Deterrence in the Twenty-first Century

Deterrence in the twenty-first century - Air University Press


Physicians for Social Responsibility, provided the following

crude, politically partisan commentary during the lead-up to the

2004 presidential elections: “My prognosis is, if nothing changes

and Bush is reelected, within ten or twenty years, there will be

no life on the planet, or little.’’ 98 Similarly, a Los Angeles Times

commentary told of “a hawkish Republican dream of a ‘winnable

nuclear war’ ” that threatened a “nuclear road of no return,” and

that “could put the world on a suicidal course.” 99 Another asserted,

“With Strangelovian genius” the NPR “puts forth chilling

new contingencies for nuclear war.” 100 Such descriptions were

pure hyperbole, of course, but—presented with the appearance

of insight—they were frightening hyperbole.

Leaving such extreme commentary aside, most of the reasoned

critique of the NPR was based on standard balance-ofterror/assured-destruction

formulas and definitions. This was

again apparent during the congressional debate over RNEP.

Congressional critics objected to it as being the “action” that

would inspire the “reaction” of nuclear proliferation and to

RNEP’s putative “war-fighting” capability, claiming it to be “destabilizing”

and contrary to deterrence.

When Cold War measures of merit are applied in such a fashion

to a decidedly post–Cold War strategic policy initiative, that

initiative can only be deemed unacceptable; the NPR’s recommendations

were sure to be described as a rejection of deterrence,

by definition, because the NPR did not follow the familiar

balance-of-terror formula and related strategic force standards

and goals. The critique was understandable on its own terms

but correspondingly missed the greater reality. The NPR’s departure

from balance-of-terror orthodoxy did not reflect a rejection

of deterrence; it was, instead, an intentional step away

from the definition of deterrence and measures of US strategic

force adequacy created during and for increasingly distant Cold

War conditions. 101 It sought to identify the minimal level of nuclear

capability consistent with multiple US strategic goals in a

new and dynamic strategic environment. And, in doing so, it

recommended a two-thirds reduction in forces and a series of

measures to mitigate the risk of such deep nuclear reductions—leaving

open the possibility of further nuclear cuts.

The irony here is that the typical critiques of the NPR charged

that it was a throwback to Cold War thinking when, in fact,


More magazines by this user
Similar magazines