|
|
|
Subject:
Eruption to Nuclear War from an Intense Crisis
Jonzey
5/30/2007 12:42:54 PM
|
Early Eruption to Nuclear War from an Intense Crisis
By Terrance Jones
?Crises can get out of control and can force one side
or the other to become desperate- perhaps to the point
of deciding that striking first is safer than not
striking first (if only to preempt the other side).
This would be a negative, ?last-resort? calculation.?
Kahn, ?Thinking about the Unthinkable?
Jones Note
Theoretically, it is imperative that we analyze the
quotes of Dr. Kahn from a much broader perspective
given the fact that we now have rogue and ist
nation states with nuclear weapons capabilities, as
these factors bring multiple threat variables into
focus:
Catalysis Factors
Using Pakistan as a of a fundamentalist/terror
sponsoring nation state with nuclear capabilities, we
must address the fact that they have set a precedent
that may very well set the stage for a catalysis
effect among fundamentalist nation states within and
outside of the Middle East. These nation states will
be under immense pressure to come into the mainstream
school of thought in regards to international
relations and decorum concerning their already
developed or burgeoning nuclear programs, therefore
setting the stage for a volatile crises scenario.
Rogue/Terrorist Activity
It will be increasingly difficult to peacefully deter
a rogue or ist nation with nuclear capabilities,
therefore, increasing the high probability that these
same nations will become more aggressive in sponsoring
and participating in ist activity. These factors
will make a nuclear standoff crises appear to be
unavoidable in the near future as growing pressure
from the international community does not have the
same effect on a nation with nuclear weapons as it
does with one without them. Just as Dr. Kahn
suggested, these rogue and ist nations will feel
as though they must be prepared to use their nuclear
weapons rather than face the thought of having this
capability permanently negated by a technologically
more advanced and sustained nuclear assault by a
responsible opposition force.
?Alternatively, one side might consider that a crisis
was not desperate enough to compel drastic action, but
still presented a good chance to eliminate the other
side as a source of future trouble. In this case, the
conflict would be a preventive nuclear war. Under most
circumstances, ?preventive nuclear war? is almost a
contradiction in terms. Bismarck?s remark that
preventive war is like committing for fear of
death aptly describes the unattractiveness of this
alternative in the context of a long-term competition
between two nuclear-armed superpowers. ?
Kahn, ?Thinking about the Unthinkable?
Jones Note
This particular quote speaks to a very different
scenario in which a regional or globally viable
nuclear power such as China or Russia chooses to ?up
the ante? in regards to their expansionist agenda at a
time in which many feel that America is extremely
vulnerable because of their current two front war in
Iraq and Afghanistan as they lead the way in the war
on ism. In this scenario, both China and Russia
need a preventive war to maintain and expand their
interests to other regions around the globe in a
proliferative age that threatens to stifle global
powers who are not willing to defend their interests.
The current age of proliferation is currently
facilitating the rise of regional powers at the
expense of globally viable nations. This is a major
reason that nations like China and Russia have formed
strategic partnerships with rogue and ist nation
states who have acquired nuclear weapons capabilities.
Therefore, a preventive war favors China and Russia
due to their ability to use these rogue and ist
nations as proxy war subordinates in a war geared
towards facilitating the expansionist agenda of China
and Russia. In fact, we must understand that the
unholy alliance that China and Russia has formed is a
de facto nuclear alliance that can potentially
restructure the global balance of power, as regions
can instantaneously be destabilized by preventive wars
that are implemented in a strategic nature.
Theoretically, the possibility of achieving strategic
parity with America through the use of multiple nation
states makes preventive wars attractive to China,
Russia and their proxy war subordinates.
?The evolution of a war-prone crisis and the
subsequent efforts by both sides to find bargaining
leverage could easily lead to various ?demonstration?
or ?symbolic? nuclear attacks designed either to warn
the other side to back down or to achieve a specific,
limited military goal.?
Kahn, ?Thinking about the Unthinkable?
Jones Note
The ?symbolic? nuclear attacks that are suggested by
Dr. Kahn are highly indicative of what can be expected
from a society of nuclear nations that has been
manipulated and exploited by regional nation states
that have inclinations that are rogue and or ist
in nature. These nations have used their nuclear
capabilities to force global powers into ?regional?
concessions as a trade off for the rogue and ist
nation?s participatory role in proxy war provocations.
In the future, these provocations will have nuclear
ramifications that will be used to force further
concessions from nuclear and non nuclear nations in
region specific areas in addition.
Example
Iran acquires a nuclear weapons capability
Should this occur, America should expect aggressive
proxy war provocations from both Iran and Pakistan, as
Pakistan would be pressured to distance themselves
from America in the war on in order to maintain
their status as the most powerful and influential
Muslim nation in the Middle East due to their
functional nuclear arsenal. Should Pakistan fail to do
this, Iran, who already rivals Pakistan in regards to
influence in the Middle East, would surpass Pakistan
in influence within the region while also deterring
any thoughts of Pakistani aggression because of their
Chinese and Russian allies in addition to the fact
that Iran?s relationship with Al Qaeda could be used
to topple the fragile government of Pakistan. In this
scenario, China and Russia would use flashpoint
intervention factors to negate the strategic advantage
that Pakistan has over Iran regarding nuclear weapons.
?The critical element in a decision by either side to
initiate nuclear war would be the judgment that
attacking was less dangerous than not attacking. This
judgment might be faulty but it need not necessarily
be irrational.?
Kahn, ?Thinking about the Unthinkable?
Jones Note
Theoretically, most experts are of the opinion that
there will never be an intentional nuclear war due to
the excessive costs in loss of life and damage to
property in addition to the long term effects on the
atmosphere that will lead to health deficiencies.
However, we must understand that these factors do not
mean the same thing to rogue and ist nations who
have used a variation of these variables to ascend to
regional and or global viability. Therefore, these
nations will respond and in many cases initiate crises
scenarios due to the fact that they believe they have
the edge in dealing with scenarios where seemingly
unconscionable and unthinkable actions are necessary
in order to obtain a strategic objective. In the
current age of proliferation it is imperative that we
understand what has been accomplished by rogue and
terrorist nations who have acquired a nuclear weapons
capability. These nations have set a precedent where
irresponsible and ist activity has gone
undeterred to the degree that these nations have now
gained the acceptance and support of regional and
globally respected nuclear powers. These powers
realize that Dr. Kahn was right in his assessment that
as more and more rogue and ist nations benefit
from a strategic catalysis effect concerning their
ability to acquire a nuclear weapons capability,
nations that are globally viable who have formed
strategic alliances with these rogue and ist
nation states will be under immense pressure to attack
or risk losing a considerable amount of influence in
diverse regions of the world. These attacks will have
to be aimed at American interests abroad in order to
maintain control over proxy war subordinates who have
their own nuclear weapons and a rapidly increasing
measure of influence within and outside of their
region due to a more unified rogue and ist
nation alliance with conventional nations and
terrorist organizations.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
