|
|
|
Subject:
The Residual Fear of War
Jonzey
4/3/2007 11:43:25 AM
|
The Residual Fear of War and Terrorism: Variables of Proliferation
by Terrance Jones
Manipulation of the Residual Fear of War.
Jones Note
Theoretically, the ?residual fear of war? is currently being manipulated by nations wielding threats that involve conventional and nuclear weapons. However, it is the threat of nuclear weapon?s use that has prevented nations from acting responsibly in the current war on terrorism.
Example
State sponsors of terrorism have used terrorism to obtain the ability to facilitate a ?de facto state of war? involving nations with nuclear capabilities be it through their own arsenal or that belonging to their proxy war allies.
Iran clearly is the most dangerous and obvious example of a state sponsor of terror capable of facilitating a nuclear exchange as stated above. Iran also is currently articulating their intentions to provoke an international incident by their capture of fifteen British marines. Iran often uses terrorist tactics such as kidnapping foreigners to attempt to cause an international incident that could possibly destabilize the Middle East. However, because of their strategic ties to China and Russia, their leading role in a Shia triumvirate (Iran/Iraq/Syria), along with their rapidly progressing nuclear weapons program, Iran now wields more strategic influence than ever over events in the Middle East. It is no coincidence that Iran targeted the marines of America?s staunchest ally, as they clearly intend to disrupt America?s coalition force by forcing Great Britain to soften its stance against the war in Iraq as well as the international community?s stance against Iran?s nuclear weapons aspirations. These variables clearly display Iran?s attempts to manipulate the residual fear of war in their favor.
?Ban the Bomb? Movements.
Jones Note
The threat of global terrorism has added a provocation based catalysis effect to warfighting due to its ability to facilitate flashpoint intervention breaches on a multi regional basis. This prevents the weapon vs. weapon deterrent from maintaining peaceful ends to regional and global conflicts. The ascension of terrorist nation states like Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to nuclear power status through technological success and or proxy war affiliate access (example-China/Iran alliance) has put a major strain on ?ban the bomb? theories, as these nations use proliferation and provocations to effectively negate peaceful and non violent deterrents.
The Nuclear Show of Force.
Jones Note
The ?ultimatum? show of force scenario described by Dr. Kahn is very important in that it describes the psychology of the ?new breed? of nations with nuclear weapons capabilities. This psychology is one of continuous aggression in words and actions. For example, this psychology also articulates the goals of the Islamic state be it secular or fundamentalist. This is true because fundamentalist Pakistan has taken the lead in establishing the new paradigm of the fundamentalist nuclear power that the secular Islamic nations must now attempt to follow if it is to maintain any semblance of strategic parity and influence within the Middle East. Special attention should be given to fundamentalist nations like Iran, as they usher in an era where the reality of Islamic nations with functional nuclear weapons becomes the clear goal of Islamic nations in the Middle East. This is especially dangerous, as secular nations could very well fall under Iran?s stewardship concerning the proliferation interests of their nations.
These variables form a new paradigm from which nations in the Middle East will base their future interests in regards to military viability within and outside of the region. Once again this paradigm is already in motion with Iran primed to become the second fundamentalist Islamic nation (Pakistan being the first) in the Middle East to develop a nuclear weapons capability.
Punishment.
Jones Note
Because of the rapidly changing and volatile nature of proliferation in the millennium age, punishment for provocative actions will be implemented in a variation of nuclear based measured responses concerning these changes.
Example
?In such circumstances an aggrieved nation could conceivably prefer to ?make the punishment fit the crime,? and use its nuclear weapons to attack or damage a city or two itself, hoping thereby to deter further provocations.?
Herman Kahn, ?Thinking about the Unthinkable?
The comments of Dr. Kahn are indicative of the decisiveness that must endure in an age where proliferation is poised to be manipulated by rogue and state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, there is a very small window for this type of initiative, as rogue and terrorist nation states are currently amongst today?s society of nations with nuclear deterrent capabilities. This window of opportunity must be exploited in order to obtain the full extent of punitive benefits against terrorist
nations like Iran. To delay punitive action against Iran will be tantamount to facilitating the exacerbation of
nuclear proliferation amongst terrorist nations in the Middle East. Should this occur, it would not be long before nations like Iran would export nuclear technology abroad to its terrorist organization affiliates, therefore, making it increasingly more difficult to establish a tangible form of punitive action against rogue and terrorist nation states in addition to their more elusive terrorist group subordinates in today?s proliferative climate.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
