The 2006 National Security Strategy solicited new approaches to deterrence that will affect terrorists who are not deterrable through traditional means. Recent national strategy and doctrine documents have answered the call by redefining deterrence so that the traditional defensive, reactive concept is conflated with offensive preemptive action. This re- imagining of deterrence was misguided. Theory suggests that the new approach weakened deterrence instead of strengthening it and exchanged long-term progress for short-term risk avoidance. This project examines deterrence in history, exposes the divergence between traditional deterrence and current strategy, and proposes a new model of deterrence that illustrates the limitations of a strategy based on the physical effects generated by preemptive conventional weapons in a war against terrorists. The paper then recommends changes in policy that unlink preemption from deterrence, emphasize psychological effects and influence, and set realistic expectations.
Retooling Deterrence for the Long War
2008
35 pages
Report
Keine Angabe
Englisch
Behavior & Society , Education, Law, & Humanities , Military Operations, Strategy, & Tactics , Organizations , Deterrence , Terrorism , National security , Strategy , History , Long range(Time) , Cold war , Motivation , Psychological warfare , Radiation hardening , Policies , Recovery , Uncertainty , Ussr , Doctrine , Nuclear weapons , Terrorists , National security strategy 2006 , Preemption , Al qaeda , Preemptive action , Rogue states , State sponsors , Conventional deterrence , Nuclear deterrence , Conventional weapons
Retooling Design and Development
NTRS | 2015
|Retooling CFD for hypersonic aircraft
NTRS | 1987
|Retooling Jack’s Static Strength Prediction Tool
SAE Technical Papers | 2006
|Retooling Jacks Static Strength Prediction tool
Kraftfahrwesen | 2006
|Retooling the Nationbuilding Strategy in Afghanistan
NTIS | 2006
|