New Threats Demand New Approach to Deterrence, Defense

American Forces Press Service ^ | Mar 30, 2006 | Donna Miles

[SandRat]

WASHINGTON, March 30, 2006 – The old concept of mutually assured destruction -- the idea that a nuclear attack would have such devastating consequences that neither the United States nor its foes would dare launch one -- isn't enough of a deterrent in today's strategic environment, a senior defense official told Congress yesterday.

"The new strategic environment requires new approaches to deterrence and defense," Peter Flory, assistant secretary for international security policy, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee.

The country's strategic deterrence no longer rests simply on its ability to inflict devastating consequences on potential foes. To deter state and non-state actors and deny them their objectives, the country needs "a more discriminate approach and a broader range of options and capabilities, including both offenses and defenses," he said.

In the event those measures fail, then the United States must be able to respond "with overwhelming force," Flory told the senators.

Flory reported progress in DoD's plan for transforming its strategic forces, as outlined in the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review. The review, issued after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, called for reductions in operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads and the a new triad of offensive strike systems.

"This new triad is designed to transform our strategic capabilities to deal with an uncertain future, and it reflects new thinking about the meaning and purpose of U.S. strategic capabilities," Flory said. The triad includes nuclear, non-nuclear and non-kinetic capabilities able to strike precisely at long ranges, active and passive defenses, and an enhanced responsive defense structure.

When fully implemented, the new triad will provide capabilities and options against a wide range of potential adversaries, including those "whose values and calculations of risk gain and loss may be very different from and, in many ways, harder to discern than those of our past adversaries," Flory said.

Marine Gen. James Cartwright, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told the panel the triad will be underpinned by a robust command and control system and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and planning capabilities. These "allow the use of this triad and the integration of its capabilities in a more holistic fashion than maybe has been the case in the past," he said.

But the Nuclear Posture Review was just a starting point in transforming U.S. strategic capabilities and concepts, Flory told the panel. Since its release, elements throughout DoD have worked together to develop detailed implementation plans and operational concepts.

To date, DoD has:

• Assigned new missions to U.S. Strategic Command: global strike; reintegration of missile defense; space operations; integration of command, control and communications; and the DoD lead in combating weapons of mass destruction;
• Fielded initial ballistic capabilities at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., and more cooperation and participation in the U.S. missile defense program; and
• Reduced U.S. nuclear forces, with goals of reducing operationally deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 3,800 by 2007 and between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012.

But more progress needs to be made in fielding prompt conventional capabilities for global strike, transforming a Cold War nuclear arsenal to meet new challenges and revitalizing the U.S. nuclear infrastructure, Flory reported. "We're working hard to make greater progress in these areas, to realize the full potential and the broad mix of capabilities called for in the NPR," he said.

The 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review validated these efforts, Flory told the panel. It noted the need to tailor deterrence for each individual adversary, to speed up the fielding of global strike capabilities, and to make more cuts in the strategic nuclear force structure.

Although the posture review calls for reduced reliance on nuclear weapons, Flory said such weapons will continue to play a critical role in deterring a wide range of threats, including chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons, as well as large-scale aggression.

"A nuclear weapon is still a viable part of our inventory, but ... one size does not fit all," Cartwright said. What's needed, he said, is "a weapon that will give a broader and potentially more appropriate choice" when confronted with unanticipated, fleeting and often elusive targets that don't stay in one place very long.

He urged Congress to approve the fielding of a conventional warhead on the Trident missile, which will provide deterrence previously offered only by nuclear weapons. "This conventional prompt global-strike capability will be a credible choice that will offer the nation a broader set of tools to confront the enemies we face today and in the future," Cartwright said. "And we believe it's essential to offer this choice for the nation."

[SandRat]

PING

[JamesP81]

"The new strategic environment requires new approaches to deterrence and defense," Peter Flory, assistant secretary for international security policy, told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee's strategic forces subcommittee.

Exactly. MAD worked with the communists because all said, they still wanted to live; just like us. The Islamopsychos don't care if they live or die. Their existence is not important enough to them for the threat against that existence to be effective. Therefore, we have to threaten something else that is more important to them.

[rocksblues]

How can you reason with a religious group that would accept mutual destruction as a way to serve Allah?

[SandRat]

Realists know that you can't, liberals always think you can.

[rocksblues]

Scenario:

Muslim extremists detonate a nuclear device in a US City killing 4 million instantly and dooming 14 million others to certain death.

It is proven that Saudi Arabia is responsible.

We Nuke them.

World opinion would side with?

Rhetorical scenario we would be the bad guys!

[justa-hairyape]

How can you reason with a religious group that would accept mutual destruction as a way to serve Allah?

This is what we are dealing with in Iran.

Iran president paves the way for arabs' imam return
Brief excerpt from the Persian Journal - Nov 17, 2005

His call for the destruction of Israel may have grabbed headlines abroad, but it is President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's devotion to a mystical religious figure that is arousing greater interest inside Iran.

In a keynote speech on Wednesday to senior clerics, Ahmadinejad spoke of his strong belief in the second coming of Shi'ite Muslims' "hidden" 12th Imam.

According to Shi'ite Muslim teaching, Abul-Qassem Mohammad, the 12th leader whom Shi'ites consider descended from the Prophet Mohammed, disappeared in 941 but will return at the end of time to lead an era of Islamic justice.

"Our revolution's main mission is to pave the way for the reappearance of the 12th Imam, the Mahdi," Ahmadinejad said in the speech to Friday Prayers leaders from across the country.

"Therefore, Iran should become a powerful, developed and model Islamic society."

"Today, we should define our economic, cultural and political policies based on the policy of Imam Mahdi's return. We should avoid copying the West's policies and systems," he added, newspapers and local news agencies reported.

Ahmadinejad refers to the return of the 12th Imam, also known as the Mahdi, in almost all his major speeches since he took office in August.

A September address to the U.N. General Assembly contained long passages on the Mahdi which confused Western diplomats and irked those from Sunni Muslim countries who believe in a different line of succession from Mohammed.