|
|
|
Subject:
Some Problems in the Near Future: Part Two
Jonzey
1/18/2007 9:46:12 AM
|
Some Problems in the Near Future: A Comparative Analysis Part Two (Excerpts)
By Terrance Jones
Greater opportunities for blackmail, revenge, terrorism, and other mischief-making.
"In a world which is armed to its teeth with nuclear weapons, every quarrel or difference of opinion may lead to violence of a kind quite different from what is possible today. Today there are technical problems in rapidly escalating problems of mobilization, transportation, logistics, etc. This time and effort means that there are built-in safety features on the use or threat of violence. In the future these technical constraints may disappear. Even a relatively innocuous quarrel over fishing rights could involve the early use of a nuclear weapon or two as a demonstration (the literal modern equivalent of a shot across the bow). The other troublesome international problems, such as disputed frontiers or irredentist movements, can give rise to local "games of chicken." These games would build up pressures to threaten all-out war and violence on a scale previously unknown, in order to show resolve. It is not unreasonable to believe that every so often someone would miscalculate in this game of chicken and actually unleash a nuclear war."
Herman Kahn, "Thinking About the Unthinkable"
Jones Note
The tandem force continuity that has taken place between conventional and asymmetrical powers has dramatically increased the possibility and likelihood of irresponsible acts of violence. Modern nuclear proliferation cycles have facilitated this catalysis effect regarding random acts of war due to the strategic parity that has been obtained by militarily viable nation states as they have been prepared for inclusion into today's nuclear society. Seemingly responsible yet competitive nations have found themselves in a position where they have been forced to make hard decisions that could send them spiraling into a quick descent concerning their global interests or an accelerated ascension through unholy alliances with rogue and terrorist nation states.
Example
Can America realistically expect China to fully support their policies towards North Korea without a diametric regime change?
While China has been tasked with the primary oversight role in six party talks with North Korea, theatre realities in the region make it extremely difficult for China to enforce the American led doctrine that represents the peaceful intent and wishes of the international community. Kim Jung Il has used his strategic ties with China to exercise redundant control of all facets of society in North Korea. This has given China a strategic buffer zone between itself and a South Korean region augmented by American military forces. This reality validates the assertion that China does not favor the scenario where North Korea gives up its nuclear capabilities as it would weaken North Korea and China's combined strategic deterrent in the region. Should North Korea give up their nuclear capabilities, they would risk preemptive strikes in the future that would be geared towards implementing a plan for diametric regime change in North Korea. A diametric regime change would be the only appealing cost/battle efficient way to reverse the societal deficiencies that have caused North Koreans to be abused and manipulated for decades due to a horrific political system of communist inspired oppression.
Note:
Unlike the strategic situation in Iraq before the American invasion of 2003, North Korea is a perfect fit for the diametric regime strategy, as there are few alternatives to the current regime in North Korea. A successful invasion and war effort in North Korea would benefit greatly from this environment, as the civilian population would be open to a political system founded on diversity and mutual goals for a greater North Korea.
A diametric regime strategy does have serious risks involved. China would consider their flashpoint intervention parameters due to the fact that a regime change in North Korea would substantially reduce their influence in North Korea and Southeast Asia, as they have vowed to reduced American and British influence within these regions. These vows once again show a contradiction in what the perceived position of China is in the current six party talks and what the actual reality is concerning China's strategic costs and benefits concerning the same.
As you can see, the diametric regime initiative would not be a desirable scenario for China, however it may be the only way in which America can halt the expansionist agenda of China who clearly intends to use its unholy alliances with nations like North Korea and other irresponsible to implement this agenda. Also, it will be imperative that America gets a mandate from the United Nations that echos the sentiment of the international community regarding the Korean peninsula. This will ensure that America does not have to face North Korea and possibly Chinese troops alone.
While the threat of a conflict with North Korea and China looks problematic, it could do a lot to limit and contain the global exploits of China's expansionist desires. China currently supports rogue and terrorist nations with the hopes of stretching the defenses of America as it wages the war on terror in Iraq and other areas abroad. This gives China the freedom of space and opportunity to spread its influence in Africa and the Middle East. These areas are of major importance in a strategic sense. It is extremely important that America disrupt this strategy. The most beneficial way to do so will be to force China into costly preparatory warfare postures in Southeast Asia and the Korean peninsula, as this will slow down the aggressive stratagems of China concerning its global expansion interests. There will be those who will suggest that a predetermined strategy of staring down China is dangerous, however, to allow China to exercise proxy war oversight roles over its strategic subordinate allies will prove to be even more dangerous down the road. A strategic face off does not ensure that a war will ensue. In this scenario, the intentions are to make the competitor nation think twice about current and future provocative actions that will lead to irresponsible acts of violence and war on global and region specific level. There is little room for passive inclinations in these types of situations, as the fate of nations and regions hang in the balance.
2. More widespread capabilities for "local" Munichs, Pearl Harbors, and blitzkriegs.
"I have already mentioned an increased tendency to play the game of chicken and some of the increased risks to the players. An irresponsible, desperate, or determined decision maker might not waste time on the lower rungs of the escalation ladder. He might simply launch a disarming attack on his victim and present the world with a fait accompli. Even if the potential victim has a nuclear capability, it may not have enough second-strike capability to deter such an attack. While the other nations are likely to be indignant, they are not likely to start a nuclear war to avenge an accomplished fact. The attacker might even use the attacked nation as a hostage to prevent effective reprisals."
Herman Kahn, "Thinking About the Unthinkable"
Jones Note
Dr. Kahn has clearly provided the best case scenario of those who would react based on passive inclinations founded on fear and trepidation of casualties and lost objectives. We must concur that many nations and leaders would react exactly as Dr. Kahn explains, however, we now live in an era where best case scenarios are few and far between real world occurrences in divergent areas across the globe. Therefore, we must assess the multitude of threat variables based on the depth, intensity and diversity which they exhibit across the global landscape.
Example
"An irresponsible, desperate, or determined decision maker might not waste time on the lower rungs of the escalation ladder. He might simply launch a disarming attack on his victim and present the world with a fait accompli."
Herman Kahn, "Thinking About the Unthinkable"
The "fait accompli" scenario presented by Dr. Kahn is contradicted by today's reality concerning nuclear proliferation. The technology sharing that has been exhibited by and between globally viable nations and smaller yet developing nations has brought forth a scenario where very few nations have the ability to prevent the retaliation by opposing nation(s) and or coalition groups. On one hand you have those who represent the responsible set of nations who wish to protect and preserve the peace of the international community. A majority of today's nuclear society represent this set, therefore giving this set the ability to strike across a broad spectrum of nations and regions. Many of these nations are passive in their individual policies; however, a nuclear strike would threaten the global interests of them all. This reality would force the nuclear powers of this set of nations to draft a mandate giving these nations the first internationally approved mandate for limited nuclear warfare. This type of initiative would be critical to preserving the interests of these nations, as they would be opposed by nations with lethal intentions regarding the welfare of these nations and its ability to flourish under its previous manner of governance.
On the other hand, we have a wide array of rogue and terrorist nation states with rapidly emerging nuclear capabilities in some cases. These nations have exponentially increased their lethality and strategic importance by luring China and Russia into their alliance. China and Russia, who collectively own a nuclear arsenal of well over ten thousand, gives the rogue/terrorist set of nations the ability to be used as a means of dispersal against its enemies. While China and Russia clearly have a leadership role over this alliance, the fact that the rogue and terrorist collective facilitated the participation of both nations through their technological advancements and the strategic importance of its natural resources cannot be ignored. This reality forced China and Russia to choose this unholy alliance rather than fall victim to the strategic and technological parity that would ensue in short measure through the rogue and terrorist nation's manipulation of free trade and open markets. The alternative decision would be to fully comply with the democratic train of thought that would not guarantee that China and Russia would maintain their current status across the globe. This harsh truth speaks to the need for region specific incentives geared towards encouraging strategic reciprocity that will bring China and Russia into compliance with the will of the international community. A failure in this endeavor will threaten to disrupt and destabilize one or more regions simultaneously as the rogue and terrorist set of allies gain more and more experience working together in divergent regions of the world. Note the following:
"While the other nations are likely to be indignant, they are not likely to start a nuclear war to avenge an accomplished fact. The attacker might even use the attacked nation as a hostage to prevent effective reprisals."
Herman Kahn, "Thinking About the Unthinkable"
"Sometimes an aggressor may not even need to launch his attack. He might merely launch an ultimatum. In many circumstances this will force the other side to choose between backing down or launching an attack itself. Both courses may be dangerous, but a competent aggressor should be able to make the second look worse; between accommodation and thermonuclear war, most will choose accommodation. Therefore, it should not surprise us if such choices are manufactured. Where opportunities for gain are large in the event of extremely aggressive behavior, some nations will choose to indulge in such behavior. A world armed with nuclear weapons would provide a fertile field for paranoiacs, megalomaniacs, and indeed all kinds of fanatics."
Herman Kahn, "Thinking About the Unthinkable"
Jones Note
The current " age of proliferation" demands that we define the differences between enemy and competing nations so that we may attempt to bring nations representing one or the other to the side of responsibility through diplomacy and well intentioned reciprocity concerning theatre occurrences. What makes a nation a true enemy? Is it because of past occurrences that can be remedied by a mutually beneficial shift in policy or does the enemy nation simply resigned to a strategy that attempts to threaten mankind? What will it take to make competitor nations like China see how inaction and silence can assist enemy nations in threatening the global peace? How can we get them to realize that this type of behavior will eventually lead them into developing the traits of an enemy nation whose actions threaten to destroy the same? In Russia and China you have two nations who could easily be classified as an enemy and competitor nation with irresponsible inclinations. These same inclinations are threatening to destroy the current state of global alliances as these two nations go forward with an expansionist agenda augmented by strategic alliances with rogue and terrorist nation states.
Example
Russia's posture concerning nuclear proliferation has all the traits of an enemy of the United States of America. As a nation with the world's second largest nuclear stockpile (over ten thousand), Russia has refused to commence on a course of clarity and responsibility concerning nuclear proliferation. Russia's strategic partnership with Iran is but one example of irresponsible actions that threatens to destabilize not one but several regions of the world, as Iran has countless terrorist affiliations that grow ever stronger with Russia in the proxy oversight role. This has played a major role in Iran's nuclear weapons program, as Russia has vetoed all attempts at sanctioning Iran's aggressive behavior concerning nuclear weapons. Russia has failed to live up to its responsibilities as a militarily viable nation. In fact, Russia has benefited from the chaos that has ensued because of Iran's nuclear desires. These actions are clearly the actions of an enemy in regards to the affront to the United States of America and the international community as a whole. It is not inconceivable to project that Iran will emerge as the most influential and powerful nation in the Middle East should they achieve their goal of becoming the first Islamic fundamentalist to do so and function in a competent and capable manner without the assistance of America. Because of Iran's ties to Russia, they are close to achieving that status theoretically and in practice already as they exert control over a Shia triumvirate that includes Iraq and Syria. Russia is clearly acting like an enemy of America and all responsible members of the international community.
Example
While China has not been totally forthcoming concerning its region and global specific interests, there have been overtures made that suggest China's foreign policy is open to compromise. China's role in six party talks represents that need for and willingness to compromise. China clearly does not intend to end or damage its ties to North Korea yet it realizes that America is determined to protect South Korea's position in the region. By staying on as six party talk mediator, China has left the door open for diplomacy and compromise while also continuing to challenge America and Great Britain's role in the region. While these actions seem and are contradictory, for the most part, they represent the traits and actions of a competitor nation. However, it is China's strategic partnership with Russia and Iran that threatens to evolve into the actions of an enemy nation as China continues to implement its expansionist program abroad. This relationship makes China complicit in the spread of nuclear technology to Iran in addition to the technological assistance China has already given North Korea. Given a choice and distinction between the actions of Russia and China, China has more of the traits of a competitor nation; however, China is undergoing a transformation into an enemy nation. For that reason alone, it is imperative that America develop diplomatic initiatives and incentives that will bring China away from the more aggressive doctrine of Russia. The potential benefits are immeasurable given the economic and military viability of China in addition to their willingness to compromise in certain instances.
References
Kahn, Herman 1962; Thinking about the Unthinkable, Horizon Press, Hudson Institute
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
