Emerging analysis of the American interagency and intergovernmental processes has underscored the nation's inability to respond effectively and coherently to contemporary national security demands. Modifications to various organizations and the overall interagency process have been recommended. These are clearly required, but there has not been sufficient attention focused on the nonmilitary human capital required to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Specifically, the Federal Government lacks a comprehensive process to ensure the recruitment, development, and retention of leaders capable of effectively integrating the contributions of specialized government agencies on behalf of larger national security interests. This new security environment requires people who are not only substantively qualified and knowledgeable of policy issues, but also possess the leadership abilities to direct large complex organizations.

In order to be a truly effective leader, it is necessary to learn as much as possible from the examples of history—the disasters as well as the triumphs. At Gettysburg, Union and Confederate commanders faced a series of critical leadership challenges under the enormous stress of combat. The fate of the nation hung in the balance. These leaders each responded in different ways, but the concepts and principles they applied during those traumatic three days contain critical lessons for today’s leaders that are both useful and applicable—whether those leaders manage operations at a large corporation, supervise a public institution, lead an athletic team, or govern a state or municipality. In the twenty-first century, leadership is the indispensable quantity that separates successful organizations from failures. Successful leaders communicate vision, motivate team members, and inspire trust. One must move both people and the collective organization into the future while, at the same time, dealing with the past. A leader must learn to master the dynamic requirements of decision-making and change.

"NATO has been a "nuclear" alliance since its inception. Nuclear weapons have served the dual purpose of being part of NATO military planning as well as being central to the Alliance's deterrence strategy. For over 4 decades, NATO allies sought to find conventional and nuclear forces, doctrines, and agreed strategies that linked the defense of Europe to that of the United States. Still, in light of the evolving security situation, the Alliance must now consider the role and future of tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs). Two clear conclusions emerge from this analysis. First, in the more than 2 decades since the end of the Cold War, the problem itself -- that is, the question of what to do with weapons designed in a previous century for the possibility of a World War III against a military alliance that no longer exists -- is understudied, both inside and outside of government. Tactical weapons, although less awesome than their strategic siblings, carry significant security and political risks, and they have not received the attention that is commensurate to their importance. Second, it is clear that whatever the future of these arms, the status quo is unacceptable. It is past the time for NATO to make more resolute decisions, find a coherent strategy, and formulate more definite plans about its nuclear status. Consequently, decisions about the role of nuclear weapons within the Alliance and the associated supporting analysis are fundamental to the future identity of NATO. At the Lisbon Summit in Portugal in November 2010, the Alliance agreed to conduct the Deterrence and Defense Posture Review (DDPR). This effort is designed to answer these difficult questions prior to the upcoming NATO Summit in May 2012. The United States and its closest allies must define future threats and, in doing so, clarify NATO's identity, purpose, and corresponding force requirements. So far, NATO remains a "nuclear alliance," but it is increasingly hard to define what that means."--Publisher's website

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

he role and future of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe are subjects that sometimes surprise even experts in international security, primarily because it is so often disconcerting to remember that these weapons still exist. Many years ago, an American journalist wryly noted that the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was “a subject that drives the dagger of boredom deep, deep into the heart”— a dismissive quip which would have remained true right up until the moment World War III broke out. The same goes for tactical nuclear weapons: compared to the momentous issues that the East and West have tackled since the end of the Cold War, the scattering of hundreds (or in the Russian case, thousands) of battlefield weapons throughout Europe seems to be almost an afterthought, a detail left behind that should be easy to tidy up. Such complacency is unwise. Tactical nuclear weapons (or NSNWs, “non-strategic nuclear weapons”) still exist because NATO and Russia have not fully resolved their fears about how a nuclear war might arise, or how it might be fought. They represent, as Russian analyst Nikolai Sokov once wrote, “the longest deadlock” in the history of arms control. Washington and Moscow, despite the challenges to the “reset” of their relations, point to reductions in strategic arms as a great achievement, but strategic agreements also reveal the deep ambiguity toward nuclear weapons as felt by the former superpower rivals. The numbers in the 2010 New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) are lower than at any point in history, but they are based on leaving each side a reliable ability to destroy up to 300 urban targets each. Inflicting this incredible amount of destruction is, on its face, a step no sane national leader would take. But it is here that tactical weapons were meant to play their dangerous role, for they would be the arms that provided the indispensable bridge from peace to nuclear war. Thus, the structures of Cold War nuclear doctrines on both sides remain in place, only on a smaller scale.

There is a wide canvas of issues to be explored, and all are of sustaining importance to the future of the alliance. The ANZUS Treaty was formally entered into by the three signatories more than half a century ago. In that time, our relationship with the United States has gone through may changes which largely have been unremarked upon as major refinements of the original conceptualization behind the treaty. The treaty document has not changed in 54 years, but it is propelled by a different engine; actually, it probably always was but our politicians were too wiley to tell us. From the start there was a significant difference of emphasis between the United States and Australia as to the thrust of the treaty. Australia emphasized guarantees of its regional protection by the United States, while the United States was preoccupied with containment of communism in which ANZUS was one link in a chain of global treaties and arrangements. This difference of preoccupation was the continuing cause of perplexity, perhaps even impatience, on the part of some U.S. officials.