"Security cooperation with Europe has been the bedrock of American strategy for more than 50 years. Today, that relationship is undergoing both stress and refinement as Europe moves toward a more unified political and security identity, and as the United States responds to a changing global security environment. While many issues have the potential to complicate U.S.-European security cooperation, few are more pressing than the U.S. pursuit of missile defense and Europe's construction of European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The author explains the relationship between missile defense and ESDP. He shows that, rather than serving as wedges between the United States and Europe, both of these can help construct a better security relationship. In fact, transatlantic cooperation and understanding of these issues is necessary for either of them to succeed."--SSI site.

Security cooperation with Europe has been the bedrock of American strategy for more than 50 years. Today, that relationship is undergoing both stress and refinement as Europe moves toward a more unified political and security identity, and as the United States responds to a changing global security environment. While many issues have the potential to complicate U.S.-European security cooperation, few are more pressing than the U.S. pursuit of missile defense and Europe's construction of European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). The author explains the relationship between missile defense and ESDP. He shows that, rather than serving as wedges between the United States and Europe, both of these can help construct a better security relationship. In fact, transatlantic cooperation and understanding of these issues is necessary for either of them to succeed.

Before the horrible terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, one could easily have had the impression that transatlantic security relations were in a crisis. The immediate and overwhelming fight against international terrorism, in the aftermath of New York and Washington DC, has brought Americans and Europeans closer together again. Yet, two "hot topics" are still likely to dominate the political debates across the Atlantic and Europe in the foreseeable future, and both sides find it increasingly difficult to achieve a consensus on these important security and defense issues. It seems as if politics on both continents are dominated by a strong unilateralism when it comes to future security aspects, although--as this monograph will hopefully and convincingly show-these so seemingly different projects can only be realized in cooperation. What, however, are these topics that seem to have considerably cooled the political climate between the United States and Europe? On the one hand, America fears that the prospect of creating a common European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) with robust and flexible military forces for the future could undermine the NATO alliance. On the other hand, Europe is tempted to believe that U.S. plans for a National Missile Defense (NMD), or more recently simply referred to as Missile Defense (MD), could seriously put global strategic balance at risk by creating a new arms race. In addition to that, Europe claims such a system would undermine the Atlantic alliance as well since it would create different spheres of security within NATO. Given that the claims of each side have some apparent merit, it is worthwhile to look deeper into these arguments. Despite the missile defense program still being in its technical and political infancy, it is currently the most hotly debated of the two programs. ESDP and MD-Getting Priorities Right. However, for the near future both sides of the Atlantic should focus with the same intensity, if not more, on the more eminent and realizable of the two projects: that is, creating capable European military forces to both strengthen NATO and enhance Europe's ability to operate with less heavy dependence on U.S. assets during multinational military operations. There looms the danger that the European goal of building military capacities could too easily be lost from sight through the overwhelming debate on MD. But just as important as missile defense is to protect against weapons of mass destruction by "states of concern," NATO, for instance, must be a strong and mission-ready alliance for future conflict resolution. The September 11 terrorist attacks and the following military fight against international terrorism in Afghanistan against the Taliban regime only give evidence to this. It is therefore necessary to stress that ESDP will not undermine NATO. Since the end of the Cold War, U.S. decisionmakers have repeatedly expressed their approval of a Europe with advanced military capabilities. Political pressure from the United States, as well as negative experiences during resolution of local conflicts of the 1990s, has shaped significantly European awareness that inherent advanced military capabilities are necessary in order to preserve and to stabilize NATO.

The emergence of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) in the last two-thirds of the 1990s and continuing into the new century, has been a complex process intertwining politics, economics, national cultures, and numerous institutions. This book provides an essential background for understanding how security issues as between NATO and the European Union are being posed for the early part of the 21st century, including the new circumstances following the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington on September 11, 2001. This study should be of interest to those interested in the evolution of U.S.-European relations, especially in, but not limited to, the security field; the development of institutional relationships; and key choices that lie ahead in regard to these critical arrangements.

Britain was the first country to come under sustained ballistic missile attack, during 1944-45. Defence against ballistic missiles has been a persistent, if highly variable, subject of political policy and technical investigation ever since. The British Second World War experience of trying to counter the V-2 attacks contained many elements of subsequent responses to ballistic missile threats. After the war, a reasonably accurate picture of Soviet missile capabilities was not achieved until the early 1960s, by which time the problem of early warning had largely been solved. From the mid-1960s on, British attention shifted away from the development of the country's own defences towards the wider consequences of US and Soviet deployments. After the end of the Cold War there was renewed interest in a limited active-defence capability against Third World missile threats. This well-researched book is primarily aimed at students of post-war British foreign and defence policies, but will also be of interest to informed general readers.

The author offers a detailed comparison between the character of irregular warfare, insurgency in particular, and the principal enduring features of "the American way." He concludes that there is a serious mismatch between that "way" and the kind of behavior that is most effective in countering irregular foes. The author poses the question, Can the American way of war adapt to a strategic threat context dominated by irregular enemies? He suggests that the answer is "perhaps, but only with difficulty."

Nigeria¿s future as a unified state is in jeopardy. Those who make or execute U.S. policy will find it difficult to advance U.S. interests in Africa without an understanding of the pressures that tear and bind Nigeria. Despite this, the centrifugal forces that tear at the country and the centripetal forces that have kept it whole are not well understood and rarely examined. After establishing Nigeria¿s importance to the United State as a cohesive and functioning state, this monograph examines the historic, religious, cultural, political, physical, demographic, and economic factors that will determine Nigeria¿s fate. It identifies the specific fault lines along which Nigeria may divide. It concludes with practical policy recommendations for the United States to support Nigerians in their efforts to maintain a functioning and integrated state, and, by so doing, advance U.S. interests.

Japan’s decision to attack the United States in 1941 is widely regarded as irrational to the point of suicidal. How could Japan hope to survive a war with, much less defeat, an enemy possessing an invulnerable homeland and an industrial base 10 times that of Japan? The Pacific War was one that Japan was always going to lose, so how does one explain Tokyo’s decision? Did the Japanese recognize the odds against them? Did they have a concept of victory, or at least of avoiding defeat? Or did the Japanese prefer a lost war to an unacceptable peace? Dr. Jeffrey Record takes a fresh look at Japan’s decision for war, and concludes that it was dictated by Japanese pride and the threatened economic destruction of Japan by the United States. He believes that Japanese aggression in East Asia was the root cause of the Pacific War, but argues that the road to war in 1941 was built on American as well as Japanese miscalculations and that both sides suffered from cultural ignorance and racial arrogance. Record finds that the Americans underestimated the role of fear and honor in Japanese calculations and overestimated the effectiveness of economic sanctions as a deterrent to war, whereas the Japanese underestimated the cohesion and resolve of an aroused American society and overestimated their own martial prowess as a means of defeating U.S. material superiority. He believes that the failure of deterrence was mutual, and that the descent of the United States and Japan into war contains lessons of great and continuing relevance to American foreign policy and defense decision-makers.