How NATO weakens the West [Paperback]

Melvyn B Krauss (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: 1986

Hardcover World Politics

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

Krauss, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and economics professor at New York University, calls the North Atlantic Treaty Orgnaization a "lopsided partnership" and believes that continued European dependence on American protection and weapons is "absurd." Pointing out that NATO eats up an elephantine portion of the U.S. defense budgetfrom 42% to 58%, according to estimates quoted herehe argues that the Europeans are very far from pulling their own weight in the alliance. Krauss is also sharply critical of Japan's defense ("A country of Japan's wealth surely should play a more substantial role in securing the region in which it is located"). The main thrust of his argument is that the removal of U.S. troops and subsidies would increase, not decrease, European, Japanese and South Korean efforts in their own defense (and save the U.S. billions of dollars). While not calling for a direct withdrawal of troops, he does urge an announcement of phased withdrawal as a way toward ending what he terms the defense free-ride of our major allies.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

Krauss, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor of economics at NYU, presents some startling proposals for redefining the U.S. military posture in both Europe and the Far East. He argues for a new American isolationism, urging the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Western Europe and South Korea. If both conventional troops and the nuclear umbrella are withdrawn, Krauss believes, our NATO partners will respond to the Soviet threat by developing their own defense capability. In like fashion, freed of U.S. pressure the Japanese will unilaterally assume a more active role in Pacific peacekeeping. America will thus have more self-reliant allies, and the Soviet Union will be faced with not one but three superpower opponentsAmerica, Western Europe, and Japan. Recommended. Jeff Northrup, Birmingham P.L., Ala. The argument over obscenity and its social consequences continues unabated. Only the players change with the years. Most recently, a commission established by President Reagan and headed by Attorney General Edwin Meese concluded, predictably, that a direct causal relationship exists between smut and criminal behavior. Just as predictably, the authors of United States of America vs. Sex , working with the active assistance of Penthouse magazine and its publisher Bob Guccione, find the Meese Commission report scientifically flawed and lacking in "intellectual rigor"in short, an abomination. Libraries will want to have both the Meese report and Nobile and Nadler's useful book available. Kenneth F. Kister, Pinellas Park P.L., Fla.
Copyright 1986 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Details

• Paperback: 271 pages
• Publisher: Simon and Schuster; 1st Ediition edition (1986)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0671544551
• ISBN-13: 978-0671544553
• Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.4 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #5,265,620 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars A book to make you stop and think, July 5, 2002

By 

R. Tiedemann "Sunnye" (Bellevue, NE USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: How NATO weakens the West (Paperback)

Krauss believes that NATO is a one-sided partnership and the European dependence on American protection and weapons is "absurd." It is also outrageously expensive for the US since he says NATO accounts for from 42 percent to 58 percent of the USA's defense budget.

Attacking the Japanese posture, he writes,"A country of Japan's wealth surely should play a more substantial role in securing the region in which it is located."

Phased removal of US troops and subsidies, especially from Western Europe, would necessarily increase European (and Asian) efforts in their own defense.

It's an interesting argument. Opponents might point out that NATO's proactive stance in world crises seems to have had at least a mild deterrant effect since its inception and that although we have gone into countries with other nations to stabilize political situations, we have not had to do it alone.

Read this one and consider his points. Is he too isolationist to be relevant today? The world has changed since he wrote this in the mid-1980s. Or, maybe he's right.