-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Blindly Down the Strategic Valley
We’re past the point of deterring Iran and North Korea from developing nuclear weaponry. So what now?
There is a tendency in American political and journalistic circles to believe there is some way to deter Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. This is a totally false perception, as the Iranians are already committed to the creation of a nuclear weapon arsenal. For what other reason would they have continued to invest in its extremely expensive and technologically difficult program? They certainly do not need additional energy sources, and couldn’t care less about hydrocarbon pollution. This matter already has been closed.
The only real issue left is to determine how to counter the possible use of a Persian nuclear weapon. Sanctions are irrelevant in a nuclear confrontation. If a country such as Iran decides to use a nuclear weapon, the only deterrent is to create the expectation of an immediate and devastating counterstrike. The Mullahs knows full well that if they allow a first strike on themselves, any further conflict through a retaliatory strike by them would be limited by the damage originally caused by their opponent. Iran must strike first — and hard — if at all.
In other words, the strategic situation with Iran is a fait accompli. The only decision left to be made is whether Iran’s nuclear capability should be destroyed in some form of a first strike or a method should be devised to learn to live with the new nuclear-armed Iran. This choice also exists for North Korea, and, in a way, they are related. The nuclear cooperation between the two countries is supposed to be quite close. Certainly they share the same arch-enemy in the United States. The difference, of course, is that if South Korea is effectively North Korea’s “Israel,” there is no question that the Americans will adhere to their defense agreements with the South, though in the last few years a serious debate has arisen over just how solid the U.S. commitment to defend Israel is.
In this regard, there is no way Israel’s defense strategy can count on serious military support from the Obama administration. The question follows as to whether and to what degree South Korea could depend on the U.S. to adhere to the letter and intent of its defense accord with Washington. In fact, it would appear that the reluctance of President Obama to use American military power brings into question any and all American defense agreements.
This possible situation poses a serious question in world affairs. It would appear that American military interference worldwide is now to be limited to covert action (including, at most, lethal drone attack) and intelligence gathering. This relatively benign policy suggests the Obama White House actually believes it can pave the way for other military powers to curb their potential aggression and join Washington in a new — if unstated — agreement to forswear traditional military action, thus reducing the dangers to world peace.
While it is relatively easy theoretically for major powers such as Russia and China to pretend to such a “new concept” form of disarmament, this approach will do little to dissuade emerging nuclear weapon nations like Iran and North Korea from using their newly forming military strength to coerce or even attack its chosen enemies. Rather, it is easily arguable that the Obama concept of military preparedness and reaction is an invitation to conflict rather than a deterrent.
The basis of strategic parity through the Cold War and the following years has been the threat of mutually assured destruction. This threat extended beyond the actual potential of the major adversaries to use their massive nuclear arsenals, but collaterally diminished even direct conventional conflict between them. A good example might be the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 where the U.S. became involved only on a covert basis and earlier in Cuba where Washington was restrained from extending conventional attacks after the Bay of Pigs failure. This is to say nothing of various covert contests worldwide in Africa, Central America, etc.
Such a balance of potential destruction is not at all clear in the evolving nuclear military power of either Iran or North Korea. For the concept of mutually assured destruction to act as an impediment to nuclear assault, there must be a parity in the destructive capability of nuclear arsenals. There also has to be no religio-ideological predilection to martyrdom as in the case of Shia Iran or, as is the case of North Korea, an acceptance of economic privation and a commitment to national dominance.
The truth is that the esprit of nuclear powers differs even as their nuclear capabilities to destroy tend to evolve. Will the spirit of the Israelis to survive another Holocaust drive them to a preemptive attack? Will the Iranians wait for Israel — an easy target — to make up its mind? Will the North Koreans simply unleash their limited nuclear assets as an initial barrage against a South Korea that must respond as well to a conventional invasion of a massive army from the north?
How does Barack Obama’s defense strategy consider these contingencies? And does he realize “balance of power” means a balance of physical power and the will to use it?
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (19) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/02/21/blindly-down-the-strategic-val
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 2.21.13 @ 6:14AM
I think we all know what Barokeydoke means when he uses the word "balance"
"When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less"
~Humpty Dumpty~
"Through the Looking Glass"
markenoff| 2.21.13 @ 11:03AM
Actually your quote implies that only Barokeydoke knows what he means when he uses a word.
Bill8472| 2.21.13 @ 12:45PM
All 57 states agree.
R Martin| 2.21.13 @ 7:58AM
“How does Barack Obama’s defense strategy consider these contingencies?”
Obama’s defense strategy was on full display in Benghazi. That strategy has been underlined by his appointments at defense and state. Today one reads that John Kerry believes global warming is one of his biggest challenges and that congress is a greater threat to U.S. foreign policy than China or the Middle East. His predecessor was an even bigger show pony. We all know how Chuck Hagel feels about Iran and Israel.
Obama has staffed his administration in his own image—with blithering incompetents whose inflated egos obscure the consequences of their own actions. Voices raised against these truly dangerous people are too faint when a leftist media pays them no heed.
It’s so much better for all of us when our government worries more about guns in the hands of responsible American citizens than it does about weapons of mass destruction controlled by certifiably crazy religious zealots. This cannot end well.
markenoff| 2.21.13 @ 11:04AM
His defense strategy mirrors his Chicago bath house strategy. Bend over and take it in the ........
Arnie| 2.21.13 @ 8:47AM
I say if Israel wants to a be a big boy and be an independent country of itself in the Middle East, then they can defend themselves in the Middle East .
Otherwise, they are just a protectorate of the United States. Although, I get the feeling sometimes they are actually calling the shots...
Occam's Tool| 2.21.13 @ 11:41PM
OK, Arnie. So, you're happy with Israel taking out the Iranian nuclear plants with nukes? Eh? OK with that?
I mean, I am, but I'm supposed to be trigger happy.
The point I'm making is that if you want it done with overwhelming force without subtlety or finesse, let the Israelis do it. If you want measured power, it has to be the USA.
Good to see another lefty hates the Israelis, though. The Evangelicals do NOT believe that Israel should be wiped out, Arnie. I know them better than you.
Arnie| 2.22.13 @ 4:03AM
I don't hate Israelis. I might even have more Israeli friends than you.
I just think they should conduct their own foreign policy with their own money and weapons. That's it.
Arnie| 2.21.13 @ 8:50AM
And this is for all the born again evangelicals out there:
What do you care if Israel actually gets attacked or wiped out? Don't many of you think this will precipitate the rapture or something...something you've been looking forward to anyway?
I'm geniunely curious what some of the Christians here think about this.
markenoff| 2.21.13 @ 11:06AM
Yeah, what do you Christians think about the deaths of millions of Jews, Christians, Arabs and Persians that would follow the exchange of nuclear weapons between Iran and Isreal? Not to mention the environmental damage. Do you really care about clouds of radioactive dust blowing all over the globe?
SUBVET| 2.21.13 @ 10:51AM
NOYB...........troll
markenoff| 2.21.13 @ 11:02AM
It's time for Iran to wipe the racist Zionist entity off the face of the earth. If the retaliation results in the deaths of millions of Iranians so be it. They will be martyrs who live in paradise with their 72 doe eyed virgins. Or 72 golden raisins depending upon who you talk to.
And North Korea needs to free the oppressed proletariat who have been expropriated and alienated from the product of their labor from the imperialist capitalist ruling class in South Korea. If that means the deaths of millions of these same proletariat it is worth it to further the cause of the world socialist revolution. Long live the revolution!
As for the environmental destruction, well as the Webbs once said, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs.
Bill8472| 2.21.13 @ 12:43PM
The lead-in asks the question, "What now?" in considering what should be done about the nuclear-bomb capacity of such peace-loving nations as Iran and North Korea.
I personally favor attacking their nuclear capacity and destroying it. I don't like the idea that we've let things go on so long that ground troops may be needed -- so many of our fine troops will be killed and wounded in such fights.
I expect that the next four years will go by with nothing being done. Nothing will be done until somebody actually USES a nuke in some conflict or some act of aggression. North Korea vs. South Korea, Iran vs. Israel, something like that.
By the time that happens, our armed forces will have been crippled by sequestration, and we will be hard-pressed to react.
markenoff| 2.21.13 @ 12:55PM
There are some creative ways that Iran could use its nuclear weapons to target purely military US targets using existing delivery systems while maintaining plausible deniability that it was them. I will not elaborate as I do not want to give anyone any ideas.
Mike W| 2.21.13 @ 4:57PM
Prediction - you will never see American ground troops in Iran. Not even BO is that stupid.
It's amazing that we could deter the largest nuclear force in the world in the USSR but we are obsessively worried about some imaginary nukes in Iran.
Let Israel handle it if they are worried about it. Iran doesn't threaten me anymore than Saddam's imaginary WMD did.
Bill8472| 2.21.13 @ 6:52PM
Well, there IS the distinction that the Soviets didn't want to die any more than we did. In Iran, the leaders worship death in war against Judaism and the West as martyrdom that will insure them of eternity in the afterlife.
Occam's Tool| 2.21.13 @ 11:44PM
Mike W: have you looked at the security at the Port of Galveston? Really LOOKED at it? The reason I ask is that the second largest refinery in the US is just off Galveston Bay, in Texas City.
Saddam didn't have imaginary WMDs, by the way. Where do you think the weapons that Syria is using to gas its people came from?
DRed| 2.22.13 @ 2:35AM
The Syrian chemical weapons program?
cicero| 2.21.13 @ 2:37PM
I only wish rational discussion would have any meaning on this issue. Our government seems content to do nothing, and wait for the wringing of hands. I suggest (facieciously, maybe), that we station a few missile carrying ships off the coast, or in close proximity of North Korea, and Iran. When they test their missiles, we could use them for target practice. If we are good and accurate enough, they may get the idea that they have wasted a lot of itme and money on their weaponry. As far as their sovereign rights and territorial rights, who cares. I am sure Britain andd France wished they had violated Germany's soveriegn rights sometime around 1932.