MARC Record from harvard_bibliographic_metadata

LEADER: 03472nam a2200457Ii 4500
001 013854378-X
005 20140322021330.0
006 m o d f
008 131022s2013 paua ob f000 0 eng d
020 $a1584875909
020 $a9781584875901
035 0 $aocn861231535
040 $aAWC$beng$erda$cAWC
050 4 $aUG745.E85$bN38 2013
100 1 $aWhitmore, Steven J.,$eauthor.
245 10 $aNATO missile defense and the European Phased Adaptive Approach :$bthe implications of burden sharing and the underappreciated role of the U.S. Army /$cSteven J. Whitmore, John R. Deni.
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
264 1 $aCarlisle, PA :$bStrategic Studies Institute and U.S. Army War College Press,$c[2013]
300 $a1 online resource (xii, 53 pages) :$billustrations
336 $atext$btxt$2rdacontent
337 $acomputer$bc$2rdamedia
338 $aonline resource$bcr$2rdacarrier
347 $atext file$bPDF$2rda
500 $a"October 2013."
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.
588 $aDescription based on online resource; title from PDF title page (SSI, viewed October 21, 2013).
610 20 $aNorth Atlantic Treaty Organization.
610 10 $aUnited States.$bArmy, Europe.
650 0 $aBallistic missile defenses$zEurope.
650 0 $aSecurity, International$zEurope.
650 0 $aNational security$xInternational cooperation.
700 1 $aDeni, John R.,$eauthor.
710 2 $aArmy War College (U.S.).$bStrategic Studies Institute,$epublisher.
710 2 $aArmy War College (U.S.).$bPress,$epublisher.
988 $a20131126
049 $aHVLA
906 $0OCLC