|
|
|
Subject:
Proliferation Issues and Myths (Rough Draft)
Maverick
10/4/2006 8:28:11 AM
|
Proliferation Issues and Myths (Rough Draft)
By Terrance Jones ARNG/U.S. Navy
(Topics culled from Thinking About the Unthinkable in the 1980?s, Simon and Schuster, New York, 1984, pp. 23-35; © Hudson Institute)
We must halt the nuclear "arms race" in order to achieve the redemption of mankind. This concept has recently been popularized in a book by Jonathan Schell.
To suggest that halting the nuclear arms race will save mankind is as ludicrous as believing that peace can be attained by laying down arms and widespread concessions. There must be a mandate that makes allowances for those with the largest and most divers nuclear arsenals to be declared the clear and decisive winners in regards to the arms race, and these winners must understand the benefits of attaining societal compliance and interaction from and with all responsible members of the international community. From the time that nuclear weapons were built and used in armed conflict, the arms race became a necessity for those who would seek to protect their strategic interests through the attainment of military viability. Therefore, we must understand that nuclear aspirations are indicative of the natural inclinations of nation states who seek to survive in a global climate that is often volatile. However, the leaders of the international community must find ways to prove to nation states with nuclear aspirations that nuclear proliferation must be controlled due to the potential for misuse by a rapidly expanding group of nation states. Because of a nation state?s right to have aspirations towards that which would make them viable on a regional and global basis, militarily, economically and diplomatically; one must seek to control nuclear proliferation as the safest alternative to stopping the nuclear arms race. Attempting to halt the nuclear aspirations of nation states will lead to a catalysis effect towards flashpoint intervention by other nuclear powers seeking to expand their interests abroad. These nations will use smaller nations to reconfigure the current state of global alliances, therefore making the world a more volatile place to live than ever before. Theoretically, articulating the intentions to prevent the loss of life and potential regional destabilization through a set of proliferation controls will do more to redeem the character of mankind than to simply suggest that some nation states will have rights that others do not. There will be stiff resistance to this type of thinking by rogue and terrorist nation states that are clearly on a path to regional and global destruction and that is why there must be more unity from the international community that translates into a tangible, credible and diverse coalition that is willing and capable of deterring provocative actions from dangerous nation states. It is this type of thinking that will redeem mankind and win the peace in all regions of the world.
The control of nuclear weapons should be pursued through the creation of an effective world parliamentary government and/or total worldwide disarmament. Even if it cannot be total, the goal should be disarmament rather than arms control
While attempting to implement proliferation controls in today?s volatile environment will inevitably lead to armed conflicts on a strategic basis, attempting to enforce disarmament will quickly lead to total war scenarios that will threaten any coalition that has been formed up to that point. A total war scenario gives larger nations an opportunity to gain strategic ground on America and in some cases can lead to the attainment of superpower status in regards to Russia and China. Russia?s assistance is needed in any sincere attempt to implement proliferation control initiatives, as Russia has well over 10,000 nuclear weapons as the nation with the second largest nuclear arsenal in the world. It is also important to note that Russia and China have lucrative trade agreements with Iran who is capable of destabilizing the Middle East because of this strategic partnership and their nuclear program that is within 5 years of becoming fully functional in addition to their influence in the Middle East over terrorist nation states and organizations. By choosing proliferation control initiatives over disarmament that will force nations like Russia and China to make swift decision that will prove costly to them, America will be able to secure time to offer Russia and China incentives that will make it easier for them to alter the status of their strategic relationships with terrorist and rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, as these two nations alone have the ability to facilitate total war by way of flashpoint intervention scenarios caused by disarmament ultimatums. Regional wars are highly probable because of the global threat of terrorism and spread of nuclear weapon technology, however, these wars are manageable if nations like America take the lead by making the case for more ambitious proliferation controls that rewards participation by responsible nation states. We must remember that disarmament is a tough sell for those who wish to survive by viability initiatives that include nuclear aspirations, therefore, participation in incentive based proliferation control initiatives becomes a secondary method of becoming viable diplomatically, militarily and economically. This scenario encourages trust and reciprocal acts of well being amongst nation state participants that effectively reduces the likelihood of armed conflict between the same.
Deterrence must be made 100 percent reliable.
It is seemingly impossible to develop nuclear controls that are 100% reliable; however, because of the current era of technology sharing, there are instances that will allow for such an occurrence. In regards to nuclear technology sharing, widespread proliferation facilitates highly probable armed conflict scenarios that will threaten all regions of the world. Because of this, there will be opportunities to formulate containment and control initiatives that will guarantee high ratios of reliability. However, this scenario is based on the assumption that responsible nation states are capable of forming the type of coalition force that is willing to overcome any and all trepidation in regards to engaging the enemy in all pertinent areas of the world. Theoretically, this scenario suggests that inaction is the same as appeasement and that total deterrence reliability scenarios can only be achieved through aggressive opposition or tangible threats of the same.
When attempting to achieve a total deterrence reliability ration, it is critical that any and all coalition forces address and remedy the tandem force distinction and continuity of larger nations and smaller nation states, as they articulate the major threat posed by conventional powers with nuclear capabilities and their subordinates who represent terrorist nation states that are in the midst of implementing a strategy that is geared towards establishing a multi sectarian caliphate across diverse regions of the world. A successful coalition will be one that addresses the aforementioned distinction and tandem force continuity between conventional nation states who are respected members of the international community and terrorist
nation states. Currently, terrorist nation states pose a triumvirate threat capability due to their terrorist nation state status, their oversight role of influence over regional and global terrorist organizations and their access to nuclear technology and or weaponry due to their strategic relationship with conventional nation states with a globally viable nuclear arsenal. Clearly, any credible and capable coalition will be tasked with disrupting this unholy alliance.
Deterrence must fail eventually, and probably will fail totally.
It is imperative that we redefine what a deterrence failure is, as much depends on this definition in regards to future peace and the type of deterrence that will secure that peace. As was the case in World War II, there are scenarios where nuclear weapons should and must be used. It is also important to note that in that instance, America had consulted with and secured the support of their allies, therefore limiting any limited and or widespread use in the future as other nation acquired and developed their own nuclear arsenals. These factors prove that the use of nuclear weaponry can not always be considered a failure; however, there are other scenarios where this assertion would be justified such as irresponsible limited and or widespread nuclear attacks that occur without the international community being consulted. A deterrence failure must be indicative of an absence of what is required for successful deterrence scenarios. Consultation with key organizations that represent the international community is chief amongst these requirements, as a nuclear strike that occurs without consultation of these organizations threatens the current state of global alliances in addition to these organizations. Such an occurrence also sets the stage for reciprocal acts of aggression that can potentially decimate entire regions of the globe. These factors can also lead to total deterrence failures that threaten peace and security of nations all over the world. Therefore, the definition of a deterrence failure must begin with the absence of unified bodies of responsible nations and the willingness of these nations to oppose the enemies of peace anywhere in the world.
Useful "damage limitation" in a nuclear war is infeasible
To suggest that damage limitation is impossible and a nuclear exchange can?t be won is to surrender without any attempt at self defense. The discipline of warfare demands that military leaders formulate strategic initiatives that will give them an opportunity to survive the cyclical evolutions of military threats and weaponry. Every war is winnable and every offensive can be deterred, however, one must carefully consider the variables and cost of winning an armed conflict. In regards to damage limitation, we have a historical precedent of over 60 years of deterrence success in the aftermath of a nuclear attack. This deterrence is based on multi regional alliances and reciprocal acts of responsible diplomacy by nations from every region of the world. This holistic example is one that remains relevant in every age that has emerged since the making of atomic weaponry. In fact, it is global alliances that have the greatest likelihood for success against a nuclear attack by one or more nations. Note the following:
Assured Destruction-This strategy must be upgraded to obtain maximum use of the deterrent principles of diplomacy and global alliances. It is critical that America use its superpower status to
maintain the peace across the globe by utilizing the aforementioned incentive based diplomacy model to ensure that nation states with inclinations that are geared towards aggression are opposed by a multi regional force of nuclear nation states. This scenario is the only way to simultaneously address the threats posed by terrorist nation states and their global terrorist organization affiliates in addition to the larger nuclear powers who have aligned themselves with the same in a strategic sense.
One can achieve totally reliable damage limitation.
While damage limitation is a major concern for responsible leaders and nation states, these concerns must be reconciled with the alternative of allowing threats to exist. If Iran is willing to attempt to eradicate over 6 million Jews in Israel and countless non Muslims within the Middle East while retaining the right to kill tens of millions abroad through their alliance with global terrorist organizations, is damage limitation still achievable? The answer is unequivocally yes, as exertion based preemptive strikes would be the most appealing option in this scenario.
There can be no victory in nuclear war (i.e., "nobody wins a suicide pact"), or
For years, nations have avoided nuclear standoffs on the premise that a nuclear war cannot be won. This premise goes against all logical deductions that are validated by historical precedents concerning the art of war. From the inception of the atomic age, its founders knew full well that a nuclear exchange in technology would eventually lead to nuclear war in the future whether it is limited or multi regional in nature. There is nothing to be gained by suggesting that this is not age of such threats, as we see these threats made manifest through larger nations willing to align themselves with terrorist nation states that have the natural resources and capital to purchase nuclear technology and weaponry. The question of how severe a nuclear war will be today is clearly the same question that has led many to doubt that a nuclear conflict can be one, as this question depends on certain variables that are volatile yet fragile in every sense of the word. Note the following example:
Total War/Coalition Attacks- This is the form of nuclear attack that should be focused on, as the mere threat of this method of nuclear attack against one or more nations has the potential to facilitate concessions from one or more opposing nations. This strategy should be implemented by responsible nation states with nuclear capabilities who seek to prevent aggression and tyranny from rogue or terrorist nation states and one or more of their larger nation state allies if necessary. This type of attack is winnable because it is being executed by a unified coalition therefore, it has the strength of unified regions abroad working in its favor against a single or limited opposition in regards to divergent forces/nation states.
International Community Mandated Attacks-This form of attack gives a nation state the solid foundation of societal compliance from all regions of the world in their efforts to prevent aggression and all threats to peace. This gives the attacking nation the security of knowing that their initial actions are not being executed at the risk of disrupting global alliances that threaten to destabilize the regions in which these allies reside. Theoretically, the attacking nation can attempt to decisively defeat the aggressor nation or nations with the understanding that a mandates suggests that help will be forthcoming in scenarios that require it economically, militarily and diplomatically.
As you can see, nuclear engagements can be managed and one, however, there are sacrifices that must be made in regards to loss of life, as peace is not free. Also, it is imperative that nuclear responses be preceded by an international community mandate in order to limit the use of weapons and damage to the civilian population of an opposing nation state if possible.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
