----- Original Message ----- From: "J.D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2002 7:27 PM Subject: +++ US National Security Policy on WMD and MAD
> Dr. Brin recently suggested that "MAD" remained an > appropriate logic for confronting the WMD threat posed > by rogue states and terrorists. By happy coincidence > I was finally getting around to reading the US > National Security Policy today, and it had a very > detailed rebuttal to Dr. Brin's arguments.... > > > ******excerpt************ > > It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the > true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of > rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no > longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in > the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, > the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of > potential harm that could be caused by our > adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that > option. We cannot let our enemies strike first. The real problem with this is what happens when two countries who are adversaries both hold to this position. That is why MAD was developed. Both the US and the USSR were conservative countries; expecting to win in the long run. Thus, neither side would be willing to risk total devastation in order to gain a small advantage. That is why containment worked. I doubt it would have worked against Hitler. If what I read is correct, he would have thought it just that Germany was totally destroyed if they failed his great leadership. It is clear that, in order to have such a policy work without necessarily resulting in war, it can be held by only one country. The US has basically said > In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban > missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, > risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective > defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of > retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders > of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling > with the lives of their people, and the wealth of > their nations. The question > In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were > considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the > destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies > see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. > For rogue states these weapons are tools of > intimidation and military aggression against their > neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states > to attempt to blackmail the United States and our > allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the > aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also > see these weapons as their best means of overcoming > the conventional superiority of the United States. > > > Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work > against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are > wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; > whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and > whose most potent protection is statelessness. The > overlap between states that sponsor terror and those > that pursue WMD compels us to action. > > For centuries, international law recognized that > nations need not suffer an attack before they can > lawfully take action to defend themselves against > forces that present an imminent danger of attack. > Legal scholars and international jurists often > conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the > existence of an imminent threat -- most often a > visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces > preparing to attack. > We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the > capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Therein lies the problem, I think. The adaptation is so radical; it destroys the basic principal. Without further clarification of the criterion for declaring a rouge state, it could be used to ensure that no other country, or alliance of countries will every be in the position to be the military equals of the United States. As an American citizen, this has significant plusses for Americans; I understand that. However, it is also clear to me that citizens of other countries might see some of those plusses as minuses. Why shouldn't other countries not look at it as saying "trust us, we'll do things right." Would the US be comfortable in a world where, say, France ran things that way? > Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us > using conventional means. They know such attacks would > fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, > potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction -- > weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered > covertly and without warning. Which nicely argues against the missile defense argument, BTW. I am the one, also, who argued against missile defense by discussing how easily WMD could be snuck into a country. I still think that is true. I still think that we may very well need to do things to preempt such an attack. But, the Bush Document, as written, seems to indicate that the US will do whatever it takes to maintain overwhelming military superiority. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
