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.
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.
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.
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.
The targets of these attacks are our military forces
and our civilian population, in direct violation of
one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As
was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001,
mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of
terrorists and these losses would be exponentially
more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of
mass destruction.
The United States has long maintained the option of
preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to
our national security. The greater the threat, the
greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to
defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to
the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
United States will, if necessary, act preemptively.
The United States will not use force in all cases to
preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use
preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age
where the enemies of civilization openly and actively
seek the world's most destructive technologies, the
United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather.
******end excerpt*******
JDG
=====
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John D. Giorgis -
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and
justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No
nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them."
-US National Security Strategy 2002
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
