The new indeterminacy of deterrence and missile defence

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size

Notes

Robert Jervis, The Illogic of Nuclear Strategy (Ithica, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989). Also see the contribution by Michael Quinlan in this volume.

With apologies to the late Herman Kahn, who coined the labels Type-I through Type-III deterrence, which he used to label different problems of deterrence between the United States and the Soviet Union, in On Thermonuclear War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1960).

Keith Payne, ‘The Case for National Missile Defence’, Orbis, Vol.44, No.2 (Spring 2000) pp.187–96. Payne also was the principal author of the highly influential report, Rationale and Requirements for US Nuclear Forces and Arms Control (Fairfax, Virginia: National Institute for Public Policy, Jan. 2001).

George Lewis, Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright, ‘National Missile Defence: An Indefensible System’, Foreign Policy, No.117 (Winter 1999/2000), pp.120–37.

Michael O'Hanlon, ‘Scholars need to bring Creative Thinking to the Debate over Missile Defence’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 30 Nov. 2001, pp.B11–B13.

Gopal Ratham, ‘Writing a missile shield rule book’, Defence News, 30 August 2004, p.1.

Report of the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States: Executive Summary, 15 July 1998.

Richard L. Garwin, ‘The Rumsfeld Report: What we Did’, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.54, No.6 (Nov./Dec. 1998), pp.40–45.

Michael Dobbs, ‘How Politics helped Define the Threat’, Washington Post, 14 Jan. 2002, p.A1.

Although traditional security studies has resisted social constructivism – mostly because of its arcane language, I think – its stress on the role of beliefs in shaping political order is as relevant here as to any other aspect of international affairs. Alexander Wendt, The Social Construction of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1999).

Remarks by the President on National Missile Defence, The White House, 13 Dec. 2001.

Dana Milbank, ‘Criticism Softens on ABM Move’, Washington Post, 22 May 2002, p.A28; John Vinocur, ‘In private, US and Europe aren't Battling’, International Herald Tribune, 17 July 2002, p.1.

‘Combating Terrorism: A Global Approach?’, sponsored by Old Dominion University and Supreme Allied Commander, Atlantic, Norfolk, Virginia, 13–14 May 2002.

‘Foreign Minister Ivanov rules out Russia–US deal on ABM’, Segodnya, NTV International, 30 May 2001 (FBIS translation).

Elaine Sciolino, ‘Clinton and Putin unable to Agree on Missile Barrier’, New York Times, 5 June 2000, p.A1.

Elaine Sciolino, ‘Clinton finds Germans Critical of US Missile Defence Plan’, New York Times, 2 June 2000, p.A10; Roger Cohen, ‘Warm Welcome for “Putin the German”’, New York Times, 15 June 2000, p.A12.

Erik Eckholm, ‘China says US Missile Shield could force an Arms Buildup’, New York Times, 11 May 2000, p.A1.

Patrick E. Tyler, ‘Gingerly, NATO plans Broader Role for Moscow’, New York Times, 7 Dec. 2001, p.A11; Judy Dempsey, ‘Historic Accord gives Russia a Bigger Say in NATO’, Financial Times, 15 May 2002, p.1.

Robert Cottrell, ‘Closer Ties with the West attracts Muted Criticism’, Financial Times, 15 April 2002, p.3; ‘Putin's Unscrambled Eggs’, The Economist, 9 March 2002, pp.54–5.

Christoph Bluth, ‘Germany and Missile Defence: The Dilemmas Facing an Ally’, Jane's Intelligence Review (Oct. 2001), pp.50–51; Harald Mueller, ‘Germany Hopes it will Go Away’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol.57, No.6 (Nov./Dec. 2001), pp.31–3.

For example, see Jessica T. Mathews, ‘Estranged Partners’, Foreign Policy (Nov./Dec. 2001).

A point made repeatedly in Hubert Vedrine, with Dominique Moisi, France in an Age of Globalization, translated by Philip H. Gordon (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 2001).

Although he never mentions missile defence, the general point is made by Ian Buruma, ‘The Blood Lust of Identity’, New York Review of Books, 11 April 2002, pp.12–14.

The shift in European priorities did not escape the editors of the Washington Post, which they juxtaposed in Dana Milbank, ‘Criticism Softens on ABM Move’, Washington Post, 22 May 2002, p.A28; and T.R. Reid, ‘Resurfacing Animosity Awaits Bush in Europe’, Washiington Post, 22 May 2002., p.A29.

Erik Eckholm, ‘China says Next Move in Arms Talks is up to US’, New York Times, 27 Feb. 2002, p.A5.

Aaron L.Friedberg, ‘11 September and the Future of Sino-American Relations’, Survival, Vol.44, No.1 (Spring 2002) pp.33–50.

‘China's Response to Missile Defences: Confronting a Strategic Fait Accompli’, IISS Strategic Comments, Vol.8, No.1 (Jan. 2002).

Although the 2002 US Nuclear Posture Review discussed nuclear options, raising alarm, this is not a departure from past American policy, which always countenanced possible first use. David E. Sanger, ‘Thinking the Unthinkable Again’, New York Times, 18 March 2002; and Richard D. Sokolsky and Eugene B. Rumer, ‘Nuclear Alarmists’, Washington Post, 15 March 2002, p.A23.

‘US installs first GMD anti-missile interceptor’, Jane's Missile and Rockets, 1 Sep. 2004.

James Dao, ‘Plan to stop Missile Threat could cost $238 Billion’, New York Times, 1 Feb. 2002, p.A5.

See statements by two prominent Senators. Carl Levin, ‘A Debate Deferred’, Arms Control Today (Nov. 2001), pp.3–5; and Joseph R. Biden, Jr, ‘Missile Defence Delusion’, Washington Post, 19 Dec. 2001, p.A39.

Dennis M. Gormley, ‘Enriching Expectations: 11 September's Lessons for Missile Defence’, Survival, Vol.44, No.2 (Summer 2002) pp.19–35.

US Department of Defence, Nuclear Posture Review (Washington, DC: submitted to Congress 31 Dec. 2001, unclassified version released 8 Jan. 2002).

For example, see Vladimir Slipchenko, ‘Point of View: Has the Circle Closed? Nuclear Deterrence has become Mired in Defects’, Armeyskiy Sbornik, 1 April 2002 (FBIS translation).

Partrice-Henry Desaubliaux, ‘Doctrine remains Deterrence’, Le Figaro, 8 June 2001, p.7 (FBIS translation).

Jean Tandonnet, ‘French Nuclear Deterrence in the Wake of September 11’, Defence Nationale (May 2002), pp.19–27 (FBIS translation).

Robert Cooper, The Post-Modern State and the World Order (London: Demos, 1996).

Edward N. Luttwak, Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, revised edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 2001).

Martin van Creveld, The Transformation of War (New York: Free Press, 1991), ch.7; William S. Lind et al., ‘Warfare in the 4th Generation’, Marine Corps Gazette, Oct. 1989.

This point is explored in an exchange of letters between James M. Lindsay and Michael E. O'Hanlon and a response by Charles L. Glaser and Steve Fetter in International Security, Vol.26, No.4 (Spring 2002) pp.190–201.

Wyn Bowen, ‘European Governments ponder Plans for GMD’, Jane's Intelligence Review (Aug. 2001).

Thus Dean Wilkening wrote: ‘non-state actors simply do not have the wherewithal to construct, purchase or operate 100,000 pound ICBMs’. Dean Wilkening, ‘Counterterrorism is a Top Priority, so Why Rush to Kill the ABM Treaty?’ San Jose Mercury News, 16 Dec. 2001.

Amnon Barzilay, ‘Hot Debate over Future of Nautilu’, Ha'aretz, 5 Dec. 2001.