As US policy runs up against the reality of nuclear weapon proliferation, there are two different policy paths that can be taken in response to in/de-creasing proliferation. As you look at the four different options, what paths can the world take? What are your thoughts? Drop us some comments...
By: Brant
My own choice is "COA3" simply because, as the trend is now, the US is quickly becoming less and less able to afford the cost ($$$) of being the world's police force (whether the world wanted us to be their police force or not).
ReplyDeleteSteven B.
When it comes to nuclear proliferation, I think we have no choice but to actively pursue non-proliferation and counter-proliferation through our full range of DIME (Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic) capabilities as COA 2 suggests. We will not be able to create 100% leak-proof defenses, especially if we are to remain connected to the global economy of trade and commerce. For all the time and money spent on BMD, the real WMD threat of the 21st century is not ballistic missiles but infiltrated weapons. An old joke asks, "What's the easiest way to smuggle a nuke into the US? Hide it in a shipment of cocaine."
ReplyDeleteThat said, our goals in counter-proliferation have to be limited. Iraq is an illustrative example. Israel's strike on the Osirak reactor in the early 1980's delayed Iraq's WMD program by several years without wading into the difficulties of regime change, security, governance, and reconstruction. Other potential threats (DPRK and Iran) are more complex and we would have to be prepared to manage their reactions, but in general, diplomatic and economic pressure escalating to tightly-targeted, short-duration air and SOF strikes if needed should be preferred approach.
I was concerned less with any particular voting that with people attempting to describe each of the COAs and what they might look like for the future. Any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
ReplyDelete