ABSTRACT
The terms "conventional stability" and "conventional parity" continue to be confused in the public debate. The conventional stability and structural arms control are only partially related. The availability of long-range firepower might be an ingredient in a more stable conventional posture. Ruminations about North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) conventional deterrent have been largely academic, because they have taken place in a nuclear context. Technically, the classical function of battlefield nuclear weapons—preventing enemy force concentrations—could be fulfilled by a new generation of conventional weapons systems. For good reasons, NATO has always insisted that any conventional effort must be seen in connection with the nuclear issue. The view that conventional deterrence is unworkable will continue to be challenged, of course. The idea of a perfectly stable conventional defense will continue to be so attractive as to remain a constant companion of NATO's strategic discourse.
