DefenseNews had an interesting editorial a little while ago on the challenge of developing a modern nuclear weapons strategy. As you may know, if you follow this blog, it's a point of contention between the executive and legislative branches of government today. It's a new idea, to replace the Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) theory of the Cold War with a Measured Assured Response Strategy (MARS) for a more complex world today.
Treaties and agreements can slow the spread of nuclear weapons, but there is little likelihood of completely halting proliferation. And because the chaos that followed the initial victory in Iraq suggests Western democracies will no longer launch pre-emptive invasions, any nation prepared to oppose world opinion will be able to pursue nuclear warheads without undue fear of a pre-emptive strike.
This inability or reluctance of the West to act, coupled with the realization by hostile states that their own weaponry could provide an effective deterrence, may encourage these nations to acquire nuclear devices. It is almost certain that nonstate terrorists who manage to acquire a nuclear weapon would be incapable of being deterred through the threat of retaliation.
What is crystal clear is that the new security situation is far too complex to be the responsibility principally of the State Department and DoD. The MARS policy would combine diplomacy, defense, international agreements, intelligence and other approaches. This activity falls within the purview of the national security adviser, who needs to be supported by an assistant adviser for nuclear policy.
While missiles are not the only means of attacking Western democracies, it is prudent to have some defense against them, particularly since so many nations are going to great lengths to acquire these capabilities. A more effective BMD would also provide a disincentive to invest in offensive missiles while improving protection should an attack be launched.
Despite the fact that Henry Kissinger and others have advocated a long-term goal of denuclearization, all the major nuclear powers seem to consider retention of nuclear offensive weapons essential. None, however, have outlined a policy indicating how such systems might preserve their security in the new environment.
This inability or reluctance of the West to act, coupled with the realization by hostile states that their own weaponry could provide an effective deterrence, may encourage these nations to acquire nuclear devices. It is almost certain that nonstate terrorists who manage to acquire a nuclear weapon would be incapable of being deterred through the threat of retaliation.
What is crystal clear is that the new security situation is far too complex to be the responsibility principally of the State Department and DoD. The MARS policy would combine diplomacy, defense, international agreements, intelligence and other approaches. This activity falls within the purview of the national security adviser, who needs to be supported by an assistant adviser for nuclear policy.
While missiles are not the only means of attacking Western democracies, it is prudent to have some defense against them, particularly since so many nations are going to great lengths to acquire these capabilities. A more effective BMD would also provide a disincentive to invest in offensive missiles while improving protection should an attack be launched.
Despite the fact that Henry Kissinger and others have advocated a long-term goal of denuclearization, all the major nuclear powers seem to consider retention of nuclear offensive weapons essential. None, however, have outlined a policy indicating how such systems might preserve their security in the new environment.
It's not the most fleshed out or academic discussion on nuclear weapons policy that I've seen, but it does have the advantage of being different and yet comprehensive of the new challenges of today's nuclear weapons states.
Hi,
Loved your title.
In consideration of the issues you raise, I thought you may find the following interesting: RRR Zhivago Hunter :: “Nuclear Freedom is the Recognition of Mutual Coercion, Mutually Agreed Upon Procreation Values Necessity” :: Buffalo Bill DMW and CrazyHorse BrokenArrow :: “Calling an airstrike near a friendly position, overrun by foe, creating high probability of 'Blue-on-Blue'” :: ApacheTom
Posted by: RUMCSwan | 01 January 2009 at 05:49 PM