While at Aspen, I remarked of a panel on nuclear proliferation that "nobody seemed willing to consider the notion that deterrence might be a viable strategic option in a world with, say, fifteen nuclear powers." For an extended consideration of precisely that notion, I recommend this essay (full disclosure: the author is a friend) in the latest Orbis, which makes the case for Cold War-style deterrence - even in an age of proliferation - as the "proper policy of a confident great power that is satisfied with its place in the global order."
« What Mormons Believe | Main | Ask and Ye Shall Receive » The Case For Deterrence13 Jul 2007 01:23 pm Comments (6)
A satisfied power? What is that exactly? "Slowly comes a hungry people, as a lion, creeping nigher, 
eh... I hope your friend takes some more time to fully develop his views on this topic. As you (and he) must realize, 'deterrence', especially nuclear deterrence, is one topic that has gotten the attention of the keenest minds on the planet. Elbridge ought to look up the Exec Order that Bush-41 used to start Gulf-I. He may find that *bargaining* was used, even if excusing Saddam from Iraq was in a way, deterrence. I think that the general conscience has progressed to the point that we can say that Cheney was dead wrong to contrast 'the old system' of *nuclear* deterrence with his stylized-notion of counterterrorism. In almost all real-world situations, 'the bomb' is not "the ultimate guardian of our safety". Our ability to solve conflict by non-military means is the ultimate guardian of our safety. By the time we use the nuclear bombs, our safety has already been compromised, yes? Therefore, our national security really, really does rest with our capacity to understand people(s), use soft power, influence events away from the development of dangerous red lines, incent collective action (even more so as a hegemon), and do much else besides ensuring that everyone is sufficiently frightened to compliance. (I know the love-your-bomb and I'll-put-my-faith-in-weaponry folks will hate that, but that doesn't make it untrue.) There are grounds to be deeply critical of the cold-war 'deterrence' as it ended up being executed, not on moral grounds, but because it was so hugely, hugely wasteful. We spent trillions to ensure that the 'rubble would bounce', to paraphrase Churchill. Here's a related, but separate point: a 'satisfied' power ought to be content to match the "deterrent capability" of its next greatest rival, yes? That is an 'equilibrium point' in the arms race, when there is one hyper-power, arguably, no? Yet, what is the U.S. doing, in the name of 'defensive deterrence'? For one, have a look at what is going on with space defense policies under Bush-43 ... Are we making the world safer? Haven't we already abandoned the notion of deterrence, in favor of, say, "dominance"? What is *amazing* to some (on the left only?), is how much energy and resource can go into things like that, into technologies and weapons and strategies of dominance, yet so little goes into preventing nuclear proliferation. If anyone thinks that all that can be done is being done regarding nuclear non-proliferation, they are deeply mistaken. Part of the problem is that some on the right seem so willing to concede the point ("proliferation is inevitable"). Counterterrorism and global counterinsurgency can be cast, to some degree, as deterrence. These doctrines are very pro-active, but they put military action third or fourth string on the list, something that "hardliners" hate (for any number of reasons - mostly because it makes them feel out of control?). Deterrence at the time of the cold war was never passive, was it? Broadly interpreted to include 'containment', it involved arguably aggressive wars and coups, although we called them 'preventive' in some ways. Narrowly construed, as *nuclear* deterrence, can we say that it is passive or aggressive? The scenario of an anonymous bomb attack is very green. If an untraceable nuclear bomb went of *anywhere*, people everywhere would probably be scared beyond the capacity for rational thought. There is every reason to suspect that some folks in the inexorable press to 'just do something' will 'round up the usual suspects' and propose bombing them - because we *must*. Don't believe me? Tell me again, slowly, the link between Saddam and 9/11? If we can do it for Saddam, then ... I'm unconvinced that a deterrence regime among sixteen actors isn't less stable than one among three or four, almost inherently. The math just doesn't add up. Each "degree of freedom" in the complexity equation suggests (to me) a greater probability of either a mis-calculation or opportunities for stand-off / showdown, leading to 'failure' (bombs going off).
I wasn't trying to prove anything either way. I only wished to point out the risibility of claiming that Mormonism is consistent with creedal Christianity--which, incidentally, most certainly includes Protestants and Catholics. I want to hear a forthcoming statement from Mormons about how their understanding of God's nature differs from orthodox Christianity. Nothing more. I cut and paste my post from the other thread, which is growing long. My assertions (they were not more than that) still stand. Mormons are cagey about stating clearly their doctrine of God. I repeat, for Mormons "God" is finite, corporeal, limited, not one, not simple, etc. In conceiving of "God" in this manner they overturn--decisively repudiate--the Jewish-Christian doctrine of the biblical God. I note that Mr. Fox did not dispute my statements. Mormons may be wonderful people. Mormons may be models of piety, etc. Mormonism may even be true. It just so happens that Mormonism is through and through pagan. It has little more in common with Abrahamic monotheism than any primitive or pagan polytheistic or henotheistic religion.
As an arms control inspector, I can confidently say that the only correct number of nuclear weapons is zero. I've escorted nuclear missile launchers as they've been stopped at railroad crossings in the Russian Far East, waiting for the trains to go by, and then, continuing down the Russian equivalent of super-highway, proceding down unsecured roads with spectators watching from overpasses as the nuclear missile with a live payload passes within meters of their vantage point. I've seen pathways cutting through fence lines at nuclear storage facilities. And don't even ask me what I've seen in Kazakhstan. For humanity's survival, the answer isn't deterrence, the answer is trying to stuff the genie back into the bottle. Because while a crude nuclear device delivered by a Port of Elizabeth bound bomb destroying Wall Steet wont destroy humanity, it just might destroy civilization when a future Alberto Gonzales finally decides that the Constitution is "quaint" and that it obstructs attempts to catch the perps.
1. Who remembers Herman Kahn (sp?) On Thermonuclear War. 2. Deterrance only works when teo conditions are true a. the victim of such a bomb can determine who sent it. and b. they care about not being destroyed. Flight 800, blown up by a rocket off Long Island by anonymous terrorists is an example of a. suicide bombers are an example of b. also, using proxy deterrence, " if a bomb goes off i New York, a second bomb goes off in Mecca" won't work, as the other nations are powerless to find and stop terrorists. The Iraqi people are examples of how inept they are at ending their own terrorism. 3. Corporate America will survive just fine. All the corporations and business facilities already have weapons hardened backup facilities in the nearby counties, so a single blast in NY Washington or Boston would not be lethal. There would be a big depression, but we would recover quickly at some lower level. 4. I believe what would happen is that all ethnic arabs and moslems including all converts would be escorted out of the country and presumed traitors. This is the fault of our Muslim community for letting radical groups such as CAIR be the major spokesmen. Rather than apologize for terrorism, they create an enormous backlash, and although they may mean well, they will surely be unwelcome after a major attack. Other folks who are not Muslem likely have nothing to fear.
|
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I'm afraid I simply can't see the wisdom of America recommitting itself to a philosophy of exceptionalism.
Posted by Freddie | July 13, 2007 1:41 PM