ABSTRACT
A radical alternative to the NATO doctrines is that of non-offensive defence (NOD). The commitment to offensive counter-air operations to gain air superiority, and the development of long-range high-precision weapons are similarly seen as dangerously pre-emptive: a conventional disarming strike against airfields, command, control, communications and intelligence assets and supply depots is not only possible but might constitute a war-winning move. The structural inability to undertake offensive operations – a key feature of NOD – creates a second set of problems. With no offensive capability, critics have questioned how territory lost to an enemy might be regained. Some ‘offensive’ capability, though, might be desirable to protect interests outside national territory. Most NOD schemes attempt to reduce the cost of defence through a smaller regular army, and the use of cheap weapons such as precision-guided munitions rather than multi-million-pound tanks and aircraft.
