|
|
|
Subject:
Bargaining in a Central War
Jonzey
4/10/2007 11:03:53 AM
|
Bargaining in a Central War
by Terrance Jones
The list below summarizes some of the factors involved when a nation tries both to use or to threaten restrained or controlled nuclear attacks in an attempt to coerce an opponent into restraining and controlling his own attacks and to negotiate the termination of a war.
Herman Kahn, ?Thinking about the Unthinkable?
How the War Begins:
The Pre-Attack Scenario (degree of tension and mobilization)
The parameters of the pre-attack scenario are essential to establishing the intensity and pace of flashpoint intervention factors that can easily lead to war.
Example
Can one nation coerce concessions due to mutually assured destruction realities or does this type of thinking ensure that other nations will come to the aid of the threatened nation states?
When Pakistan became the first state sponsor of terrorism to develop a nuclear weapons capability, the manner in which these weapons are used as deterrents changed forever, as this reality established a new paradigm for proliferation, deterrents and provocative actions concerning nuclear weapons. While Pakistan has softened their terrorist stance due to internal strife within their country, their status as the first rogue/state sponsor of terrorism has facilitated an environment where the fundamentalist and rogue nation states have sought to acquire and exploit the benefits of nuclear weapons in ways that were previously considered unthinkable in the past. For example, Iran has used proxy war provocations to attempt to force members of the international community into making concessions due to flashpoint intervention factors that could bring their nuclear weapon?s wielding allies into direct conflict with the same. North Korea is another example of a nation with nuclear weapons who never hesitates to use proxy war provocations to threaten nations with the prospect of facing a nuclear standoff with both North Korea and their Chinese allies.
Direct Cause of War (deliberate intention)
The current ?age of proliferation? that has terrorist and rogue nation states arming themselves with nuclear weapons has caused a catalysis effect in regards to proliferation and the causation factors of regional conflicts. This effect has made conventional, rogue and terrorist nation states more aggressive concerning their foreign interests, therefore, setting the stage for nuclear based conflicts. While America fights the war on terrorism in Iraq, North Korea is testing nuclear bombs to challenge the international community?s ability to deter them from such actions. North Korea clearly understands that China will side with them before allowing any coalition force to effectively implement a regime change in North Korea. Meanwhile, Russia has refused to stop supplying Iran with technology that gives them peripheral benefits with regard to their nuclear weapons program. In this scenario, both Russia and China stand to benefit from any determent factors concerning North Korea and Iran. Russia and China also would benefit from any regional engagements in North Korea and Iran, as this allows them to stretch the forces of the American led coalition that is firmly entrenched in Iraq and Afghanistan. Russia, China, Iran and North Korea all have deliberate intentions to cause nuclear based regional conflicts of war that will damage the foreign interests of America and its coalition partners. Without the current threat of global terrorism from terrorist nation states and their terror group affiliates, the deliberate intentions for potential conflicts would not be as diverse in regards to its participants who range from respected conventional powers to rogue and terrorist nation states that are opposed by the international community in every way imaginable. The synthesis of the interests and strategies of these enemy and competitor nations, bring America face to face with an unholy alliance that is capable of inflicting major damage because of their access to nuclear weaponry in addition to the fact that their combined influence and ill intentions could lead to the destabilization of singular or multiple regions simultaneously. These variables can easily form the basis from which direct causes of war emanate.
Initial Tactics:
Execution of War vs. Societal Compliance
As we have learned in Iraq, there is a direct correlation between the execution of war and the societal compliance of a nation?s civilian population. Because of this correlation, it is very important that each strategic exercise make allowances for the manner in which the civilian population will respond to the same.
Example
Diametric Regime Change
While this option is the most appealing to invading forces, it is the option that must be carefully considered due to its ability to backfire when improperly implemented. Regime change scenarios are founded on the notion that different ruling elites will render a different and more appealing result in the affairs of the nation state. However, this is not always the case, as the diametric regime change can often fragment the political system of a nation in a way that opens the door for despotic regime ascension strategies. For example, in Iraq the removal of the Baath party facilitated the ascension of the Shia majority that has led to Shia Iran?s participation in the affairs of Iraq. This is in addition to the fact that the majority Shia Iraqi government prevents Iraq from being ruled in a manner that is indicative of a more cosmopolitan reality when considering the Kurdish and Sunni representation of the Iraqi population. Clearly, a diametric regime change does not always work as an initial tactic, as it does not address the diversity of the civilian population, therefore, negating any semblance of societal compliance towards the interests of the invading forces/ coalition. It is also important to remember that the continuity with which a nation has been led should be considered when preparing the method of attack, as it will present the invading forces with a way to ensure societal compliance without sacrificing the lives of its soldiers. The window of opportunity of which I speak is one that decisively defeats the vanguard forces of a nation while leaving the ruling infrastructure in tact so that the civilians of an invaded nation are not in doubt as to the economic, military and cultural survival of their country.
The War Aims (resolution of a political conflict vs. permanently decreasing the other side?s power)
The aim of warfare should always be to preserve the peace by removing that which threatens that peace. While it sounds very diplomatic and noble to leave the door open to resolving a political conflict, often, that can only be achieved by diminishing the opposing force?s ability to protract a conflict of armed engagement. This is especially true when speaking of engagements that involve nuclear weapons, as entire region can be destabilized at once, therefore, reconfiguring the balance of power across the globe. With this much at stake, it becomes imperative that the aim of nuclear based warfare be one of decisive diplomacy through the strategic use of nuclear weapons.
Example
The United States of America gains verifiable proof that North Korea has a ballistic missile capable of being armed with a nuclear weapon. Kim Jung Il is daring the United States to try and stop North Korea?s proliferative endeavors. While China has spoken out against Jung Il?s actions, they have stopped short of supporting any preemptive strikes against North Korea.
America clearly must risk flashpoints for China?s intervention in a North Korea vs. America conflict. America opts not to make concessions towards China?s expansionist agenda, as that would prove to be more dangerous than to allow North Korea to threaten its neighbors in Southeast Asia along with America. America prepares to launch missiles at North Korea and China should China choose to intervene on North Korea?s behalf. China, who wishes to maintain their expansionist strategy free of a destructive war, publicly states their desire not to intervene on North Korea?s behalf should America attack them. As North Korea prepares to launch a missile at American interests in Japan, America launches a nuclear strike against North Korea?s launch pads. America launches several strikes against strategic military targets until a military coup supplants the regime of Jung Il. The new regime surrenders, therefore, obtaining a guarantee of a political resolution to the conflict. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
