Take Two Steps Back

UPDATE:

Although I personally believe that the European missile shield is dead, the Obama administration came out and denied claims of scrapping the program. There really is no coherent policy from this administration on European missile defense.

Maybe I'm being a bit melodramatic, but I feel like I have said goodbye to a lot of things since January 20th. I said goodbye to the F22 in this article, and arrivederci to Professor Dr. Thayer here. (Footnote - Dr. Thayer is now at Baylor teaching political science.) We are also seeing the loss of a once triumphant economy through government coercion and poor fiscal policy. More importantly we are seeing the loss of US Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities due to political mismanagement.

DSS professor, Ilan Berman predicted the demise of the European missile shield back in March.

In March, President Obama sent a secret letter to Russia’s president in March suggesting that he would back off deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe (Poland and the Czech Republic) if Moscow would help stop Iran from developing long-range weapons.

Although at face value this seemed like a decent trade off, it's certainly was not the case once you start peeling back this onion. The United States has petitioned for some time to stage missile defense in Poland and the Czech Republic as a means of defense against Iran, as well as the Soviet Union. It came with significant political will and even diplomatic costs. The Poles have been quite receptive, especially after the invasion of Georgia and our offerings of sophisticated air defense technology, but the Czech's haven't received the request as warmly. So, the Czech's have asked for a state referendum to determine the future of missile defense.

The problem with this letter being leaked is that we effectively tipped our hand. Since March, there has yet to be a referendum on the issue because both countries know there will be political consequences for pursuing a program this administration has no interest in.

Just this week Professor Berman, and Cliff May (President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies) wrote on Op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on the issue of our lukewarm attempts at BMD and extending deterrence to our allies in the Middle East -

A half-hearted missile defense effort only encourages investments in missile technologies on the part of our adversaries, making them believe that with additional resources they will be capable of overwhelming American defenses.

U.S. missile-defense policy should be designed to elicit the opposite response. Our enemies and competitors should be forced to conclude that energy and funds spent developing nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them will be wasted because Americans have the know-how and hardware to prevent them from reaching their intended targets.

Also keep in mind that we are unable to create an effected extended deterrent if we are unwilling to invest in missile defense technologies for these allies.

It looks like its a done deal - The Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza reported yesterday that the Obama administration is going to scrap the "third site" in Poland and the Czech Republic.

An Op-ed in today's Washington Times gives a clear picture at the logic behind the cancellation.

The Obama administration also has floated the idea of a combined U.S.-Russian missile defense system and of a Joint Data Exchange Center for sharing information on missile launches. It is unclear what the United States expects in return for trading away the defensive system in Eastern Europe, but giving up something tangible for a promise of good behavior from Moscow is a fool's bargain.

So we are effectively taking a step back from making nuclear weapons delivered by ballistic missiles impotent and obsolete. Shouldn't this be our goal?

Read more...

RRW Rat Race

So the letter of the day is apparently R. I'm not sure that it is a tribute to pirates worldwide, but i'm sure they arghhhh happy.

So why not discuss a word that has two R's! RRW or reliable replaceable warhead.

A program that was once dead has since been revived, well at least the debate has been. This should have been done yesterday.

Elaine M Grossman wrote on the latest tug of war in an article published through the Global Security Newswire. I assure you, it's a worthwhile read.

Much to my surprise, Robert Gates is leading the charge on the issue, and has received considerable support from top officials including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Gen. James Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, as well as his successor, Gen. Kevin Chilton, and perhaps most importantly DSSFeed. That is an impressive list, no matter what you think about this administration or this blog for that matter.

Most surprising to me is Chu's about face, as his Department of Energy called for the death of RRW in their FY2010 budget. (although it did call for a program which very much resembles RRW)

The support is not universal. Joe Biden, being the heavy hitting nuclear strategist that he is, was the lone critic at the NSC meeting. His concerns are legitimate - how can we expect other nations to limit and even disarm their nuclear arsenals if we are modernizing ours.

His logic is sound if you believe nuclear abolition is the primary end goal for our arsenal - he makes a poor argument if you tend to think otherwise.

The RRW is aimed at maintaining a credible deterrent, and were not the only ones contemplating it. The Russians and Chinese have blatantly pursued nuclear modernization programs, even pursuing new kinds of warheads like EMP and ERW.

While they move ahead, we are lagging behind. We have a large arsenal, and as of January 2009, it is estimated at 5,200 nuclear warheads: approximately 2,700 operational warheads, 2,200 of which are strategic (greater than 3,500 miles) and 500 are nonstrategic (less than 3,500 miles) warheads. We have about 2500 in reserve due to START restrictions. The size and scope of the arsenal means next to nothing if our opponents know they will not function on a reliable basis. Imagine trying to deter a robber with a rifle he knows isn't loaded - it won't work very well I promise.

We must also consider the safety mechanisms of these weapons. Some of these weapons like the w62 and w76 are still operational and date back to the 70's. Consider the fact that just 2 years prior; cars were required to be outfitted with seat belts. We are stockpiling weapons that were built during the same era that seat belts were new. Consider the new safety technology that has increased the survival rates of drivers everywhere. Now think of how much higher the stakes are on nuclear weapons. Shortfalls in safety are not acceptable - and Gates agrees.

Also consider the scientific capital we are missing out on. The United States has not built a nuclear warhead since 1992, and the scientific community has lost out on perhaps cutting edge technologies that may make the US in a better strategic position, perhaps by even making nukes impotent and obsolete.

The goal isn't disarming the world of its nukes, because it's far too lofty. Convincing rogue nations and even potentially FTO's to disarm will ultimately be fruitless. I don't want to hear the hogwash that diplomacy may work. No nation that is looking out for its national preservation will give up their nuclear warheads if they deter their regional and global opponents. It just won't happen. The only way nuclear states will give up their weapons is if they realize they will no longer help them achieve their unique geopolitical objectives.

So fight on Righteous Gates. (I'm still not forgetting that you lead the charge on axing the f22)

Read more...

Back to school... back to school...

So DSS is going back into session this fall starting August 24th. Ahhh back to the grind.

Much has changed since the summer recess. A few DSSers got married, some got engaged, and im sure some have had their hearts broken. Summer lovin, it happens so fast...

Anyhow, it seems as though the international community did not take a "summer break." Many strategically significant events have taken place, leaving students of defense and strategy with much to think about. (I'm sure as I write this that Walt is daydreaming about a victorious confrontation with the PRC over Taiwan)

So what will be the hot button issues for DSS this semester? What will guide the thesis options for students. Just as an aside, when I wrote the word thesis, a little part of me died.)

Will it be...

Burma's nascent nuclear program?

The successes and failures of Afghanistan and Iraq?

The significance of the shift in ballistic missile defense?

The volatile situation in Honduras?

The status of Dr. Thayer takeover of the Swedish riksdag?

Feel free to comment on what issues will guide the discussion.

Now off to buy some books...

Read more...

On the Dear Leader - Does traditional deterrence theory apply?

Yes - another blog post on the DPRK.

The chief reason: I am reading Bradley Martin's Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty.

The secondary reason - North Korea is very important to US strategic interests and setting a precedent for rogue nuclear states.

You probably also know that the Dear Leader (Kim Jong-il, not Obama) once again captured a world audience by hosting former President Bill Clinton and "negotiating" the release of two American journalists.

So let me share a bit of what I have learned from the book as well as the recent Clinton visit.

Power in North Korea is highly centralized on the elevated figure that is Kim Jong-il. He is the unquestioned centerpiece of the reclusive communist state. The cult of Kim Jong-il is said to be even stronger than his Father, and former leader of the DPRK, Kim Il Sung.

Kim Jong Il succeeded his father by strong arming his competition, including siblings, party members and even his own uncle. His greatest tactic? Hwang Jang Yop, a high ranking North Korean official who defected to South Korea describes Kim's ruse.

Kim Jong-il is by nature a person who does not like living in harmony with others. He makes people fight against each other and depend only on him. Thus, when he talks about strengthening the organization, he means making strict rules to guarantee unconditional obedience to him... the more party members criticize each other and fight among themselves, the greater Kim Jong-il's authority becomes.

Does this seem a little familiar? Recall the recent North Korean rocket launch. The world was heavily divided between the West (plus Japan) and the rest of the world about how to react. Kim sits back and watches his stock go up, while we waste political capital forging a coalition to respond to his antics. If we "feed the animals" in this way, it is almost impossible to deter their unwanted actions.

I also want to call attention to the theories of deterrence which some have applied to the Dear Leader. The argument goes something like this - Kim Jong-il is a rational actor bent on self preservation. His political actions will undoubtedly reflect his desire to maintain control.

This logic is not flawless, decision making can be influenced by a number of factors. What Keith Payne calls "cognitive distortion" influences decision making in the DPRK. Cognitive distortion can come from a number of factors, but most notably drug and alcohol abuse. Keep in mind that Hitler's decision making was influenced by a cornucopia of stimulants, depressants, and even cocaine.

North Korean governance at least seems to be somewhat influenced by the cognitive distortion of Kim Jong-il.

Bradley Martin writes:

Like others who had worked in the higher levels of the regime, Hwang noted Kim Jong-il's penchant for holding drinking parties. But Hwang put them in context as "an important element in Kim Jong-il's style of politics."

Bradley goes on

Although the parties had a business function from Kim's point of view, they inevitably led to some drunken policy making. Kim at his parties would occasionally issue orders so odd they could not be carried out.

Deterring such an individual with such habits would be extremely difficult. The solution is not only attempting to deter him, but also hedging against potential attacks. The deployment of Aegis BMDS is a good step towards defending against a North Korean missile launch.

One last thing - I am willing to bet that Kim Jong-il is extremely opposed to this current administration.

Hwang wrote

He (Kim) even dislikes the good fortune of other countries, and becomes jealous of leaders in other countries who are known to be popular with the people.

Hwant writes that Kim justifies this jealous because

Kim opposes the worship of any individual. He is the Great Leader of the people and therefore not an individual.

So what can we learn from all this?
1) We often play into the hands of Kim by making him the centerpiece of the nuclear debate. Our "in-fighting" only strokes his ego and gives him strategic leverage.

2) It is unlikely that Kim Jong-il can be unquestionably deterred by our nuclear and BMD capabilities. His drunken parties (thrown with cognac no doubt) have lead to decision making before, and could potentially lead to a catastrophic strategic move.

3) It is unlikely that Obama's god-like (newsweeks words, not mine) presence is well received in Pyongyang. Kim is no doubt jealous of Obama's popularity in the US and world wide. As a result, it is unlikely that any "negotiations" with North Korea will be fruitful under this administration.

4) The Clinton visit was a way to increase the prestige of the regime, and merely legitimized the capture of the two American journalists. Although this wasn't a move of our administration, it was likely a mistake.

Read more...