000			03175nam a2200409Ii 4500
001			14855718
003			SE-LIBR
005			20131212084727.0
006			m o d f
007			cr bn|||||||||
008			131211s2013 xxua ob |000 0 eng d
020			_a1584875909
020			_a9781584875901
040			_aAWC _dEWF _dSipr
041			_aeng
100	1		_aWhitmore, Steven J
245	1	0	_aNATO missile defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach : _bthe implications of burden sharing and the underappreciated role of the U.S. Army / _cSteven J. Whitmore, John R. Deni. _h[electronic resource]
246	3		_aNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization missile defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach
246	3		_aImplications of burden sharing and the underappreciated role of the US Army
246	3		_aImplications of burden sharing and the underappreciated role of the United States Army
260			_aCarlisle, PA : _bStrategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press, _c[2013]
300			_a1 online resource (xii, 53 p.) : _bill.
500			_a"October 2013." ; SIP1312
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (pages 39-53).
505	0		_aIntroduction -- NATO's decision to expand missile defense -- European public opinion -- Defense budget challenges -- The technical challenges of ballistic missile defense -- So why did the allies agree? -- Allied contributions to date -- The Army's role in NATO ballistic missile defense -- Implications for the Army and the U.S. military -- Conclusion.
520			_aIn 2010, NATO decided to expand its ballistic missile defense program, in part because of the American offer to include its European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) as the centerpiece of an expanded effort. For the Allies' part, few have actually contributed tangible ballistic missile defense assets, in terms of missile interceptors, radars or other sensors, or ballistic missile defense-related platforms. This is likely to have significant implications for the U.S. Army, which has an important but largely underappreciated role in NATO missile defense today. In particular, the Army is likely to face increased manpower demands, materiel requirements, and training needs in order to meet the demand signal created by the NATO ballistic missile defense program. Additionally, Army units involved directly in or in support of ballistic missile defense are likely to face a higher OPTEMPO than currently projected. Ultimately, this will exacerbate the perceived imbalance in transatlantic burden-sharing, particularly if the EPAA provides little, if any, benefit to the defense of U.S. territory, given Washington's decision to cancel Phase 4 of that framework.
650		0	_aNATO _xmissile defence _zEurope
650		0	_aballistic missiles _zUSA
650		0	_amilitary expenditure _xburdensharing
651		0	_aUSA _xarmed forces _zEurope
651		0	_aEurope _xBMD
700	1		_aDeni, John R
710	2		_aArmy War College (U.S.). _bStrategic Studies Institute,
852			_hCD2013 G13_546
856	4	0	_uhttp://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/download.cfm?q=1172
942			_cEMON
999			_c78369 _d78369