The ‘Third’ US Offset Strategy and Europe’s ‘Anti-access’ Challenge

Bibliography

• Baev, Pavel K., ‘Greece’s Russian Fantasy; Russia’s European Delusion’, Brookings Institution, 8 July 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Barrass, Gordon, The Great Cold War: A Journey through the Hall of Mirrors (Stanford CA: Stanford UP 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Barry, Charles and Hans Binnendijk, ‘Widening Gaps in U.S. and European Defense Capabilities and Cooperation’, Transatlantic Current 6 (July 2012), 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Biddle, Stephen, ‘Victory Misunderstood: What the Gulf War Tells Us about the Future of Conflict’, International Security 21/2 (1996), 139–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, Ashton, ‘Building the First Link to the Force of the Future’, George Washington Elliott School of International Affairs, Washington, 18 November 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Carter, Ashton, ‘Submitted Statement to the Senate Armed Forces Committee (Budget Request)’, Washington, 3 March 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Chase, Michael S. and Andrew S. Erickson, ‘A Competitive Strategy with Chinese Characteristics? The Second Artillery’s Growing Conventional Forces and Missions’, in Thomas G. Mahnken (ed.), Competitive Strategies for the 21st Century: Theory, History and Practice (Stanford CA: Stanford UP, 2012), 206–18
   Google Scholar
• Clark, Ian, Nuclear Diplomacy and the Special Relationship: Britain’s Deterrent and America, 1957–1962 (Oxford: Oxford UP 1994).
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, Eliot A, ‘Change and Transformation in Military Affairs’, Journal of Strategic Studies 27/3 (2004), 395–407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, Eliot A, ‘A Revolution in Warfare’, Foreign Affairs 75/2 (1996), 37–54.
   Google Scholar
• Colby, Elbridge, ‘Nuclear Weapons in the Third Offset Strategy’, Center for a New American Security, February 2015.
   Google Scholar
• De Haas, Marcel, ‘Russia’s Military Reforms: Victory after Twenty Years of Failure’, Clingendael Report No. 5, November 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Dicke, Rachel A., Ryan C. Hendrickson and Steven Kutz, ‘NATO’s Mafia Ally: The Strategic Consequences of Bulgarian Corruption;, Comparative Strategy 33/3 (2014), 287–98.
   Google Scholar
• DoD,2001 Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Washington: 2001).
   Google Scholar
• DoD, The Defense Innovation Initiative (Washington, 2014).
   Google Scholar
• Dyson, Tom, ‘Between International Structure and Executive Autonomy: Convergence and Divergence in Post-Cold War British, French and German Military Reform’, Security Studies 17/4 (2004), 725–74.
   Google Scholar
• Erickson, Andrew S. and David D. Yang, ‘On the Verge of a Game Changer’, Proceedings 135/5 (2009), 26–32.
   Google Scholar
• Farquar, Scott C., Back to Basics: A Study of the Second Lebanon War and Operation CAST LEAD (Fort Leavenworth KS: Combat Studies Institute Press 2009).
   Google Scholar
• Friedberg, Aaron, A Contest for Supremacy: China, America and the Struggle for Mastery in Asia (New York: Norton 2011).
   Google Scholar
• Gessert, Robert A., ‘The AirLand battle and NATO’s New Doctrinal Debate’, RUSI Journal 129/2 (1984), 52–60.
   Google Scholar
• Gorenc, Frank, ‘USAFE-AFAFRICA Update’, Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition, 15 September 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Grygiel, Jakub, ‘Arming Our Allies: The Case for Offensive Capabilities’, Parameters 45/3 (2015), 39–49.
   Google Scholar
• Grygiel, Jakub and A. Wess Mitchell, ‘A preclusive strategy to defend the NATO frontier’, American Interest, 2 Dec. 2014. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2014 /12/02/a-preclusive-strategy-to-defend-the-nato-frontier/
   Google Scholar
• Gunzinger, Mark, ‘The Future of Air Force Long-Range Strike, Statement before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces’, 9 September 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Gunzinger, Mark and Chris Dougherty, ‘Changing the Game: The Promise of Directed-Energy Weapons’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Gunzinger, Mark and Christopher Dougherty, ‘Outside-in: Operating from Range to Defeat Iran’s Anti-access and Area Denial Threats’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Hagel, Chuck, ‘Opening keynote at “Defense Innovation Days” Conference, organized by the Southeastern New England Defense Industry Alliance’, Newport RI, 3 Sept. 2014, http://www.defense.gov/News/Speeches/Speech-View/Article/605602
   Google Scholar
• Hammes, T.X., ‘Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy for an Unlikely Conflict’, Strategic Forum 278 (June 2012), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Harrison, Todd, ‘Chaos and Uncertainty: The FY 14 Defense Budget and Beyond’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Howorth, Jolyon, ‘Britain, France and the European Defence Initiative, Survival42/2 (2000), 33–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, Dave, ‘Russia’s Approach to Conflict – Implications for NATO’s Defense and Deterrence’, NATO Defense College Research Paper No. 111, April 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Klein, Margarete and Kristian Pester, ‘Russia’s Armed Forces on Modernisation Course’, SWP Comments 9 (January 2014), 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, Andrew F., ‘Cavalry to Computer: The Pattern of Military Revolutions’, National Interest 37 (1994), 31–36
   Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, Andrew F., ‘How to Deter China: The Case for Archipelagic Defense’, Foreign Affairs 94/2 (2015), 78–86.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krepinevich, Andrew F. and Barry D. Watts, The Last Warrior: Andrew Marshall and the Shaping of Modern American Defence Strategy (New York: Perseus Books 2015).
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, Thomas G., ‘China’s Anti Access Strategy in Historical and Technological Perspective’, Journal of Strategic Studies 34/3 (2011), 299–323.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahnken, Thomas G., ‘The Cruise Missile Challenge’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, Thomas G., Technology and the American Way of War since 1945 (New York: Columbia UP 2008).
   Google Scholar
• Mahnken, Thomas G., ‘Weapons: The Growth & Spread of the Precision-Strike Regime’, Daedalus 140/3 (2011), 45–57.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martinage, Robert, ‘Toward a New Offset Strategy’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2014.
   Google Scholar
• McNeill, William H., The Pursuit of Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1982).
   Google Scholar
• Moody, Simon J., ‘Enhancing Political Cohesion in NATO during the 1950s or: How It Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the (Tactical) Bomb’, Journal of Strategic Studies (June 2015), 1–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perry, William, ‘Technology and National Security: Risks and Responsibilities’, speech at France–Stanford Center for Interdisciplinary Studies, 7–8 April 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Pierre, Andrew J., ‘Nuclear Diplomacy: Britain, France, and America’, Foreign Affairs 49/2 (1971), 283–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posen, Barry R., ‘Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony’, International Security 28/1 (2003), 5–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Racz, Andras, ‘Russia’s Hybrid Warfare in Ukraine’, FIIA Report No. 43, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Rehman, Iskander L., ‘Tomorrow or Yesterday’s Fleet? The Indian Navy’s Operational Challenges’, in C. Raja Mohan and Anit Mukherje (eds), India’s Naval Strategy and Asian Security (Abingdon: Routledge, 2016), 37–64.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, Stephen P., ‘The Impact of the Office of Net Assessment on the American Military in the Matter of the Revolution in Military Affairs’, Journal of Strategic Studies 33/4 (2010), 460–82.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruiz Palmer, Diego, ‘Back to the Future? Russia’s Hybrid Warfare, Revolutions in Military Affairs, and Cold War Comparisons’, NATO Defense College Research Paper No. 120, October 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiz Palmer, Diego, ‘The NATO–Warsaw Pact Competition in the 1970s and 1980s: A Revolution in Military Affairs in the Making or the End of a Strategic Edge?’, Cold War History 14/4 (2014), 533–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scheber, Thomas and Kurt Guthe, ’Conventional Prompt Global Strike: A Fresh Perspective’, Comparative Strategy 32/1 (2013), 18–34.
   Google Scholar
• Simón, Luis, ‘Europe, the Rise of Asia and the Future of the Transatlantic Relationship’, International Affairs 91/5 (2015), 269–89.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simón, Luis, ‘Understanding US Retrenchment in Europe’, Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 57/2 (2015), 157–72.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas, Jim, ‘Protraction: a 21st century flavor of deterrence’, Small Wars Journal, 11 Sept. 2015. http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/protraction-a-21st-century-flavor-of-deterrence
   Google Scholar
• Ullman, Richard H., ‘The Covert French Connection’, Foreign Policy 75 (1979), 3–33.
   Google Scholar
• Van Tol, Jan, Mark Gunzinger, Andrew F., Krepinevich and Jim Thomas, ‘Air–Sea Battle: A Point-of-Departure Operational Concept’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Vershbow, Alexander, ‘NATO Needs Defense Strategy to Address Threats from the South and the East’, Defense Matters, 5 Nov. 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, Barry, ‘The Evolution of Precision Strike’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Watts, Barry, ‘The Maturing Revolution in Military Affairs’, Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Work, Robert O., ‘The Third U.S. Offset Strategy and Its Implications for Partners and Allies’, speech at the Willard Hotel, Washington, 28 January 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Yoshihara, Toshi and James R. Holmes, ‘Asymmetric Warfare, American Style’, Proceedings 138/4 (2012), 24–29
   Google Scholar
• Yost, David S., ‘The Budapest Memorandum and Russia’s Intervention in Ukraine’, International Affairs 91/3 (2015), 505–38.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yost, David S., ‘The NATO Capabilities Gap and the European Union,’ Survival 42/2 (2001), 97–128.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar