ABSTRACT
The European minimalist theory of deterrence may be wishful thinking, more a convenient rationale for doing less than an accurate appraisal of the East-West power relationship, but it seems to be the way Europeans understand North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and deterrence. NATO strategy is specifically designed to handle an admittedly more powerful adversary; it implies risk. Defense in depth and more mobile reserves would be the prudent military means to prevent such a catastrophe, but both depth for maneuver and mobile reserves are denied NATO field commanders whose forces are deployed in the Federal Republic of Germany. While the United States continues to debate seriously the relative importance of spending for social welfare as compared to spending for defense, this issue was settled a century ago in Europe. Sacrificing social welfare for defense spending in any situation short of war itself simply lacks a European constituency.
