑20s or through more nuanced mixes of theater systems and arms control (pp. 47–52).  The concept of a “Eurostrategic balance” emerged, laying intellectual groundwork for the later Dual-Track Decision.

Key Points:

• The SS‑20 became the emblem of a new “gray-area” threat, even though many of its capabilities were evolutionary.

• Debate split between viewing the SS‑20 as incremental modernization vs. a fundamental shift in Eurostrategic balance.

• West Germans feared a Soviet capability to coerce Europe separately from the US (pp. 49–52).

• NATO began to explore responses that mixed deployments, re-basing, and theater arms control.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• How technical changes (range, mobility, MIRVs) translate into psychological and political effects.

• Gray-area weapons create blurry lines between strategic and theater roles, complicating doctrine.

• Early recognition that counting rules (launchers vs. warheads) can shape perceptions of imbalance.

Limits Map (mini):

• Intelligence/Information: Disputes over how to count Soviet systems (launchers vs. warheads) influenced perceived gaps; endogenous; partly fixable through better data, but still politically manipulated (p. 94).

• Strategic: Ambiguity about whether gray-area systems were “strategic” or “theater” constrained doctrine and arms control categories.

• Alliance Political: Europeans demanded a say in how gray-area issues were defined and negotiated, constraining US unilateral choices.

---

Chapter 4: Fiasco!

Summary:

“Fiasco!” recounts the neutron bomb controversy as a dress rehearsal for the Euromissile crisis (pp. 69–83).   Carter’s plan to develop enhanced-radiation warheads to offset Warsaw Pact armor was sold as offering more “controlled escalation,” but public debate quickly framed it as a weapon that “kills people but not property,” crystallizing moral unease about nuclear usability (pp. 71–72).  Soviet influence operations poured money, messaging, and organizational support into anti–neutron bomb campaigns, amplifying genuine grassroots opposition across Western Europe (pp. 77–79).  After months of trying to package production, deployment, and an arms control offer, Carter deferred a decision, infuriating allies who felt he had led them “out on a limb” only to saw it off (pp. 83–84, 99).   The episode convinced many Europeans that Washington lacked staying power and taught NATO elites that force-planning decisions were hostage to both Soviet propaganda and their own publics. It also pioneered a “package approach” linking modernization with an offer to cancel deployments, a pattern that would reappear in Dual Track (pp. 89, 105–106).

Key Points:

• Neutron bomb framed the usability problem of nuclear weapons: flexible response implied weapons that might actually be fired (pp. 71–72).

• Soviet influence operations successfully leveraged Western democratic politics to constrain US policy (pp. 77–79).

• Carter’s deferment damaged his credibility and US leadership image, especially in Bonn (pp. 83–84, 99–100).

• Package logic—deploy plus offer to cancel—emerged as a durable template for nuclear decisions (p. 105).

• Neutron bomb affair foregrounded NATO’s “battle for men’s minds” as integral to deterrence (p. 83).

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Nuclear modernization schemes repeatedly run ahead of political consent.

• Public revelation of “specialist” assumptions about controlled nuclear war triggers backlash.

• Early example of information warfare, where Soviet propaganda and Western peace activism intertwine.

• Shows how badly process and consultation matter in alliance politics.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political (Domestic): European and US publics recoiled at the idea of small, usable nuclear weapons, constraining NATO’s doctrinal desire for “graduated” options; exogenous; partly mitigated by framing but fundamentally hard to relax.

• Alliance Cohesion: Carter’s zig-zag created mistrust; endogenous leadership problem; alignments repaired only slowly via later Dual-Track diplomacy.

• Adversary Adaptation: Warsaw Pact influence ops turned Western transparency into a vulnerability; exogenous; NATO tried to respond with better messaging but never matched Warsaw Pact intensity.

---

Chapter 5: It Takes Two

Summary:

“It Takes Two” describes how the Carter administration, scarred by the neutron bomb episode, worked with key European leaders to produce the 1979 Dual-Track Decision (pp. 90–91, 106–109).   At the Guadeloupe summit, the “Big Four” (US, UK, FRG, France) agreed that resolving the gray-area problem required pairing deployment of new theater nuclear forces with an arms control offer (pp. 90–92).  The High Level Group settled on 572 warheads—404 Gryphon GLCMs and 108 Pershing II IRBMs—as a Goldilocks figure: enough to bolster deterrence but not so many as to create a separate Eurostrategic balance (p. 94).  The Special Group crafted guidance for arms control, while allies haggled over basing and unilateral reductions (e.g., Carter–Schmidt proposal to cut 1,000 US warheads in Germany) to mollify domestic critics (pp. 106–112).   On 12 December 1979, NATO agreed to deploy Pershing II and GLCMs while offering negotiations to limit the same systems, with Belgium and the Netherlands adopting delayed commitments to keep fragile governments intact (p. 108–109, 124).   Colbourn emphasizes that Dual Track was explicitly recognized inside Washington as “primarily a political exercise,” aimed at alliance reassurance and Soviet signaling rather than strictly military requirements (p. 91).

Key Points:

• Dual Track replicated the Harmel duality—defense plus détente—on theater nuclear forces.

• High Level Group chose GLCMs and Pershing II; sea-based options were rejected for political/operational reasons (p. 94).

• The 572 figure and basing plan were shaped as much by symbolism and burden-sharing as by warfighting logic (pp. 94–95, 108).

• Belgium and the Netherlands “fence-sat,” supporting the decision in principle while deferring implementation (p. 108–109).

• Internal US documents candidly described the modernization as a political exercise requiring careful management (p. 91).

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• The political construction of military necessity—numbers and systems chosen for alliance optics.

• Deep entanglement of arms control with deployment decisions.

• Smaller allies resist a “two-tier” NATO; basing decisions structure who has voice at the top table (p. 108).

• Flexible response increasingly defended via metaphors—“gap in the spectrum,” “seamless robe of deterrence”—rather than clear operational concepts (p. 95).

Limits Map (mini):

• Political (Alliance): Need for unanimity and domestic survival in Belgium/Netherlands limited basing choices; exogenous to US, endogenous to NATO; partially relaxable by deferrals and warhead cuts.

• Strategic: Desire to avoid a separate Eurostrategic balance constrained numerical responses to SS‑20; endogenous; managed by choosing 572 and stressing coupling.

• Technological/Capability: Sea-based INF seen as logistically painful and politically ambiguous (strategic vs theater); NATO accepted land-based vulnerability in exchange for clearer symbolism.

---

Chapter 6: End the Arms Race, Not the Human Race

Summary:

Here Colbourn turns to the resurgence of anti-nuclear activism in the early 1980s, showing how mass movements became central actors in the Euromissiles story (pp. 115–120).  The UK pamphlet “Protest and Survive,” Dutch church groups, West German peace organizations, and transnational networks like European Nuclear Disarmament (END) popularized the slogan “End the arms race, not the human race” and reframed the missile debate as existential moral politics rather than narrow strategic calculation. Activists challenged both superpowers and advocated various schemes—from unilateral renunciation to nuclear-weapon-free zones—linking Euromissiles to broader critiques of NATO, capitalism, and militarism (pp. 115–120).  Governments initially dismissed the protests as fringe or Soviet-influenced but soon recognized their electoral weight. The chapter shows how peace movements provided alternative security narratives, such as “common security,” that questioned deterrence as a stable foundation (pp. 115–120, 153–159).   Colbourn argues that these movements significantly narrowed NATO’s political freedom of action and boosted the appeal of serious arms control.

Key Points:

• Mass demonstrations across Western Europe turned missile basing into a frontline domestic issue, not just an Alliance matter.

• Peace movements framed Euromissiles as symbols of a suicidal arms race, not stabilizing deterrence.

• Activists developed alternative doctrines like common security, insisting that security must be mutual (pp. 153–159).

• Governments oscillated between repression, co-option, and policy concessions.

• The protests heightened Soviet incentives to exploit public opinion and Western leaders’ incentives to pursue arms control.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Democracy vs deterrence: mass politics becomes a crucial constraint on nuclear posture.

• Domestic movements as strategic actors—not just background noise—in shaping alliance decisions.

• Emergence of normative critiques of limited nuclear war and “usable” weapons.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political (Domestic): Electoral pressures and fear of mass protest limited where and how missiles could be based; exogenous; only partially mitigated by messaging and burden-sharing.

• Legal/Normative: New moral arguments about nuclear use and humanity created normative red lines; exogenous; poorly captured by standard military planning metrics.

• Information: Activists diffused alternative narratives that competed with official strategic communication, complicating consensus.

---

Chapter 7: Moons and Green Cheese

Summary:

“Moons and Green Cheese” covers the Reagan administration’s zero-option proposal and early INF negotiations, emphasizing the interplay between rhetoric, arms control, and alliance management (pp. 133–138).  The zero option—eliminate all US and Soviet INF missiles—was initially dismissed as unrealistic (“like proposing to ban the moon made of green cheese”), yet it became a central reference point in public debate and ultimately a serious negotiating position. Reagan’s hawkish rhetoric and military buildup coexisted with far-reaching arms control proposals, creating confusion among allies and adversaries over US intentions. The chapter details how the Soviets rejected the zero option as propaganda while peace movements seized on it as a standard against which to judge NATO deployments. Meanwhile, intra-NATO debates over verification, counting rules, and scope (global vs. European ceilings, inclusion of British and French systems) exposed fissures within the alliance (pp. 133–140).

Key Points:

• The zero option began as a politically attractive but seemingly impossible proposal, then evolved into the core of the INF Treaty.

• Allies worried that radical US arms control moves might undercut deterrence or sacrifice European security.

• Peace movements used US rhetoric to pressure NATO governments, demanding consistency between words and deeds.

• Negotiations highlighted disputes over scope and equity—e.g., whether UK/French forces should count against Western totals.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• The line between public diplomacy and genuine strategy is blurry; rhetorical positions can become binding constraints.

• Arms control proposals can both reassure publics and frighten allies.

• Counting rules and categories are central to how missile forces interact with strategy and alliance politics.

Limits Map (mini):

• Strategic: Zero option risked eliminating important bargaining chips but promised large political gains; endogenous; adjustable but path-dependent once embraced publicly.

• Alliance Cohesion: Disagreements over British/French forces and global vs regional ceilings constrained negotiators; exogenous from US perspective; partially mitigated through side assurances.

• Intelligence/Verification: Concerns over cheating and verification capacities limited what states were willing to concede.

---

Chapter 8: First Principles

Summary:

Colbourn uses this chapter to show how the Euromissiles crisis forced NATO and its critics back to “first principles” about nuclear strategy and alliance purpose (pp. 153–160).  Critics argued that flexible response had become untenable in an era of high nuclear density and short warning times, calling doctrines of limited nuclear war dangerous illusions. The Palme Commission’s Common Security report insisted that states could no longer seek security at others’ expense and advocated a battlefield-nuclear-weapon–free zone in Central Europe to raise the nuclear threshold (pp. 159–160).  Some like Egon Bahr proposed more radical denuclearization schemes, prompting pushback from those who feared NATO’s dissolution (pp. 159–160).  Pamphlets and advocacy groups criticized the idea that SS‑20 deployments significantly altered the nuclear balance, citing figures like McGeorge Bundy to argue that the Soviets already had overwhelming nuclear capability against Europe (p. 159).  Within NATO, strategists struggled to reconcile theoretical escalation ladders with the political reality that publics increasingly saw nuclear use as catastrophic at any level.

Key Points:

• Flexible response appeared to be on “its last legs,” conceptually and politically (pp. 153–154).

• Common security posited that mutual restraint and cooperation were the only sustainable foundations for security (pp. 159–160).

• Bahr and others toyed with denuclearizing nonnuclear European states, including the FRG, alarming defenders of NATO (p. 159).

• Critics argued that SS‑20s did not give Moscow qualitatively new leverage; the real issue was perception and politics, not raw capability.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Reopening the first-order question: Is nuclear deterrence itself stabilizing or inherently unstable?

• Emergence of alternative theories of victory (or non-victory): preventing nuclear war rather than “fighting and winning.”

• Doctrinal drift between what NATO documents say (flexible response) and what publics and many elites are willing to accept.

Limits Map (mini):

• Legal/Normative: Growing taboo against nuclear use at any level undercut fine-grained escalation concepts; exogenous; largely non-relaxable.

• Strategic: Incoherence between war plans and political acceptability highlighted internal doctrinal limits; endogenous; partly mitigated later by redefining nuclear weapons as “weapons of last resort.”

• Political: Peace movement and elite critics constrained governments from embracing overt “warfighting” nuclear ideas.

---

Chapter 9: The Year of the Missile

Summary:

“The Year of the Missile” focuses on 1983, when deployments, protests, and negotiations collided (pp. 174–179, 190–193).   French president François Mitterrand’s dramatic Bundestag speech in January 1983 backed NATO’s deployments, warning that Europe could not be defended by “pacifists” alone and shoring up Chancellor Kohl amid fierce SPD opposition (pp. 190–191).  Throughout 1983, mass demonstrations, intra-party splits (especially within the SPD), and parliamentary struggles in basing countries turned INF into an existential stress test for NATO democracy. As first missiles arrived in the UK and FRG in late 1983, the Soviets walked out of INF talks, seeking to blame NATO for scuttling détente. Colbourn underscores the thin margin by which deployments went forward, highlighting how easily a few parliamentary votes could have undercut years of alliance planning (pp. 190–193).  Yet, once in place, the missiles created new leverage for future negotiations, even as they deepened fears of crisis instability.

Key Points:

• 1983 was a political cliff edge, with missile deployments and anti-nuclear protests both peaking.

• Mitterrand’s Bundestag speech exemplified cross-alliance leadership, a French president defending NATO nuclear deployments to save West German centrism (pp. 190–191).

• SPD divisions and Green Party rise showed how Euromissiles transformed West German party politics.

• Soviet walkout from INF talks was intended to make NATO pay a political price for deploying.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Very narrow gap between strategic resolve and political collapse in democratic alliances.

• Arms control and deployments as mutually reinforcing but temporally misaligned: deployments first sour relations, then enable deals.

• Domestic party politics as a key vector of strategic vulnerability.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political (Domestic): Coalition fragility and party splits made basing decisions precarious; exogenous; managed via heavy elite persuasion and foreign endorsements (e.g., Mitterrand).

• Adversary Adaptation: Soviet walkout tried to flip the narrative, framing NATO as spoiler; exogenous; NATO adapted with new diplomacy and alliance messaging.

• Resource/Time: Long lead times from 1979 decision to 1983 deployments gave space for both mobilization and adaptation; immutable; constrained sequencing of strategy.

---

Chapter 10: The Empty Chair

Summary:

“The Empty Chair” analyzes the aftermath of the Soviet walkout from INF talks and NATO’s efforts to sustain both deployments and diplomacy in 1984–85 (pp. 199–209).  With the Soviet delegation gone, NATO had to convince publics that the alliance was still committed to arms control, launching new studies of East–West relations and emphasizing a balanced approach of strength plus dialogue. The Washington Statement on East–West Relations in 1984 reiterated Harmel’s formula and tied INF to a broader vision of a “successful alliance for peace” (pp. 209–225).  Europeanization debates intensified, with proposals to increase European roles in NATO, even appointing a European SACEUR, and threats of US troop cuts if burden-sharing did not improve (pp. 209–225).  Colbourn shows how INF politics catalyzed long-running concerns about fairness, dependency, and leadership within NATO. Despite tensions, the allies reaffirmed that only combined military strength and solidarity would make a new relationship with the Warsaw Pact possible.

Key Points:

• Soviet walkout produced the literal “empty chair” at negotiations, raising doubts about arms control’s future.

• NATO responded with strategic messaging, emphasizing that strength plus dialogue remained the right course (Washington Statement) (pp. 209–225).

• INF controversy fueled calls for greater Europeanization and rebalancing within the alliance.

• US politicians floated troop cut proposals (e.g., Nunn Amendment) to push Europeans toward more defense spending (p. 209–225).

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Arms control deadlock does not stop alliance adaptation; instead it intensifies internal bargaining.

• Enduring dilemma: how to keep NATO from becoming either a US protectorate or a dysfunctional talk shop.

• INF as a catalyst for discussions about European strategic autonomy within a NATO framework.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political (Alliance): Burden-sharing complaints and leadership demands strained cohesion; endogenous; partially addressed via symbolic and institutional reforms.

• Information: Need to convince skeptical publics that NATO was not blocking peace; addressed through communiqués and public diplomacy.

• Resource: Threats of troop withdrawals used as leverage but risked eroding deterrence; endogenous; a bargaining tool with potential strategic costs.

---

Chapter 11: Who’s Afraid of Gorbachev?

Summary:

This chapter tracks the transformative impact of Mikhail Gorbachev’s rise and “new thinking” on the INF dispute (pp. 216–220).  Initially, many Western leaders feared that his activism and charm offensive would split the alliance by appealing directly to European publics and offering attractive yet risky deals. Gorbachev’s initiatives—including unilateral moratoria, sweeping arms control proposals, and willingness eventually to accept the zero option—changed the negotiating landscape. Colbourn shows how Reagan and his advisers moved from skepticism to engagement, culminating in the Reykjavik summit and subsequent dedicated INF negotiations (pp. 216–222).  The chapter underscores that Gorbachev’s domestic agenda—reallocating resources, reducing military burdens, and recasting Soviet foreign policy—made him unusually willing to accept asymmetrical cuts and intrusive verification. NATO leaders had to adjust their own strategies, worried that Gorbachev might “outflank” them diplomatically even as they welcomed opportunities to eliminate Euromissiles.

Key Points:

• Gorbachev represented both a threat and an opportunity: potentially splitting NATO while offering real arms control.

• Soviet domestic reforms and economic pressures underpinned his readiness to accept INF elimination.

• Reykjavik showed how near-total disarmament ideas could be floated, scaring both allies and Soviet hawks.

• INF negotiations become a crucible for testing verification regimes and asymmetrical reductions.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Adversary adaptation radically reshapes the value of existing capabilities (INF missiles) from assets to bargaining chips.

• Arms control as part of a broader grand strategy shift, not just a narrow negotiation.

• Alliance fears of being outmaneuvered diplomatically by an adversary who suddenly looks more reasonable.

Limits Map (mini):

• Strategic: Gorbachev’s willingness to accept the zero option removed the rationale for INF deployments as bargaining chips; exogenous shift; forced NATO to rethink future posture.

• Intelligence/Information: Western uncertainty about Gorbachev’s intentions constrained how far leaders were willing to go; gradually relaxed through repeated summits.

• Political (Alliance): European leaders had to manage domestic enthusiasm for Gorbachev while safeguarding NATO cohesion.

---

Chapter 12: Blast from the Past

Summary:

“Blast from the Past” shows that even as INF missiles were being eliminated, NATO returned to familiar fights over short-range nuclear forces (SNF), raising fears that old patterns were repeating (pp. 240–244).  Plans to modernize systems like Lance and deploy new SNF revived debates about nuclear war on German soil and a “nuclear-free corridor” in Central Europe. Critics warned that eliminating INF while upgrading SNF made little sense and undermined the political gains of the INF Treaty. Colbourn describes how these controversies intersected with German unification, changing threat perceptions, and debates about NATO’s future role. Ultimately, SNF modernization was shelved, and NATO began to redefine nuclear weapons as truly weapons of last resort in the 1990 strategic concept (pp. 240–246, 265–267).   The chapter highlights path dependence: despite learning from Euromissiles, the alliance almost walked back into another crisis over European-based nuclear systems.

Key Points:

• SNF debates illustrated Euromissile déjà vu: similar issues of basing, escalation, and public consent.

• Critics argued that modernizing SNF after INF elimination undercut the political legitimacy gains of arms control.

• German unification and Warsaw Pact collapse changed the geography and politics of risk, making forward-based nukes harder to justify (pp. 265–267).

• NATO eventually moved toward a “last resort” nuclear posture and deeper reductions.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Selective learning: elites recognized some political pitfalls but underestimated how persistent nuclear anxieties were.

• Aligning force posture with new strategic realities (no Warsaw Pact, unified Germany) lagged behind events.

• The difficulty of truly exiting from nuclear reliance once it is deeply embedded in alliance identity.

Limits Map (mini):

• Political (Domestic & Alliance): German and broader European resistance to hosting new SNF made modernization implausible; exogenous; ultimately forced policy reversal.

• Strategic: Disappearance of the Warsaw Pact eroded justification for forward-deployed SNF; exogenous; required new strategic concept.

• Resource/Time: Peace dividend pressures pushed toward defense cuts, not new nuclear investment.

---

Conclusion: Time and Chance

Summary:

In “Time and Chance,” Colbourn reflects on the Euromissiles story as an illustration of NATO’s fragility and resilience (pp. 261–267).   She argues that the Euromissiles debate nearly destroyed NATO because it laid bare the contradictions of relying on nuclear weapons for the defense of democratic societies. The INF Treaty eliminated 2,692 missiles but did not end the alliance’s dependence on nuclear deterrence or resolve underlying tensions about parity, burden-sharing, and German centrality (pp. 261–265).  Instead, it inaugurated a new era in which nuclear weapons were redefined as weapons of last resort and NATO began expanding eastward, partly to sustain political support and manage German power in a unified Europe (pp. 265–267).  Colbourn emphasizes contingency—Gorbachev’s reforms, domestic politics, and narrow parliamentary margins—as decisive in averting a NATO crackup. She suggests that contemporary debates over missile defense, renewed INF-range systems, and NATO enlargement all bear the imprint of the Euromissiles crisis. The concluding message is that technological solutions cannot substitute for careful attention to alliance cohesion, domestic legitimacy, and the persistent dangers inherent in nuclear strategy.

Key Points:

• Euromissiles crisis almost fractured NATO but also prompted adaptations that kept it viable.

• INF Treaty was a watershed but not an endpoint for nuclear dilemmas.

• NATO’s post–Cold War evolution, including enlargement and a “last resort” nuclear doctrine, is rooted in Euromissiles-era experiences.

• Contingency and “time and chance” mattered as much as structural factors.

Cross-Cutting Themes:

• Continuing tension between deterrence and democracy.

• Arms control as a form of crisis management and alliance repair, not just bilateral US–Soviet engineering.

• Lessons about the limits of missile and nuclear solutions for enduring political problems.

Limits Map (mini):

• Strategic: Even after INF, NATO cannot entirely escape nuclear deterrence; endogenous; partially mitigated by doctrinal downgrading and reductions.

• Political: Alliance and domestic politics remain fragile; Euromissiles episodes serve as cautionary tales for future missile decisions.

• Adversary Adaptation: Soviet collapse eliminated one set of constraints while creating new uncertainties (Russia, new members), reminding strategists that limits and opportunities shift with political change.

---

🧱 Limits Typology (case-specific)

For the whole case, major limits and adaptations:

• Political (Domestic & Alliance):

  • Source: Exogenous (electorates, protests) and endogenous (coalition design, NATO consensual rules).

  • Adjustability: Partly relaxable via messaging, burden-sharing, and arms control, but fundamentally hard limits on what nuclear postures publics will tolerate.

  • Effects: Strategic and political—determined whether deployments could proceed (e.g., Dutch/British/German votes) and whether deterrent posture was credible.

  • Adaptations: Delay/deferral strategies, internal NATO consultations, unilateral warhead cuts, linkage of deployments to negotiations.

• Legal/Normative:

  • Source: Nuclear taboo, humanitarian concerns, NPT obligations, and evolving norms about limited nuclear war.

  • Adjustability: Largely fixed; could be obscured but not overridden without backlash.

  • Effects: Strategic—undermined doctrines premised on frequent or limited nuclear use (neutron bomb, SNF).

  • Adaptations: Movement toward “last resort” framing; emphasis on deterrence-by-existence rather than detailed nuclear warfighting concepts.

• Strategic:

  • Source: Nuclear parity, gray-area dilemmas, fear of decoupling, escalation risk.

  • Adjustability: Managed via flexible response, Dual Track, and arms control, but never fully solved.

  • Effects: Guided force structure decisions (INF deployments, SNF debates), negotiation positions, and alliance messaging.

  • Adaptations: Adopt MC 14/3; create HLG and Special Group; INF Treaty eliminating entire category.

• Operational:

  • Source: Basing rights, host-nation politics, logistics of deploying and protecting missiles, command and control.

  • Adjustability: Flexible in principle (alternative basing, sea-based options) but politically constrained (sea-based viewed as impractical and strategically ambiguous).

  • Effects: Determined which allies hosted missiles and thus bore political and physical risk.

  • Adaptations: Consolidation of Pershing II in FRG; use of UK/Italy as hosts; rejection of sea-based INF options.

• Technological/Capability:

  • Source: Characteristics of SS‑20, Pershing II, GLCMs, SNF; accuracy, range, mobility, warning time.

  • Adjustability: Technology choices are endogenous but path-dependent; once selected, hard to reverse quickly.

  • Effects: Shaped perceptions of first-strike risk, deep-strike capacity, and crisis stability (Pershing II’s short flight time, GLCM stealth).

  • Adaptations: Move from bomber-centric to mixed missile/air posture; eventually eliminate INF via treaty.

• Intelligence/Information:

  • Source: Disputes over numbers, warheads vs launchers, Soviet intentions, and public understanding of nuclear strategy.

  • Adjustability: Improved data possible, but political use of numbers remained.

  • Effects: Framed narratives about “gaps” and “imbalances”; misperception risk heightened fears.

  • Adaptations: Use of HLG analyses; public information campaigns; yet also continued propaganda battles.

• Adversary Adaptation:

  • Source: Soviet SS‑20 deployments, propaganda, walkout from INF talks, and later Gorbachev’s “new thinking.”

  • Adjustability: Exogenous; NATO could only respond.

  • Effects: Soviet propaganda exploited Western domestic divisions; Gorbachev’s concessions transformed INF from stalemate to opportunity.

  • Adaptations: NATO stayed the course on deployments, then pivoted quickly to seize INF Treaty opportunity.

• Resource/Time:

  • Source: Economic constraints, industrial production timelines, and multi-year lag between decision and deployment.

  • Adjustability: Some budget flexibility, but large macro limits; physics of production and training imposed hard time lags.

  • Effects: Gave opponents time to mobilize; made course corrections costly; created windows where negotiations and deployments were out of sync.

  • Adaptations: Use of delays as bargaining tools; leaning into lag to encourage Soviet concessions before full deployment.

---

📏 Measures of Effectiveness (MoE)

• What they tracked then:

  • Numbers of missiles, launchers, and warheads by range band (especially comparing SS‑20s vs NATO’s 572 planned warheads) (p. 94).

  • Indicators of alliance unity: unanimity in communiqués, participation in Nuclear Planning Group, basing commitments.

  • Public opinion trends (support/opposition to deployments, size of protests).

  • Negotiation milestones: whether Soviets accepted particular formulas (zero option, global ceilings), presence/absence at the table (“empty chair”).

• Better MoE today (with rationale):

  • Alliance cohesion index: durability of basing agreements, parliamentary vote margins, and persistence of coalition governments.

  • Crisis stability metrics: warning time, decapitation risk, and command-and-control robustness rather than just warhead counts.

  • Legitimacy measures: degree to which publics understand and accept nuclear posture; presence of enduring domestic consensus.

  • Arms control durability: strength of verification regimes, compliance records, and resilience to political shocks.

• Evidence summary:

  • Colbourn provides rich qualitative evidence that more warheads did not necessarily increase security; instead, they often increased political fragility while serving mostly symbolic roles (pp. 94–95, 174–179, 261–265).

  • INF missiles were effective as bargaining chips—they helped bring about a treaty—but their military contribution to warfighting remained ambiguous and contested.

  • At the strategic level, the “success” of INF is measured less in deterrence outcomes (no war either way) than in the treaty’s role in stabilizing the alliance and reshaping the nuclear landscape.

---

🤷‍♂️ Actors & Perspectives

NATO (Institution)

• Role / position: Collective defense alliance; forum for decisions on strategy, nuclear policy, and arms control.

• Key perspectives / assumptions: Security requires both military strength and détente (Harmel formula); US strategic forces must be visibly coupled to European defense; consensus is vital to legitimacy.

• Evolution of stance: From early flexible response enthusiasm to uneasy defense of its ambiguities; from viewing modernization as routine to recognizing that deployments could fracture the alliance.

• Influence on outcomes: NATO’s procedures (NPG, HLG, Special Group) structured the Dual-Track Decision and gave smaller states leverage over basing and negotiation positions.

United States (Presidents Carter & Reagan, broader establishment)

• Role / position: Lead NATO power, provider of extended deterrence, main proponent of modernization and chief negotiator with the USSR.

• Key perspectives / assumptions: Nuclear modernization necessary to shore up alliance credibility and deter Soviet coercion; domestic and allied politics can be managed if consulted properly; missiles can double as bargaining chips.

• Evolution of stance: Carter moved from moral discomfort and indecision (neutron bomb) to carefully packaged Dual Track; Reagan shifted from confrontational rhetoric to serious engagement on zero option and INF elimination.

• Influence on outcomes: US leadership was decisive in crafting Dual Track, sustaining deployments under pressure, and ultimately concluding the INF Treaty—but also repeatedly endangered alliance cohesion through missteps and mixed messaging.

Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) – Schmidt & Kohl

• Role / position: Frontline state, primary INF basing country, and political pivot of the alliance.

• Key perspectives / assumptions: Security hinges on credible US nuclear commitment; any sign of decoupling is existential; Germany must support both defense and détente; German territory is the likely nuclear battlefield.

• Evolution of stance: Schmidt pushed hard on parity and gray-area concerns, then was politically consumed by Euromissiles; Kohl inherited deployments, faced mass protests and SPD opposition, but stayed the course with crucial foreign backing (e.g., Mitterrand).

• Influence on outcomes: German fears about parity and decoupling drove much of the modernization agenda; Bundestag decisions and German public opinion were decisive in both enabling deployments and pressing for arms control.

Soviet Union / Gorbachev

• Role / position: Principal adversary, deploying SS‑20s, later negotiating INF and broader arms control.

• Key perspectives / assumptions: Warsaw Pact security requires theater nuclear and conventional superiority; propaganda and influence ops can shape Western public opinion; under Gorbachev, security can be better achieved through reductions and “new thinking.”

• Evolution of stance: From Brezhnev-era modernization and exploitation of Western dissent (neutron bomb, anti-INF protests) to Gorbachev-era willingness to accept asymmetrical cuts and radical proposals.

• Influence on outcomes: Soviet deployments triggered NATO responses; Soviet propaganda constrained Western politics; Gorbachev’s policy revolution made INF elimination possible and changed the trajectory of the Cold War.

Peace Movements / Transnational Activists

• Role / position: Anti-nuclear campaigners, NGOs, church groups, intellectuals, student movements.

• Key perspectives / assumptions: Nuclear war is unwinnable and morally unacceptable; deterrence is unstable; security must be mutual (common security).

• Evolution of stance: From focusing on specific systems (neutron bomb, Euromissiles) to more systemic critiques of nuclear strategy and NATO itself.

• Influence on outcomes: Dramatically raised political costs of deployments; shaped public discourse; provided leverage to arms control advocates; forced NATO to embed arms control into its legitimacy strategy.

Smaller NATO Allies (Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Canada)

• Role / position: Hosts or potential hosts of missiles; key to alliance consensus and legitimacy.

• Key perspectives / assumptions: Support NATO and US leadership but protect domestic political stability; value détente and arms control; wary of becoming nuclear “front-line” states.

• Evolution of stance: From reluctant acceptance of Dual Track to increasingly conditional and delayed commitments; repeatedly used arms control concessions and warhead cuts as conditions for hosting.

• Influence on outcomes: Fence-sitting, deferrals, and parliamentary constraints forced the US and major allies to offer concessions and shaped the final basing and negotiation package.

---

🕰 Timeline of Major Events

• 1967 — Harmel Report & adoption of flexible response (MC 14/3) — NATO formally embraces dual track of defense and détente and a strategy of graduated nuclear response, anchoring later Euromissiles logic (pp. 22–23, 26–29).

• 1972 — SALT I & ABM Treaty — Codify elements of US–Soviet parity, fueling European fears of decoupling and shifting NATO debates toward theater systems and arms control (Chapter 2 context).

• 1977 — Neutron bomb controversy erupts — Carter’s waffling and eventual deferral showcase alliance indecision and public backlash, providing a template for later Euromissile politics and the package approach (pp. 69–83, 89–90).   [Inflection point: first large-scale exposure of flexible response’s political fragility.]

• 1977-10 — Helmut Schmidt’s London speech (Buchan lecture) — Warns of Eurostrategic imbalance and challenges US to address parity and gray-area threats, widely seen as conceptual starting point of Euromissiles crisis (pp. 84–85).

• 1979-12-12 — NATO Dual-Track Decision — Allies agree to deploy 572 INF warheads (Pershing II and GLCMs) while offering arms control negotiations, institutionalizing modernization-plus-negotiation as alliance policy (pp. 90–91, 94–95, 108–109).   [Inflection point: formal commitment to Euromissile deployments.]

• 1981–1983 — Peak of peace movement mobilization — Massive protests, church campaigns, and transnational activism turn INF into a central domestic political issue, constraining NATO governments (Chapter 6 context).

• 1983-11 — Bundestag vote & first INF deployments — FRG approves deployments; Pershing II and GLCMs begin arriving; Soviet Union walks out of INF talks, creating the “empty chair” (Chs. 9–10).   [Inflection point: from planned to actual deployments, and from bargaining chip to destabilizing reality.]

• 1986-10 — Reykjavik Summit — Reagan and Gorbachev nearly agree to sweeping nuclear reductions; INF emerges as a feasible, discrete deal; verification and asymmetry debates intensify (Ch. 11).

• 1987-12-08 — INF Treaty signed — US and USSR agree to eliminate all ground-launched missiles with ranges 500–5,500 km, removing Euromissiles and SS‑20s from Europe and marking a major arms control breakthrough (pp. 261–263).  [Inflection point: first elimination of an entire class of nuclear delivery systems.]

• 1989–1990 — Fall of Berlin Wall & German unification — Transform European security; SNF debates take on new salience as arguments for forward-based nukes erode (Ch. 12, conclusion).

• 1990–1991 — London/ Rome summits & new strategic concept — NATO invites ex–Warsaw Pact states to consult, creates the North Atlantic Cooperation Council, and codifies nuclear weapons as weapons of last resort (pp. 265–267).

---

📖 Historiographical Context

• Colbourn positions Euromissiles against earlier accounts that treat the INF crisis as primarily a bilateral US–Soviet story or as a success of Western resolve alone. She argues instead for a triangular history of US, European allies, and peace movements, with the Soviet Union as both adversary and influencer.

• She engages with works emphasizing Helmut Schmidt’s 1977 speech as the crisis genesis, showing that West German angst and gray-area concerns predated that moment and that the neutron bomb affair was a crucial precursor (pp. 84–85, 89–90).

• Colbourn also challenges triumphalist narratives that credit NATO’s deployments for “winning” the Cold War; she highlights Gorbachev’s domestic constraints and agency, and the contingent nature of the INF outcome (Ch. 11, conclusion).

• Her work complements synthesis volumes like Lawrence Freedman’s Evolution of Nuclear Strategy by providing a micro-level, alliance-centered account of how doctrines like flexible response actually played out in political practice.

• She contributes to scholarship on transnational activism by showing how peace movements interacted with superpower diplomacy and alliance politics, not merely reflecting them.

---

🧩 Frameworks & Methods

• Levels of analysis:

  • Strategic: NATO’s grand strategy (defense and détente), extended deterrence, parity, and arms control.

  • Operational: Basing, command-and-control arrangements, HLG and Special Group planning, deep-strike concepts.

  • Political: Domestic coalitions, party system dynamics (SPD, Greens, peace movements), alliance bargaining.

• Key conceptual frameworks:

  • Flexible response (MC 14/3): A ladder of nuclear and conventional options intended to preserve credibility in the face of parity (pp. 26–29).

  • Gray areas / Eurostrategic balance: Weapons whose range and characteristics blur the strategic–theater boundary (Ch. 3).

  • Strategy of balance: FRG concept that parity and coupling must be maintained across range bands and domains (pp. 84–85).

  • Dual-Track Decision: Institutionalized logic of simultaneous modernization and negotiation, echoing the Harmel Report.

  • Common security: Palme Commission’s idea that security can only be mutual and cooperative, not zero-sum (pp. 159–160).

• Instruments of power & roles:

  • Missile power (INF, SNF): Deep strike, deterrence, bargaining chips; overlaps with classical strategic attack roles of airpower.

  • Airpower: Dual-capable aircraft and bomber forces remain in the background as alternatives and complements; debates over replacing Pershing I vs. relying more on aircraft highlight trade-offs (pp. 94–95, 122–123).

  • Naval power: Sea-based options considered but rejected as politically and operationally cumbersome (p. 94).

• Methods & sources:

  • Multi-archival research in NATO member states, extensive use of diplomatic cables, staff memoranda, meeting minutes, and oral histories.

  • Thick description of elite decision-making combined with attention to pamphlets, speeches, and protest ephemera to reconstruct public discourse.

---

🔄 Learning Over Time (within the book & vs. prior SAASS 628 cases)

• What shifted?

  • From seeing nuclear weapons as flexible tools of warfighting and escalation control to recognizing them as politically and morally constrained instruments, eventually redefined as last-resort (Ch. 8, conclusion).

  • From assuming modernization could be handled through elite diplomacy to acknowledging that public consent and peace movements were unavoidable strategic variables.

  • From viewing arms control as a secondary adjunct to deterrence to treating it as a central component of alliance legitimacy and cohesion.

• What persisted?

  • Persistent fear of decoupling and Eurostrategic vulnerability in German and other European thinking, even after INF.

  • Enduring reliance on nuclear weapons as a low-cost substitute for large conventional forces, especially under resource constraints.

• What was (mis)learned?

  • NATO partially internalized lessons about domestic constraints but still nearly repeated the same mistakes in the SNF debates (“blast from the past”).

  • Some US and European elites drew a triumphalist conclusion—“deploy and negotiate” always works—that may obscure the contingency and Gorbachev-specific factors that made INF possible.

  • Compared with earlier SAASS 628 readings on early Cold War nuclear strategy (e.g., Freedman), Euromissiles shows that doctrine on paper can diverge sharply from how strategy functions in the messy politics of alliances and democratic societies.

---

🧐 Critical Reflections

• Strengths:

  • Exceptionally rich archival base across multiple countries and institutions; the alliance politics are textured and convincing.

  • Integrates high politics with social movements, avoiding both purely elite and purely grassroots narratives.

  • Shows how technical and doctrinal debates (range, warning time, “seamless robe of deterrence”) play out in parliaments, protests, and negotiations.

• Weaknesses / Blind spots:

  • Airpower as such is underdeveloped; missiles and nuclear politics dominate, leaving less explicit reflection on air forces’ doctrinal adaptation.

  • The Soviet operational perspective outside of leadership circles is thinner than the NATO side; Warsaw Pact military views of INF are less fully reconstructed.

  • Colbourn sometimes underplays alternative futures in which deployments fail—useful for wargaming analogies—even though she acknowledges narrow margins.

• Unresolved questions:

  • To what extent did INF deployments truly shape Soviet decision-making versus Gorbachev’s domestic imperatives?

  • Could a more radical embrace of common security have produced similar or better outcomes without the political trauma of deployments?

---

⚔️ Comparative Insights (link to prior course readings)

• Versus early nuclear strategy theorists (e.g., Brodie, Schelling, Freedman):

  Euromissiles illustrates how elegant concepts—deterrence by punishment, the “threat that leaves something to chance,” flexible response—encounter the hard edges of democratic politics. Colbourn’s narrative shows that what looks coherent in strategy texts becomes ambiguous when translated into specific weapons (neutron bombs, Pershing II) and basing decisions that people must live with.

• Versus earlier Cold War crises (Berlin, Cuba):

  Where Berlin and Cuba involved acute, short crises with high risk of war, Euromissiles is a protracted, diffuse crisis in which domestic protest, alliance bargaining, and arms control gradually reshape the strategic environment. It suggests that in long crises, limits arising from legitimacy and alliance cohesion matter at least as much as military balances.

• For airpower studies:

  Compared to bomber-centric accounts, Euromissiles demonstrates that long-range missiles can usurp classic airpower missions (deep strike, strategic attack) while introducing new problems of warning time and crisis stability that differ from manned aircraft operations.

---

✍️ Key Terms / Acronyms

• INF: Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (500–5,500 km), eliminated by 1987 INF Treaty.

• LRTNF / TNF: Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces / Theater Nuclear Forces; NATO’s category for systems like Pershing II and GLCMs.

• GLCM / Gryphon: Ground-Launched Cruise Missile; NATO’s INF-range cruise system.

• SS‑20: Soviet intermediate-range ballistic missile (RSD‑10), central to gray-area debates.

• Flexible response (MC 14/3): NATO 1967 strategy allowing graduated response from conventional to nuclear.

• Gray-area weapons: Systems between traditional tactical and strategic categories, especially SS‑20 and NATO INF.

• Dual-Track Decision: 1979 NATO decision to both deploy INF and seek arms control on those systems.

• Common security: Concept that states can only be secure through mutual, cooperative arrangements.

• SNF: Short-Range Nuclear Forces, e.g., Lance missile, debated after INF.

• HLG / NPG: High Level Group and Nuclear Planning Group; NATO bodies for nuclear policy and planning.

---

❓ Open Questions (for seminar)

• What role did nuclear weapons play in NATO’s strategy of Flexible Response?

  Nuclear weapons were the linchpin of flexible response: they compensated for NATO’s conventional inferiority, enabled a forward defense posture, and served as the visible coupling between European security and US strategic forces (pp. 26–29, 33–34).   Theater systems—dual-capable aircraft, Pershing I, later Pershing II and GLCMs—filled the “gray area” between artillery and ICBMs, providing intermediate rungs on the escalation ladder. Politically, they reassured frontline allies (especially the FRG) that the US would risk nuclear war for Europe rather than keeping war “limited” to European soil. Yet the same weapons exposed flexible response’s contradictions: once publics understood that strategy rested on potentially “usable” nukes, legitimacy eroded (pp. 69–72, 153–160).

• Why did the United States deploy theater nuclear missiles only to dismantle them a few years later?

  Washington deployed INF missiles to address perceived Eurostrategic imbalance, reassure allies after the neutron bomb fiasco, and restore bargaining leverage with the USSR—Dual Track was explicitly described as a political exercise (p. 91).  Once deployed, however, missiles became both political liabilities and powerful bargaining chips. Gorbachev’s “new thinking” and domestic imperatives made him willing to accept the zero option, and INF elimination offered the West a way to ease alliance tensions, respond to peace movements, and stabilize East–West relations (Ch. 11, conclusion). In that sense, the missiles did their work once: they demonstrated alliance resolve and then were traded away to remove a destabilizing class of systems and repair NATO’s political fabric.

• Were these missiles instruments of airpower?

  Operationally, INF missiles performed many classic airpower roles—deep strike against Soviet military districts, potential decapitation of leadership targets, and deterrent signaling—without relying on manned aircraft (p. 94 and note on “deep strike”).   They circumvented air defenses and compressed timelines in ways that traditional bombers did not. Yet institutionally they were mostly Army-controlled land-based systems, and NATO often conceptually separated “theater nuclear forces” from conventional air forces. For SAASS purposes, they can be treated as part of the broader aerospace strike complex, shifting some strategic attack functions from aircraft to missiles while creating new challenges for air planners (warning time, C2 integration, target deconfliction with air assets).

• What challenges did long-range missiles pose for airpower strategists?

  First, INF missiles competed with bombers as the preferred means of deep strike, threatening to marginalize parts of the air force’s traditional strategic role. Second, Pershing II’s very short flight times exacerbated crisis instability and raised fears of decapitation, complicating escalation control and demanding more robust early-warning and C2 architectures than airpower alone had required. Third, gray-area missiles blurred domain boundaries and classification schemes, making it harder to plan integrated campaigns: should deep-strike tasks be allocated to aircraft, land-based missiles, or naval platforms, and under whose command? Finally, missiles’ political salience—basing controversies, protests—forced airpower strategists to reckon with host-nation politics and domestic legitimacy in ways bomber basing had sometimes avoided.

• What challenges do long-range missiles pose today?

  In a post-INF world, renewed development of land-based INF-range systems, hypersonic weapons, and dual-capable missiles resurrects many Euromissiles-era dilemmas: compressed decision times, blurred conventional–nuclear boundaries, and vulnerability of fixed bases. For airpower strategists, long-range missiles now form part of both friendly and adversary A2/AD complexes, threatening forward airbases and C2 nodes. They complicate escalation management—particularly where dual-capable systems make intent opaque—and challenge arms control frameworks designed around Cold War categories. Euromissiles suggests that any contemporary missile posture must account not only for range and CEP but also for alliance politics, domestic consent, and the risk that weapons intended to strengthen deterrence can instead destabilize it politically and strategically.

• Additional seminar prompts:

  • How far can an alliance rely on nuclear weapons that publics view as unusable?

  • What are the trade-offs between using missiles and aircraft for theater nuclear missions?

  • Could NATO have achieved similar deterrent and political effects with different mixes of conventional and nuclear forces?

---

🗂 Notable Quotes & Thoughts

• “Nuclear weapons offered a way out, making it possible to endorse a forward strategy as far east as possible without the considerable political and financial costs of matching the massive standing armies of the Soviet bloc.” (p. 6) — Captures how nuclear weapons underwrote NATO strategy while planting the seeds of later legitimacy crises.

• “The entire affair… made it clear that [flexible response’s] sense of uncertainty came with political costs.” (on the neutron bomb) (p. 89) — Shows how doctrines built on ambiguity collide with democratic expectations for clarity.

• “Some TNF modernization may be useful, but this is primarily a political exercise which requires more careful management.” (internal US memo on Dual Track) (p. 91) — A candid admission that modernization was about alliance psychology, not just military need.

• “The Gryphons and Pershing IIs would serve as a visible reminder of the coupling links that bound the defense of Europe to that of North America.” (p. 94) — Missiles as political symbols of extended deterrence, not mere hardware.

• “Common Security argued that doctrines which postulate fighting limited nuclear wars create the illusion of control.” (p. 159–160) — Key intellectual challenge to air/missile-based warfighting strategies.

• “The neutron bomb affair proved a critical turning point… It became impossible to ignore how precipitously West German confidence in the president and in the protection of the US extended deterrent had fallen.” (p. 105–106) — Demonstrates how quickly trust in extended deterrence can erode.

• “The debate over the Euromissiles nearly destroyed NATO.” (p. 262) — The author’s distilled judgment of the crisis’s significance.

---

🧾 Final‑Paper Hooks

• Claim 1: The Euromissiles crisis reveals that nuclear strategy in alliances is governed less by the logic of deterrence theory than by the politics of legitimacy and cohesion.

  • Evidence/quotes/pages:

    • Dual Track described as “primarily a political exercise” (p. 91).

    • Neutron bomb and Euromissile debates showing flexible response’s political costs (pp. 71–72, 89).

    • Peace movement and electoral dynamics constraining basing decisions (Chs. 6–9).

  • Counterarguments to handle:

    • Real military benefits of deeper strike options and the view that deployments forced Soviet concessions.

• Claim 2: INF-range missiles functioned as partial substitutes for airpower’s deep-strike role, but at the cost of heightened crisis instability and escalatory ambiguity.

  • Evidence/quotes/pages:

    • HLG’s definition of deep strike and selection of Pershing II and GLCMs (p. 94 and associated note).

    • Concerns about warning time and decapitation associated with Pershing II (Chs. 5, 9).

  • Counterarguments:

    • Airpower advocates’ claims that aircraft remained more flexible, recallable, and politically controllable than missiles.

• Claim 3: The INF Treaty’s success depended as much on adversary political change (Gorbachev’s “new thinking”) and domestic movements as on NATO’s resolve, cautioning against simplistic “we deployed, they caved” narratives.

  • Evidence/quotes/pages:

    • Gorbachev’s arms control initiatives and willingness to accept the zero option (Ch. 11).

    • Peace movements and common security discourse reshaping political space (Chs. 6, 8).

    • Conclusion emphasizing contingency and “time and chance” (pp. 261–267).

  • Counterarguments:

    • Interpretations crediting NATO deployments alone for Soviet concessions; must acknowledge how deployments and political change interacted.

• Claim 4: For future limited wars and missile deployments, Euromissiles suggests that strategic planners must integrate public consent, alliance bargaining, and arms control design into campaign planning from the outset.

  • Evidence/quotes/pages:

    • Neutron bomb and INF as case studies in how ignoring domestic politics cripples modernization (Chs. 4–5, 6–9).

    • Washington Statement and later strategic concepts tying arms control and alliance identity (Ch. 10, conclusion).

  • Counterarguments:

    • Claims that public opinion is too volatile to incorporate formally; responses could use Colbourn’s demonstration that it constrains outcomes whether planned for or not.