|
|
|
Subject:
Proliferation Issues in the Millennium Age (Rough Draft Excerpts)
Maverick
10/3/2006 8:23:51 AM
|
Proliferation Issues in the Millennium Age: Variables and Precepts (Rough Draft Excerpts)
By Terrance Jones
(topics obtained from Thinking about the Unthinkable, Horizon Press, 1962; pp. 212-217; © Hudson Institute)
Greater opportunities for blackmail, revenge, terrorism, and other mischief-making.
The current ?age of proliferation? has caused a paradigm shift to one of significant proxy war activity amongst the proxy subordinates of nuclear powers and or nations closely aligned with the same. Iran and Hezbollah are prime examples of this type of proxy activity that threatens to destabilize one or more regions of the world simulataneously due to the availability and access to nuclear weaponry in addition to the flashpoint intervention based escalation scenarios that may provoke their use or the threat of their use in various regions across the globe. As Dr. Kahn suggests, these threat variables have increased the likelihood of ?blackmail, revenge, terrorism and other mishchief making(1)? that will prolong and accelerate the intensity of theatre conflicts on a regional, battle and cumulative level. The current war in Iraq has seen kidnapping used in over 250 instances. This does not bode well for the future in a region that is preparing for Iran?s coronation as the second Islamic Fundamentalist (aside from Pakistan) nation to acquire a nuclear weapons capability, as it gives insurgents, terrorist organizations and proxy war subordinates the impression that terrorist actions like kidnappings and insurgent attacks will go unanswered due to the presence of their nuclear allies in the region(Middle East). The recent accelerated state of war between Israel and Hezbollah can be attributed to this theoretical belief. Dr.Kahn?s analysis has come to full fruition with regard to the widespread damage of these type of threat variables.
2. More widespread capabilities for "local? Munichs, Pearl Harbors, and blitzkriegs.
True to form, nations like Iran are more than likely to do as Dr. Kahn suggests in regards to their natural inclinations to ?waste no time on the lower rungs of the escalation ladder (2).? This is due in large part to their huge and rapidly expanding influence over events in the Middle East and other Middle East dependent regions of the world, as it gives them confidence and motivation in their aggressive course of action with regard to foreign and domestic policies. The strategic relationship between Russia and Iran alone, gives Iran the potential to impose its will on its opposition in Europe, the Middle East and Central Asia. This reality makes Iran an increasingly more formidable enemy economically, militarily and diplomatically should they become successful in acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. It is also important to note how aggressive Iran is currently due to their strategic relationship with Russia which also gives them a globally viable China as an ally. These factors will remove a significant amount of escalation rungs as obstacles upon Iran?s success in becoming a nuclear nation. Iran will be able to potentially destabilize multiple regions of the world through threats and or actions economically and militarily. Also, these factors will increase the threat variables that are available to Russia, China and seemingly single agenda minded nations like Pakistan and Syria. These are the conditions of which Dr. Kahn speaks of when he makes the assertion that ?the attacker might even use the attacked nations as a hostage to prevent effective reprisals (3).?
3. Pressure to preempt because of points one and two.
Because of points one and two there will be immense pressure to deter any and all nuclear threats. These threats will be shielded by an accelerated rate of asymmetrical threats by proxy subordinate nations. Due to these factors it will be imperative that all actions of an offensive nature be preceded by a United Nations mandate that will unify responsible members of the international community while also increasing the chances for credible coalitions to be formed from this unity in deed and actions. In this scenario, coalition building is a must given the multi regional threats posed by nuclear nations and their asymmetrical threat based proxy subordinates. The presence and question of whether an aggressive nation is willing to use nuclear weapons in addition to their proxy subordinates will make coalition building efforts a daunting task, as the aftermath of any perceived conflict will alter the future of many nations. These nations will base their decisions on these variables at the risk of moving against long time allies and doctrines. Understanding this shaky nature born of exertion and a lack of clarity concerning the strategic situation, responsible leaders must recognize that the ?reciprocal fear of surprise attack (4)? factor that is mentioned by Dr. Kahn is shared by directly involved nations and their perceived allies alike. Therefore, the responsible nation can win only by neutralizing this psychological effect on both an individual, group and region specific basis in order that long held relationships and peaceful conditions remain on a region specific basis as well.
4. Tendencies to neglect conventional military capabilities.
As previously mentioned, conventional and or asymmetrical warfare is part and parcel of any and all nuclear threat based standoffs or armed conflicts, as they increase the force projection options of the same on a global and region specific level. Also, I have previously mentioned how these same conventional and or asymmetrical threats will be used to assist an aggressive nuclear power or one of its allies in removing the escalation rungs in order to force its opposition into concessions or determent postures. In fact, in today?s ?age of proliferation? that has proxy subordinate nations poised to benefit from nuclear technology expansion initiatives that are being used as foreign policy strategies, it is easier to use nuclear determent strategies only because of the augmentive properties of conventional threats by nuclear powers and their proxy war subordinates. The aforementioned force projection options are expansive and almost all encompassing in a strategic sense. To take these conventional threats lightly would be tantamount to losing several multi regional initiatives at once to a superpower nation like America, as nuclear nations like Russia and China clearly aspire to use conventional and nuclear threats overtly and covertly through third party proxy subordinates in their quest to attain superpower status alongside of America.
5. Greater danger of inadvertent war.
Today?s strategic nuclear climate that has 8 to 11 nations with a nuclear arsenal clearly proves and validates the assertion that inadvertent wars are to be expected in the temporal, short and long term timeframes. Multi regional, terrorism based nation state ascension strategies have only compounded these threats, as terrorist and rogue nation states like Iran and North Korea have aligned themselves with nuclear powers and or developed their own nuclear arsenals. As we have witnessed in Palestine, terrorism based nation state ascension strategies are both highly exertive and successful in scenarios where they are unopposed by the international community. This reality speaks volumes about the impending climate for inadvertent wars of intervention that must be undertaken in order to preserve the peace regionally and globally. Once again, the rapidly expanding threat variables necessitate a need for serious discussions and actions with regard to coalition building by responsible members of the international community, as it will be very expensive to wage these wars of intervention in troops, materials and equipment. Also, one can not stress enough how important diplomacy will be in deciding when to engage in diplomatic talks and when to engage the enemies of peace militarily. This is due in large part to the current paradigm shift that has seen nuclear powers like Russia and China align themselves with clear and overt terrorist nations. This has made it extremely difficult to deter these irresponsible nation states through the safe and reliable route of escalation rung initiatives. This has increased the importance of
clear and concise decision-making when formulating domestic and foreign policy initiatives that are geared towards deterring and or neutralizing these threats to the international community.
6. Internal political problems (civil war, coup d'etat, irresponsibility, etc.) and external factors (arms race, fear of fear, etc.).
In regards to the international community, the external factors noted by Dr. Kahn can only facilitate internal political problems when appeasement is the prevailing school of thought. However, in regards to nation states that are willing to embark on a course of aggression and irresponsible behavior, their strategic initiatives will seek to become causation factors for the internal political problems mentioned by Dr. Kahn, as it will become an integral part of their nation state ascension strategy. Nation state ascension strategies are currently based on the premise of acquiring nuclear capabilities or formidable proxy war subordinate capabilities in regards to conventional and asymmetrical warfare. These initiatives are executed by radical political parties, fundamentalist organizations and or insurgent groups within a given nation states borders. These radical elements use fear and terror to maximize its exertive agenda on the civilian population. Hezbollah and Hamas are two very distinct yet diverse variations of how a nation state ascension strategy is waged, as Hezbollah rules through a figure head type of democratic styled government that has been diluted while Hamas has used a diluted form of democracy to take an overt form of leadership over the affairs of Palestine. Both nation state ascension strategies began as insurgent operations that were taken very lightly by the international community. Today, both examples are indicative of how successful these strategies can be when left unopposed and undeterred. The lethality of this strategy is compounded by current scenarios where terrorist nation states have strong ties to conventional nuclear powers like Russia and China directly and or through their alliance with Iran.
7. Diffusion of nuclear weapons to irresponsible private organizations.
Nuclear weapons technology sharing/diffusion has already begun to take precedence over arms controls initiatives under the ruse of peaceful technological advancements. Russia, Pakistan and China have been amongst the chief purveyors of this ruse for peripheral proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. This is due in large part to these nations? economic needs in addition to their strategic posturing as the world comes closer and closer to an uncontrollable rate of nuclear proliferation.
8. More complicated future problems of control.
Theoretically, there are many positives to acquiring a nuclear weapons capability, therefore, making it extremely difficult to control proliferation in the current era of widespread technology sharing. Acquiring a nuclear capability provides a given nation state economic, military and diplomatic viability instantaneously, regardless of sanctions and criticism. North Korea is a prime example of a nation that can endure economic sanctions because of strategic alliances with other nuclear powers (China for
example) that have to respect the threat of nuclear deterrents within their region of the world. While North Korea is one of the poorer nuclear nation in the world their nuclear deterrent has facilitated operational capital from China who is their chief ally. North Korea has now become a nuclear deterrent wielding proxy war subordinate of China. This provides China and North Korea with significant strategic options within and outside of Southeast Asia. These options will continue to expand, as terrorist nation states execute nation state ascension strategies that seek to stretch the defenses of America. The absence of a diverse multi regional/multi national coalition force has played a major role in dramatically increasing aggressive activity by the enemies of peace, whether they are nuclear powers or proxy war subordinates of a conventional, nuclear or asymmetrical disposition.
9. Intensified agent-provocateur problems.
The current rise of terrorist nations has increased the probability and likelihood of significant activity by smaller nations. This is due to the reality that nuclear capabilities that are enjoyed by these nations themselves or through strategic partnerships have given these nations the foundation and motivation to execute strategies that are independent and or in concert with the strategic interests of their allies. For example, Iran can be classified as an agent of Russia and China in addition to having the strategic influence to implement strategies that are totally independent of Russia and China due to their status as an oil rich nation upon whom many nations from divergent regions across
the globe depend on economically. This status has made Iran one of the most strategically important nations in the world today. Their importance is increased by a nuclear program that experts suggest is 3 to 5 years from giving Iran a nuclear deterrent arsenal. It is also important to note that a nuclear Iran would have the potential to destabilize the Middle East and various other regions across the globe due to their strategic influence in the Middle East that crosses sectarian boundaries. As you can see, even as an agent for larger nuclear powers, Iran can destabilize regions and facilitate events that can cause armed conflict through localized wars and total war scenarios through flashpoint intervention scenarios involving larger nations who are the strategic partners of nations like Iran.
10. Catalytic and Anonymous War.
The unholy alliances between large nations with nuclear capabilities and smaller nations that are primed to have access of the same has set the stage for future wars by strategic catalysis. Smaller nation states have several methods with which they can implement this catalysis. For example, the aforementioned nation state ascension strategies can facilitate local wars through insurgencies and or nation state aggression that is augmented by the threat of the same. However, this catalysis effect will not be executed exclusively by smaller nations, as the current spread of nuclear technology has given larger nations the motivation and ambition to use flashpoint intervention as a means for expanding their influence abroad.
The problems with proliferation control that have allowed smaller nation states to emerge as nuclear threats has also made smaller nation states to become formidable threats in regards to anonymous war scenarios. This is true in a nuclear, conventional and asymmetrical sense. These factors have forced us to reassess the escalation rung deterrents that are neutralized by scenarios where multi regional threats emerge simultaneously.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
