Comments on: Why States are Important in the WoT

By: LinkSpasm - 21 June 2008 « PurpleSlog

LinkSpasm - 21 June 2008 « PurpleSlog — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 07:40:35 +0000

[...] http://cominganarchy.com/2008/06/16/why-states-are-important-in-the-wot/ : While both rogue states and terror groups would surely like to acquire both a nuclear capability and weapons, each actor has a different set of advantages and disadvantages. States enjoy legitimacy (to varying extents) and international recognition, have sovereign territory and have a variety of reason and fear based national interests. Critically, states are also subject to deterrence through retaliation by sometims deterrence by denial (more here). Terror groups, on the other hand, have less power, resources and people than states do. Yet, terrorists are more difficult to deter by retaliation often lacking any clear target to retaliate against. In addition, some follow radical ideologies unrestrained by reason or straight up political goals. [...]

By: Oliver

Oliver — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:58:24 +0000

Not in an aggressive hostile way. Take Lybia. Moderately nasty to its own citizens, harmless abroad.

By: Benjamin Walthrop

Benjamin Walthrop — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 22:23:52 +0000

Oliver,

All states act outside their borders. What do you mean by act?

By: Oliver

Oliver — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 20:01:29 +0000

Rogue states act outside their own borders.

By: Chirol

Chirol — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 14:30:01 +0000

Oliver: True, what would you consider the difference to be?

Soob: Another good question. As for India/Pakistan, I think the dynamic there, between long time neighbors and rivals is different than say the dynamic between a nuclear Iran or Syria and the US/Europe would be. While nukes may help deter against conventional warfare, they could in fact protect states who promote terrorism, like the aforementioned Syria and Iran.

As for how likely nuclear terrorism is, I agree that it is indeed low probability. However, the impact would be world changing. As part of the government’s responsibility for protecting its citizens, one cannot ignore a threat of this nature. Prioritizing it against other threats is another matter though.

Ralph: I agree the enriched uranium/plutonium is the most difficult and critical part of nuclear proliferation and I agree a design alone doesn’t equal an attack. However, the point is merely that as more advanced and compact designs become available to rogue states and terrorists, one major hurdle has been jumped. That isn’t to say there aren’t more, but taking a major step towards a weapon isn’t something one can ignore.

By: Ralph Hitchens

Ralph Hitchens — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:55:23 +0000

My understanding of nuclear proliferation theory and practice is that acquiring weapons-grade special nuclear material (highly-enriched uranium or plutonium) is the long pole in the tent. Designs abound, and as your design criteria leans toward the more compact, the engineering becomes more difficult. A rogue state might be able to manage it, but probably not a terrorist group.

By: Soob

Soob — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 01:16:34 +0000

“Hence, an aggressive strategy against rogue states aims to both uncover, disrupt and neutralize threats, it also brings traditional deterrence to bear on potential collaborators with terrorists thereby deterring states not only from aiding terrorists but also motivating them to fight such networks themselves in the interest of their stateâ��s and their own survival.”

How aggressive?

Which rogue states? What are the geopolitical implications of being a nuclear armed state? Has either Pakistan or India become more belligerent since attaining the nuke?

Re: The Strategic Threat of Nuclear Terrorism: Interesting but delves not at all into the realistic ability of a terrorist network to realize (as opposed to acquiring designs for) even the most base nuke. No mention on how they’d deliver it. How long did it take NK (a near failed state but yet massive militaristic bureaucracy) to realize and test a nuke?

Sorry Chirol, not trying to be contrary for it’s own sake but the subject of nuclear terrorism needs to be considered with a healthy dose of reality and skepticism and shouldn’t eclipse the more likely scenario (from my perspective) of amassed, small scale and consecutive attacks. I’ll hesitate to detail such but you can imagine a lot of bang for the like of AQ’s buck.

By: Oliver

Oliver — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:01:20 +0000

While this may be true, it must be said that the US is very bad at seeing the difference between rogue states and states or rather governments it does not like.