The Logic of Armageddon – Deterrence Theory

News Type: Other — Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:09 AM EDT

world-news, israel, war, united-states, iran, middle-east, nuclear, palestinians, cold-war, theory, atomic-bomb, brinksmanship, plaestine, deterrance

Killfile

Live Poll

I found this article on

The Newsvine Front Page (Featured Articles)
14%
The Newsvine Front Page (Other)
0%
The World News Front Page
0%
A Watchlist
48%
A Subscribed Feed
5%
A Conversation Tracker
24%
Other (please elaborate)
10%

Total Votes: 21

Photo by Hey Paul. (License: Creative Commons Attribution)

The physicist Robert Oppenheimer ushered in the beginning of the Atomic Age with a whispered lament from the Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita. "I am become death," Oppenheimer famously stated, "the destroyer of worlds."

Oppenheimer's years of work had given birth to a second sunrise in the desert of New Mexico that July of 1945. The explosion at Trinity would ultimately bring about the surrender of Japan, an end to the Second World War, and the beginning of the Cold War.

Today, more than sixty years since the conclusion of the Manhattan Project, nuclear weapons still represent the ultimate trump card in international affairs. They have simultaneously formed the foundation of decades of peace between the world's major powers and have brought us to the brink of annihilation. They are at once the most dangerous and most stabilizing weapons in the history of war and among the least understood. As nations like Iran seek these weapons in the face of the recent nuclearization of Pakistan and Israel, and the United States threatens war to prevent Iranian nuclear ambitions from being realized, understanding deterrence and deterrence theory has become imperative.

What is Deterrence?

The Encyclopedia Britannica defies deterrence as: Military strategy whereby one power uses the threat of reprisal to preclude an attack from an adversary. This definition is lacking, however, is that it fails to encompass the problems that deterrence theories tend to create. As in all things, the law of unintended consequences comes into play.

The result of these unintended consequences is brinksmanship - the seeming hell-bent-for-leather race towards nuclear oblivion that pervaded the Cold War era. Understanding why brinkmanship grows out of deterrence and how one balances the other can elucidate a great deal about international affairs, both during the Cold War and today.

The Three Cs and the Law of Unintended Consequences

The act of deterrence requires three actions from a deterring power – generally referred to as "the three Cs." They are, in order of logical consequence: Capability, Communication, and Credibility.

Capability is the material component of deterrence. Iran, at present, seeks the capability to deter Israel, meaning it must obtain nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to Israel. Moreover, it must find some way to ensure that whatever nuclear weapons it has are sufficiently numerous or sufficiently well protected such that they can survive an Israeli nuclear attack.

The unintended consequence of capability is the arms race. As Soviet nuclear capabilities grew greater, the United States sought, at first more nuclear weapons, and later more sophisticated ways of protecting them. This, in turn, lead to the need for the Soviets to develop yet more weapons to counter US weapons, thus perpetuating the cycle.

Communication is the verbal component of deterrence. As Dr. Strangelove says in Kubric's masterpiece of the same name, "of course, the whole point of a Doomsday Machine is lost, if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world, Eh?" Strangelove refers specifically to the communication of capability, but deterrence also relies upon the communication of intent. NATO's famous doctrine that "an attack on one is an attack on all" most effectively communicated the intent of the United States to defend Europe from nuclear or conventional attack in the face of the Soviet threat.

The unintended consequence of communication is belligerence. Communicating the intention and capability to destroy a nation is inherently hostile. The result of this simultaneous communication is a state of heightened tension fueled by increasingly vitriolic rhetoric. It is very difficult to find a positive or peaceful side to Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev's most infamous threat, "we will bury you."

Credibility lends the psychological component of deterrence. It is not enough to possess weapons and communicate the intent to use them, the enemy must believe that the political will exists to go to total nuclear war. Credibility is expressed through words as well as doctrine and policy. Standing orders for the US submarine fleet to launch on targets in the event of multiple redundant communications failures would represent such an order.

The unintended consequence of credibility is aggressiveness. Credibility is largely communicated through military posture and action. Pushing military readiness to a higher level during a time of crisis lends credibility to a nuclear deterrent, but also signals a desire to escalate. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Curtis LeMay ordered the US Strategic Forces to Defcon-2 (just short of open war) to demonstrate the credibility of a US nuclear second strike – a move interpreted by many in the Kremlin as preparation for a preemptive strike.

Implications in the Post Cold War World

Deterrence theory plays heavily into the power dynamic of the Middle East today. Israel's nuclear capability is, perhaps, the worst kept secret in the Middle East. Well known as a nuclear power (but never formally acknowledged as such) Israel's small arsenal keeps her larger, but less technologically sophisticated neighbors at bay.

At the same time, Israel's nuclear trump card also gives her carte blanch to launch air-strikes against Lebanon, inflict whatever misery is politically expedient upon the Palestinians, and treat the rest of the Middle East with a not insubstantial amount of disdain.

Iran's quest for nuclear weapons can be seen as quite logical in this regard. If Iran achieves nuclear parity with Israel it will create a regional Deterrence/Brinksmanship cycle which, in turn, should serve to temper some of Israel's more egregious abuses while enforcing similar restrains on the actions of Iran. This temperance will take place because of a mathematical principal that operates with the predictability and precision of a Swiss watch and which is the topic of the next in this series of articles: Game Theory.

[Part I]-[Next]

28 Votes
Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

Killfile's Column, All of Newsvine
Groups: Armageddon Watch
Regions: none

What's this?

Who's leading the conversation?

This visualization below allows you to see the impact that each user has on the current conversation. The top row contains the group of users who have had the most impact, the 2nd row the group of users who have had the 2nd most impact (et cetera). Users with similar impact are grouped together, and the average score of the group is shown to the left of the group. The author of the article is also shown on the left, in their corresponding group. Each user's score is based on the number of comments the user has made plus the number of votes their comments have received. The scores are calculated relative one another, so while their absolute value is not particularly important, their relative difference does indicate a larger difference in impact on the conversation.

5.2

3.7

{"commentId":308345,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

Depending on interest I can flesh this series out a great deal. Options include Game Theory, but also failures of game theory like the Arms Race. I can also go into some detail on Mutually Assured Destruction.

I'd like to lead this series more into the modern day in later articles, focusing specifically on Iran and Anti-Ballistic Missile technology.

{"commentId":308345,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

1 vote

#1 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:13 AM EDT

{"commentId":309418,"authorDomain":"LiberalRebel"}

LiberalRebel

Thanks for a great article as often coming from your column Killfile.

I would very much like for you to continue the series. Hope to see more soon. LR

{"commentId":309418,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"LiberalRebel"}

1 vote

#1.1 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:22 PM EDT

{"commentId":313333,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}

I SPY

Abdul Qadeer Khan – Pakistan's nuclear scientist and rogue nuclear salesman – has done more than any other person or country to spread nuclear weapons around the world.

Name a nuclear hotspot and Khan's clients are there – Iran, North Korea, Libya, and perhaps the deadliest potential customer of all – a terrorist network willing to make its own nuclear jihad.

Khan has changed the rules of the nuclear game forever. The first nuclear age was about great powers facing off against each other. It was terrifying, but at least everybody knew the rules.

In the second nuclear age, there is no return address and so there is no deterrence. The bomb could come in a backpack, in a briefcase, or in even in an ox cart. We could now see the privatisation of the atomic bomb, and it's a much more frightening world.

{"commentId":313333,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ISPY"}

2 votes

#1.2 - Tue Oct 3, 2006 7:19 AM EDT

{"commentId":313361,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

I Spy, there's still a return address - it's just not printed on a missile. Nuclear materials have a "signature" that tells us where they came from. Plutonium will carry a different balance of isotopes depending on the reactor that made it. Uranium will be contaminated with different trace elements depending on where it came out of the ground and what process was used to refine it.

No -- what changes the rules of the game isn't Khan's sale of nuclear technology, it's the former Soviet Union's sale of actual nuclear weapons.

{"commentId":313361,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

1 vote

#1.3 - Tue Oct 3, 2006 8:02 AM EDT

{"commentId":314929,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}

I SPY

Oh Great so you will nuke us down here in Australia because that is probably where the material originated from.

{"commentId":314929,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ISPY"}

#1.4 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 3:30 AM EDT

{"commentId":314952,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}

I SPY

I Think that you are being far too optimistic here. The most likely return address will be the U.S.S. which we all know does not exist because the Americans defeated utterly the failed political and economic systems of the evil REDS showing capitalism to be the system of Truth, Justice and Freedom. So who are you going to nuke back KF ? I hear the USA has not had the tightest security on your own nuke sites. I even hear it is possible for clowns to take a US air base.

{"commentId":314952,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ISPY"}

#1.5 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 4:16 AM EDT

{"commentId":315067,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

I actually seeded the clowns and the missile silo story. They managed to spray paint the blast doors of a missile silo. That's not the same thing as taking over an air-base.

The other problem with your line of reasoning is the nuclear safeguard system. The US and the USSR had very different policies and priorities when dealing with nuclear safeguards. The US was more interested in keeping the weapons from detonating while the USSR was really more interested in making sure they would still go off.

The result is that US nuclear safeguards tend to be more than willing to turn your multi-million dollar nuclear device into a very expensive paperweight where as the Soviet systems were only slightly harder to hot-wire than a Volkswagen.

Moreover, the USSR is, at present, missing some 3% of its nuclear arsenal. That isn't to say that they've actually had 3% go missing, just that the internal records systems are bad enough that about 3% aren't accounted for.

I don't think anyone is going to go after the Aussies because you happen to have lots of Uranium sitting about, but they're likely to work out where that Uranium came from and who bought it and when.

{"commentId":315067,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

#1.6 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 8:09 AM EDT

{"commentId":315149,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}

I SPY

The other problem with your line of reasoning is the nuclear safeguard system. The US and the USSR had very different policies and priorities when dealing with nuclear safeguards. The US was more interested in keeping the weapons from detonating while the USSR was really more interested in making sure they would still go off.

Yes good point. I dont think that the USA would lose a bomb but fisile material is another Question. As for old Soviet stuff, there is just so much of it about. we do know fisile matertial was stolen in Georgia,and that more from Khazakstan turned up in a cars trunk in paris. Accidentally forund in a rotine police traffic violation. Transdnestr is also a very porous place for small nukes and Dirty bombs. It is believed that 300 nuke Suit case bombs were stored there and a number of Fake nukes/ dirty bombs. These dirty warheads have been offered for sale numerous times. They are designed for false flag ops. Some of the larger ones are even designed to produce a mushroom cloud.

{"commentId":315149,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ISPY"}

#1.7 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 9:13 AM EDT

{"commentId":308371,"authorDomain":"darkside"}

Mykola Bilokonsky

That was concise and logical, a triumph of form subjugated to substance. I learned a lot and look forward to reading more.

{"commentId":308371,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"darkside"}

4 votes

#2 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:55 AM EDT

{"commentId":308387,"authorDomain":"TheObserver1"}

The Observer

Kill:

Will the world be a better place if Iran had Nukes?

Has Iran violated UN edicts about Nuclear inspection?

Shouldn't the world want LESS Nukes?

Are Dictators more likely to use Nukes than Democracies?

Would you want a terrorist organization to get their hands on a Nuke?

{"commentId":308387,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"TheObserver1"}

2 votes

#3 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:13 AM EDT

{"commentId":308437,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

Iran has violated UN edicts about Nuclear inspection. Fewer edicts than say, Israel, has violated with respect to human rights -- but they have violated them.

Of course I don't want a terrorist organization to acquire a nuclear weapon, but that is more likely to happen through the illicit sale of an old Soviet weapon than anything else.

The rest of your questions are very complex ones - though they don't seem that way on the surface. If you'd like me to address them in the future articles in this series I'd love to do so.

{"commentId":308437,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

1 vote

#3.1 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 9:50 AM EDT

{"commentId":308944,"authorDomain":"pody"}

Dom Pody

Will the world be a better place if Iran had Nukes?

No, but it won't be any worse off either. The situation for the United States is moot- Iranian nukes don't affect the US, as deterrence theory obviously proves. And even more so, the United States can employ the threat of M.A.D. so that Iran doesn't give the weapons to terrorists. All in all, Iranian nukes don't hurt the United States, whatsoever.

Excellent article, Killfile. Thanks for backing me up (as I did post, well, almost the same article about a month ago ;)

{"commentId":308944,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"pody"}

2 votes

#3.2 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:21 PM EDT

{"commentId":308949,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

Sorry Dom, I didn't see your article - though, based on votes and comments, it looks like deterrence theory just isn't Newsvine's cup of tea.

That said, I was planing on using this as a jumping of point for a more in-depth look at other issues. Unfortunately, there's been so little interest that I'm thinking about ending the series here.

{"commentId":308949,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

2 votes

#3.3 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:24 PM EDT

{"commentId":309451,"authorDomain":"LiberalRebel"}

LiberalRebel

Are Dictators more likely to use Nukes than Democracies?

Well, I guess that one could easily state that now that the President wanna be Chimp decider of US just gained his trump card with the torture/detention bill making him in fact one, what was it again I quoted above? Ah yeah! one very American Dictator. So my answer to your question, Observer is, yes!

I think that when a Dictator like this one here, called Bush already has stated that the Constitution that he supposedly should be defending and working under "ain't nothing but a piece of God damn paper" and when he is the one who has been proved so unstable as in going so far when provoked to even come up with the insane idea of orchestrating a plot to bomb the headquarter of one Arabian TV Channel within it's own National borders just because he didn't like their way of not abiding with the agendas written by his people, like the rest of the weak MSM so kindly does, well then, hell yes he would!
Drop a nuke that is. If all that is needed is him being given a bit more of those so shiny power tools to do so, of course he would if he felt like it.

I mean, here is a guy who when he continuously keeps up with his lamely transparent lies and Rovian invented deceiving techniques, still manages to get his sick and unconstitutional ideas through both the house and senate. So what is the big deal for him and his will anyways?
Of course he would be a bit rattled and @!$%#ed up Internationally if he ever actually did try it.
But that would be happening after it all had been done already.
This they have had six years of trustful evidence to learn, conclude and then conduct their managing policies upon . They can and will do whatever they want to do as long as no body stands up with vengeance and strength against them. And thus far, those bodies have all but caved in as usual.

{"commentId":309451,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"LiberalRebel"}

2 votes

#3.4 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:55 PM EDT

{"commentId":308486,"authorDomain":"TheObserver1"}

The Observer

The rest of your questions are very complex ones - though they don't seem that way on the surface. If you'd like me to address them in the future articles in this series I'd love to do so.

Translation: You are avoiding the obvious answers because you can not defend your position.

If there are less Nukes, the world is better off because there is less opportunity to use them. Less opportunities for terrorists to obtain them, as well.

If every country in the world had Nukes, every country would now have the potential for mass destruction. Not a good idea.

Dictatorships are inherently more dangerous than Democracies.

Dictators are unchecked. Democracies are checked. A dictator does not need to get a budget approved to wage a war. No consent of Congress required. No worries of re-election of himself or his party. No free press to criticize the decision. The populace can't protest very well either. No Conscientious Objector Status allowed.

{"commentId":308486,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"TheObserver1"}

2 votes

#4 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:26 AM EDT

{"commentId":308554,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

Translation: You are avoiding the obvious answers because you can not defend your position.

You're being unnecessarily belligerent and rude. I haven't articulated a position. "Less nukes" as you put it do not necessarily lead to a safer world - a problem that, as I said, I'd be happy to discuss in some detail in a later addition to this series. I'll consider your hostile and completely uncalled for bile to be a request for more on this topic.

As to the "inherent danger" of Dictatorships v. Democracies, I'm curious if you're aware of any actual evidence for this. Your question is best addressed through a tier-two analysis of the cause of major wars, focusing on institutions in government. I'm prepared to undertake such an analysis, but, as I've said above, its outside the scope of this article and inappropriate to the discussion at hand.

If you have something to contribute towards this topic, however, I'd be interested to hear it.

{"commentId":308554,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

4 votes

#4.1 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:09 AM EDT

{"commentId":308571,"authorDomain":"darkside"}

Mykola Bilokonsky

Killfile - sometime soon I'm gonna write up an analysis of democracy with an emphasis on the Delian League and all that ancient greek stuff, culminating in the Melian Dialogues and whatnot. That should provide some interesting fodder for people who believe in the intrinsic White-Hattedness of democracy.

Observer, if I may ask, what the @!$%# is the matter with you? Are you really incapable of digesting a completely nonpartisan educated analysis of some small facet of world politics without acting like a complete ass? You were hostile in your first comment but Killfile wrote it off and addressed you as though you were being respectful and genuninely interested. To reward his more than reasonable response to you with another volley of vitriol strikes me as a plea to be ignored and dismissed as too immature to be interacted with. Is that what you want?

{"commentId":308571,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"darkside"}

5 votes

#4.2 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 11:18 AM EDT

{"commentId":308506,"authorDomain":"oped"}

Ugly Bastard

Let's pull the police off the streets.

Deterrence against criminals is useless.

Think of all the money we could save if we disbanded all the police departments around the country.

{"commentId":308506,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"oped"}

1 vote

#5 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:42 AM EDT

{"commentId":308513,"authorDomain":"TheObserver1"}

The Observer

What does this mean?

{"commentId":308513,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"TheObserver1"}

#5.1 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:50 AM EDT

{"commentId":310234,"authorDomain":"hemphill"}

hemphill

Good idea, make it so.

{"commentId":310234,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"hemphill"}

1 vote

#5.2 - Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:28 PM EDT

{"commentId":308982,"authorDomain":"JK08"}

JK08

Very nice article Killfile. I love it when people use logic =)

The leader of Iran has stated at least once that Israel should be "wiped off the map". I'm affraid that if Iran got nuclear weapons it would negate the fear that they have for Isreal and they would be more willing to invade and claim Isreal for there own or worse. And god help us if Israel panics and uses their weapons.

{"commentId":308982,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"JK08"}

1 vote

#6 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 3:40 PM EDT

{"commentId":309022,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

And Khrushchev promised to bury the United States. North Korea has promised to drown us in a "sea of fire" and so on and so on.

Aggressive rhetoric is part of deterrence - and it doesn't have to be just about nuclear weapons. That's one of the reasons I think the US reaction to the Iranian rhetoric is over the top. Keep in mind, we're honestly talking about going to nuclear war with these people. On the rhetoric scale, we're way past Iran's threats.

{"commentId":309022,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

3 votes

#6.1 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:09 PM EDT

{"commentId":309088,"authorDomain":"JK08"}

JK08

So, if I understand you correctly, you're saying they're just talking big, that they won't necessarily attack anyone with these weapons, unless of course, they're provoked?

I suppose I could see that. Kind of like the precursor to a bar fight. Throw threats back and forth until a punch is thrown potentially making the entire place explode with violence or someone backs down.

Is that about right?

It just makes me nervous that ANYONE has nuclear weapons, but countries like Iran especially.

{"commentId":309088,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"JK08"}

#6.2 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 4:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":309573,"authorDomain":"kikaiju"}

kikaiju

Rhetoric itself can become a very powerful weapon, if you can get someone to believe it.

The Iranian people may believe that they can (or would) wipe Israel of the map. This perhaps boosts their sense of national pride, self-esteem, and support for their President. He wins.

In the US and Israel, officials have apparently taken the words at face value. This automatically and instantly moves Iran from third-world sand pile to nuclear power that must be taken seriously. A stunning jump in stature. Not every sand pile nation can get the US to notice them much less pay any attention.

Simply by the use of rhetoric, Iran has boosted itself internally and in the eyes of the world, and done it without losing face or looking weak or even firing one bullet. Brilliant.

It's difficult for Iran to lose too. If the external forces laugh at their threat (as perhaps we should), Iran needs only produce a bomb to be taken seriously. They are apparently working on that anyway.

The only way they could be turned back into a forgotten sand pile would be to negotiate a huge settlement (again boosting Iran's stature and lowering the US'), or to turn them back into a sand pile by force. Glassy sand perhaps.

Such a move would be risky given the immense support Iran gets from France and Russia, and China, Pakistan, and DPRK. Iran is not entirely without allies. Many of them would like to see the US take a huge fall. A team strategy is not out of the question.

{"commentId":309573,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"kikaiju"}

1 vote

#6.3 - Sat Sep 30, 2006 2:03 AM EDT

{"commentId":309195,"authorDomain":"ryanbooker"}

Ryan Booker

Killfile, very good article.

I'd like to know what influence you think irrational beliefs may or may not have on this cycle. The Iranian government is a Islamic theocracy and their spiritual and political leaders are quite obviously fundamentalist.

Given what a fundamentalist believes about the world, paradise, rewards for the fighting, converting and subjugating of infidels, the doctrines of jihad and martyrdom, etc; do you think this could upset the "safe" cycle that exists in MAD?

{"commentId":309195,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ryanbooker"}

3 votes

#7 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 6:13 PM EDT

{"commentId":309518,"authorDomain":"LiberalRebel"}

LiberalRebel

I think that it is a fair and good question.
I would like to stretch it a bit though, and add the huge amount of powerful Neo Conservative Christian fundamentalists on the spot where you placed Islamic political and spiritual leaders as being Fundamentalists.

I am referring to these http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/agenda.html">700 club members and their leader Pat Robertson and his alike who pays much of the play around bills to elected and white house shirts so that they can gain more saying and burst their power hunger.

I mean, what about the influence of the likes of those Evangelist or Davidian kind of Seventh day Adventist or hard core right-wing born again Christian who advocates the bombing of Iran, Syria or the assassination of the democratically elected President of one south American sovereign Nation because of his squabble and dislikes of what is American http://mediamatters.org/items/200508220006">(Pat R again).

What is it that says that their quite obviously fundamentalist & born again Religious leader within the walls of that so shiny white house, wouldn't decide to go full blood religious in his little war mongering games? Given what this http://www.bushwatch.com/evangelist.htm">fundamentally extreme & "born-again" President Bush believes when repeatedly referring to God in so many quotes and speeches, such as the likes of "our cause is just and God is with us and on our side" or ''I believe God wants me to run for president.'' or "the fact that President Bush lists 'renewing my faith' above 'getting married' and 'having children' among the 'defining moments' of his life."
You know, them normal and standard doctrines of Hard core Right-wing Christianity and its championing for "their just & holy right cause" and such small things as being utterly extreme and fundamental in ones beliefs, do you think this could upset the now safely to state "totally un-safe" cycle that exists in that MAD US Administration and their lapdog Government?

{"commentId":309518,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"LiberalRebel"}

1 vote

#7.1 - Sat Sep 30, 2006 12:18 AM EDT

{"commentId":309718,"authorDomain":"ryanbooker"}

Ryan Booker

I would just like to clarify that my question is a general one. Iran was used as an example, but the same question extends to any fundamentalist, irrational belief, with a potential impact on this issue. It could even extend beyond religion, though that seems to me to be the largest cause for concern in our current climate, particularly given its ability to nullify the deterrent of death.

{"commentId":309718,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ryanbooker"}

#7.2 - Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:07 AM EDT

{"commentId":311168,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

Ryan -- the possibility that Iran is an irrational actor is one that does have to be considered, but - as I've argued in other pieces - Islamic Theocracy (Iran), Christian Theocracy (USA), or Secular Theocracy (USSR) everyone seems to see the danger of nuclear annihilation.

I think you can make a good argument for Iran being a perfectly rational actor in the context of international affairs. That doesn't mean they like the US or what the West stands for -- but liking the US isn't a very good standard for rationality.

{"commentId":311168,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

1 vote

#7.3 - Sun Oct 1, 2006 4:57 PM EDT

{"commentId":311283,"authorDomain":"ryanbooker"}

Ryan Booker

but liking the US isn't a very good standard for rationality

Couldn't agree more. ;)

I'll have to read your other pieces. My concern is that people(s) who value the next world above this one, wouldn't necessarily be deterred by death, or smashing this world to atoms; if it serves their irrational beliefs. Particular when dying for those beliefs is enshrined as the greatest thing you can do. You just have to look at a suicide bomber to realise the deterrent of death isn't held in equal esteem by all individuals.

My fear would be the same for the US if it were run by a truly fundamentalist government, and not subject to the checks and balances it is. Whether that is occuring and those checks eroding, is another discussion.

{"commentId":311283,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ryanbooker"}

2 votes

#7.4 - Sun Oct 1, 2006 7:35 PM EDT

{"commentId":309325,"authorDomain":"djehuty"}

Djehuty

Great article Killfile. At the moment this is particularly important I think, because of potential US response to the "situation" of Iran.

I don't agree that Israel's nuclear weapons were of any help to it in Lebanon, or are of any help to it on an ongoing basis - because of the Credibility "C". If Israel were to use a nuke in say Lebanon or Syria, or even in Iran, it would unleash a storm of condemnation and suicide attack which not even the US "umbrella" could protect it from. In fact it would probably make it politically untenable for the US to continue to fund the Israeli arms industry. Hezbollah, for example, knows this and so is not deterred. Is possible nuclear attack the reason Egypt has followed a peaceful path for 30 years? I doubt it's the main reason - it could maintain a high level of belligerence without risking a nuclear attack, possibly going as far as outright attempted invasion - but it would be suicide for conventional arms and economic reasons.

I believe Iran would have the same problem, and for that matter the US does too. Did the US "nuke Afghanistan back to the stone age" after 9/11? Consequently that whole arsenal (which the neo-cons would love to make central and important again) is more or less useless except perhaps in very specialised situations (N Korea? I'm not sure).

The "solution" for the neo-cons is to stage a demonstration, so that "Credibility" is "Communicated". This is my real fear about Iran, as I wrote here, especially with conventional forces seriously stretched.

Please don't stop here Killfile - it's worth exploring this topic even if it isn't a big vote winner!

{"commentId":309325,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"djehuty"}

3 votes

#8 - Fri Sep 29, 2006 8:27 PM EDT

{"commentId":309721,"authorDomain":"praxiss"}

Praxiss

Good article Kill, like other commentors here i too am dismayed at the proliferation of nuclear arms and in particularly with Iran. I do understand their reasons for wanting them, if i had Israel on my doorstep i'd want a deterrent large enough to dissuede Israel from hostile actions. As recent events show, Israel is not shy about military intervention and their actions can sometimes be dis-proportionate (as with Lebanon).

Looking forward to your next article

{"commentId":309721,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"praxiss"}

#9 - Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:15 AM EDT

{"commentId":309743,"authorDomain":"ISPY"}

I SPY

If there is going to be a nuclear war It could be starting in Georgia right now. I think BP will get the US to defend Pipelineistan. To make light of this remember

Turgidson:

Ah, come on DeSadeski, that's ridiculous. Our studies show that even the worst fallout is down to a safe level after two weeks.

DeSadeski:

You've obviously never heard of cobalt thorium G.

Turgidson:

No, what about it?

DeSadeski:

Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years!

Turgidson:

Ah, what a load of commie bull. I mean, afterall...

Muffley:

I'm afraid I don't understand something, Alexiy. Is the Premier threatening to explode this if our planes carry out their attack?

DeSadeski:

No sir. It is not a thing a sane man would do. The doomsday machine is designed to to trigger itself automatically.

Muffley:

But surely you can disarm it somehow.

DeSadeski:

No. It is designed to explode if any attempt is ever made to untrigger it.

Muffley:

Automatically?

Turgidson:

Ahh.. it's an obvious commie trick, Mr. President. walks backwards towards the big board We're wasting valuable time. falls over backwards and does a somersault, and brings himself back onto his feet Look at the big board! They're getting ready to clobber us!

Muffley:

But this is absolute madness, ambassador. Why should you build such a thing?

DeSadeski:

There are those of us who fought against it, but in the end we could not keep up with the expense involved in the arms race, the space race, and the peace race. And at the same time our people grumbled for more nylons and washing machines. Our doomsday scheme cost us just a small fraction of what we'd been spending on defense in a single year. But the deciding factor was when we learned that your country was working along similar lines, and we were afraid of a doomsday gap.

Muffley:

This is preposterous. I've never approved of anything like that.

DeSadeski:

Our source was the New York Times.

Strangelove:

Mr. President, it is not only possible, it is essential. That is the whole idea of this machine, you know. Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack. And so, because of the automated and irrevocable decision making process which rules out human meddling, the doomsday machine is terrifying. It's simple to understand. And completely credible, and convincing.

Turgidson:

Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines, Stainsy.

Strangelove:

...sir! stands up out of his wheelchair I have a plan. Heh. pauses, realizing that he is standing Mein Fuhrer, I can walk!

Multiple scenes of exploding bombs, dancing to the tune of "We'll Meet Again."

{"commentId":309743,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"ISPY"}

3 votes

#10 - Sat Sep 30, 2006 8:59 AM EDT

{"commentId":315187,"authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}

Sarcophilus

good article killfile...it would be great to see you continue with these

{"commentId":315187,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}

#11 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 9:39 AM EDT

{"commentId":315214,"authorDomain":"killfile"}

Killfile

Part II is in the works and is nearly complete. Probably today or tomorrow.

{"commentId":315214,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"killfile"}

#11.1 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 9:57 AM EDT

{"commentId":315230,"authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}

Sarcophilus

I look forward to reading it! :-)

{"commentId":315230,"threadId":"44853","contentId":"379860","authorDomain":"Sarcophilus"}

#12 - Wed Oct 4, 2006 10:08 AM EDT

{"canLink":false,"threadId":"44853","isPrivate":false}

KILLFILE

Backyard

The Logic of Armageddon – Deterrence Theory

Live Poll

What is Deterrence?

The Three Cs and the Law of Unintended Consequences

Implications in the Post Cold War World

Published to:

FUN STUFF:

COMPANY STUFF:

LEGAL STUFF: