|
|
|
Subject:
Balance of Terror Theory
Jonzey
5/7/2007 10:40:24 AM
|
The Balance of Terror Theory: A Comparative Analysis
By Terrance Jones
Even if one accepts the balance ?of-terror theory, including the belief that there are almost no circumstances in which the Soviets would launch a deliberate attack on the continental United States (and vice versa), some important strategic problems remain. For example, the Soviets might attack U.S. ?vital interests? (e.g., Western Europe, or U.S. overseas forces) instead of the United States itself. Would the United States retaliate by an all-out attack on Soviet cities?
Note
While the fall of the Soviet Union has weakened Russia on many levels, Russia has used its remaining strategic alliances to maintain its ability to attack the ?vital interests? of the U.S..
Example
Veneer Affiliations
Russia currently maintains deniability over the proxy war provocations of Iran as well as the regional and global terrorist organizations Iran holds sway over. Theoretically and in reality, this alliance alone gives Russia the ability to attack the vital interests of America through the current war on terrorism. For example, Iran?s continued defiance of international mandates concerning nuclear proliferation in addition to Iran?s oversight and participatory acts concerning regional and global terrorism can easily threaten to destabilize one or more regions of the world, therefore posing severe threats to American interests abroad. Should a crisis arise because of these threats, Russia and its strategic partners in China most assuredly will seek to prevent any planned preemptive actions against Iran. This type of response will bring flashpoint intervention factors into play in regards to Russian opposition of any U.S. led coalition. The strategic importance of the Middle East will play a major role in Russia?s willingness to use terrorist nations in the region to attack America?s interests within and outside of the Middle East through terrorism and proxy war provocations, therefore, facilitating a highly probable nuclear standoff.
?Would the United States retaliate by an all-out attack on Soviet cities??
Societal Compliance
Upon proving and articulating Russia?s compliance with Iran and its terrorist allies, there is still the question of obtaining the support of the international community in regards to an all-out attack on Russian cities. Theoretically, this compliance will be difficult to obtain based on a threat that has not led to an attack on American cities, however, this compliance can be successfully obtained if the planned preemptive attacks are to be reciprocal in its theoretical and practical approach. This approach must articulate the threat as one that can destabilize and prove to be of a debilitating nature to the region or regions that are directly being threatened, therefore making it imperative that preemptive attacks take place against Iranian and Russian interests within and outside of the region as long as these regions are relevant to the threats being posed by Russia, Iran and their allies.
Coalition Building/NATO Article 5
North Atlantic Treaty Organization Article 5 ensures that all NATO member countries receive the support of all member countries upon being attacked. In the future, NATO Article 5 will prove to be pivotal to any and all successful coalition building initiatives. This is especially true in this particular scenario that seeks to establish a new precedent in proxy war provocations and flashpoint intervention factors that involve strategic alliances between terrorist nations and globally viable nations that would seek to give the appearance of a responsible nation in regards to its international endeavors. NATO Article 5 will be essential to gaining a more inclusive and participatory coalition contingent willing and capable of deterring or decisively defeating the type of unholy alliance that is indicative of a proliferation age that is rapidly gaining participants with socially irresponsible intentions and inclinations.
A thermonuclear balance of terror is functionally equivalent to a nonaggression pact: neither the Soviets nor the Americans will initiate an all-out attack on the other, no matter how provocative the behavior-short of a major attack on one?s homeland.
Note
?neither the Soviets nor the Americans will initiate an all-out attack on the other, no matter how provocative the behavior-short of a major attack on one?s homeland.?
This scenario can be thoroughly disputed by possible flashpoint intervention factors that can spill well overseas regions of interest to two or more opposing forces/nations.
Example
Strategic Catalysis
As I mentioned earlier, Russia has been weakened on several levels economically and militarily. Because of this, Russia may feel compelled to launch an all-out attack against America should America be successful in pulling together a formidable coalition. This is because a fully supported NATO implementation of Article 5 would thoroughly isolate Russia from gaining the support of the international community in a regional conflict. This would force nations like China into the unenviable choice of choosing war over its expansionist agenda without the threat of the same. Strategic catalysis in a regional conflict between an American led NATO contingent and a Russian/Iranian alliance would force Russia to rapidly use up its options concerning nations like China who would have little motivation to back a nuclear exchange that will impose its catalysis effect on them as well. These factors would force Russia into facing destruction or survival through an expanded nuclear exchange that may give them the opportunity to secure a truce based ceasefire scenario. This scenario is a textbook example of the endgame result of what will happen to an economically depleted nuclear power/terrorist nation alliance
when opposed by a diverse and fully supported NATO contingent force.
If the Soviets were to test U.S. resolve by instigating a series of crises, they would learn a great deal about how much provocation the United States would take. But such ?testing? would likely influence or change U.S. attitudes and policies rather than provide reliable or useful information. (It is a commonplace of history that attitudes may be dramatically altered by events.)
Note
?If the Soviets were to test U.S. resolve by instigating a series of crises, they would learn a great deal about how much provocation the United States would take.?
The above assertion is highly indicative of what Russia is attempting to do through their veneer based alliance with
Iran. This ?testing? strategy seeks to use deniable methods to ascertain the resolve of America when faced with highly volatile crises scenarios. These ?deniable? methods will only increase in its appeal to nations like Russia and China who are
firmly committed to executing an expansionist agenda that will exponentially reduce the technological disparity gap between America and themselves in the future.
?It is a commonplace of history that attitudes may be dramatically altered by events.?
American Tendencies (Post 9/11)
In today?s post 9/11 environment, American resolve has never been stronger. America has been very proactive about deterring those who would seek to test America?s willingness to decisively respond to provocative actions against American interests at home and abroad. By executing NATO Article 5 against Iraq and Afghanistan, America set a precedent that can also be used against Russia should it continue to attempt to use terrorist nation states to obtain proxy war advantages on a region specific and or global basis.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
