|
Server : Apache/2.4.62 System : FreeBSD fbsdweb2.web.rcn.net 14.1-RELEASE FreeBSD 14.1-RELEASE releng/14.1-n267679-10e31f0946d8 GENERIC amd64 User : www ( 80) PHP Version : 8.3.8 Disable Function : NONE Directory : /domains/roger.dnai/96Pictures/94Book/ |
Upload File : |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//SoftQuad//DTD HoTMetaL PRO 4.0::19971010::extensions to HTML 4.0//EN"
"hmpro4.dtd">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="GENERATOR"
CONTENT="Mozilla/4.03 (Macintosh; I; 68K) [Netscape]">
<TITLE>Former United States Secretary of Defense Les Aspin...Special
Challenges to the New NATO</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF" BGPROPERTIES="FIXED">
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+4">Special Challenges to the
New NATO</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+3">The Honorable Les Aspin</FONT></FONT></CENTER>
<CENTER><I><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+2">Former United States
Secretary of Defense</FONT><FONT SIZE="+1"></FONT></FONT></I> </CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Initially, the issues of
deterrence, non-proliferation, and arms control may seem comfortable to
consider since they have been much discussed at NATO meetings on nuclear
weapons. Unfortunately, as Lieutenant General Malcolm O'Neill has
observed, the nuclear threat is different today. At the height of the Cold
War, the threat consisted of thousands of nuclear warheads, and most of
the warheads were in the hands of the two superpowers. Any use of those
weapons--whether by careful decision, miscalculation, or accident--would
have caused enormous damage to both sides and probably destroyed life as
we know it on much of the planet for a number of years. A tremendous
danger hung over all of civilization at that time.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The new threat is very
different. On the one hand, it is a lot smaller. No longer are we
concerned about thousands of warheads. The new menace is perhaps half a
dozen warheads, which by themselves do not directly threaten life on our
planet. On the other hand, a very different kind of adversary--a terrorist
state or a terrorist organization--controls those warheads. And the sheer
destructive capability of just one of those nuclear weapons is so high
that it is still of great concern to all of us who are worried about the
future of civilization. While there is less danger that large numbers of
nuclear weapons will be used, it is ironic that the use of small numbers
of nuclear weapons is possibly more likely or perhaps will be more
frequent. This puts us in a troublesome situation: almost none of the
policies we developed for the old nuclear threat still works for the new
situation.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">RESPONSES TO THE OLD
THREAT</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Deterrence as the
Cornerstone</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The old nuclear threat was dealt
with in three ways: deterrence, non-proliferation, and arms control.
Deterrence was at the heart of it. Essentially, the doctrine was that, if
the Soviets used their nuclear weapons against us, we would retaliate in
such a way that it would be as if they had committed suicide. For 40
years, that meant maintaining survivable systems, maintaining the ability
to conduct counterstrikes, and making sure that our forces were not taken
out by a first strike. Of course, we were very nervous about living with
this kind of situation. While most believed that we could do so for a few
decades, we wondered if we could realistically continue for hundreds of
years. Despite this concern, deterrence was the cornerstone of our defense
policy for all 40 years of the nuclear era.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Limiting the Spread of
Nuclear Weapons and Technology</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The second response to the
nuclear threat was to minimize the number of countries with nuclear
weapons. Therefore, a big effort was made to prevent nuclear weapons from
spreading to other countries. Our efforts to limit nuclear proliferation
included controlling the technology needed to make the weapons.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Arms Control to Remove
Vulnerable Systems</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The third way to deal with the
old nuclear threat was arms control, which was more controversial than the
other methods and less well understood. At its best, arms control
attempted to remove vulnerable systems from the nuclear arsenals of both
sides. Although many thought it would reduce nuclear weapons and arms
budgets, arms control basically reduced the probability of nuclear war
breaking out. The essential idea underlying arms control was that the
different interests of the two blocs would inevitably lead to clashes; the
trick was to ensure that, when these clashes occurred, they would not
automatically become nuclear wars. So arms control tried to remove certain
categories of nuclear weapons in order to avoid "use it or lose it"
situations. The whole idea, which emerged from think tanks and
universities, was to keep the nuclear balance from presenting juicy
targets for the other side to strike in the event of a political clash.</FONT></FONT>
</P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">WHY THE OLD POLICIES NO
LONGER WORK</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">The Limits of
Deterrence</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">The program of deterrence,
non-proliferation, and arms control was fine when there were superpowers,
big blocs, and lots of nuclear weapons. But that type of program does not
work well in the environment that General O'Neill has described, an
environment in which many other countries are developing nuclear
capabilities on a smaller scale. In the first place, it is not at all
clear that deterrence will work against this cast of characters. The old
Soviet Union may well have been a bunch of thugs (I think most of us would
agree that it was an "Evil Empire," as Ronald Reagan said), but
they were not crazy. I am less sure about some of the people who are
developing nuclear weapons in the current environment, such as Saddam
Hussein and Kim-Il Sung.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">In the second place, deterrence
requires that you hold at risk the other side's values. This is not always
easy to calculate with the kind of people who are developing nuclear
weapons today. Indeed, if a terrorist organization is not associated with
a state, it is not even clear that you can identify where to retaliate.
Thus, it is not certain that deterrence will work.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Economic Development
and Technology Are Spreading</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Non-proliferation, which was
fairly central to our policy, suffers from similar problems. A number of
countries are developing nuclear weapons or chemical and biological
weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems, too. With rising
economies, many such countries now have the technological capability to
produce their own equipment. Denying them importation, therefore, will do
little good. And even if you believe that the North Koreans are 40 years
behind us technologically, you cannot relax. Forty years ago, in 1954, the
West was developing nuclear weapons. In short, the spread of technology
means that lots of countries will be able to home-grow the capability to
build nuclear weapons. Preventing them from importing nuclear capabilities
will not work.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Arms Control Depends on
Long-term Relationships</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Arms control only became useful
after years of discussion between the United States and the Soviet
Union--in which we felt we were at least on the same wavelength--about the
purposes of nuclear weapons, their limitations, and their capabilities. In
fact, arms control only developed recently as part of the relationship
between the United States and the Soviet Union. We have no similar history
with countries such as North Korea, Iraq, or Iran, which represent a very
different world and for which we will have to develop a whole new set of
policies.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">THE NEED FOR NEW
APPROACHES</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">That does not mean that
proliferation is no longer a danger, or that arms control should not still
be studied and tried. In the present world, however, they are not likely
to be enough. We need to think of the problems in new ways and consider
new dimensions and approaches.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Nuclear Weapons
Equalized the Balance with the Warsaw Pact</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">As we look at nuclear weapons in
the modern era, we must also remember that the West (i.e., NATO in general
and the United States in particular) has undergone significant and even
radical change concerning its interest in nuclear weapons. In the old
days, the West needed nuclear weapons because they were part and parcel of
a complete defense. We needed them essentially because NATO believed that
the sheer numbers of the Warsaw Pact's forces and weapons gave it an
advantage in terms of the conventional balance. Imagine that an elf
appeared with a magic wand and said, "I can wave this wand and get
rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world and get rid of everyone's
knowledge of how to make nuclear weapons. What do you want me to do?"
We in the West would have said, "Elf, put that wand in a closet
somewhere. If you wave your magic wand and get rid of nuclear weapons, you
will make the world safe for conventional war. And that is not a world
that we want to inhabit, because we need nuclear weapons to equalize the
balance."</FONT></FONT></P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">Nuclear Weapons Are No
Longer to Our Advantage</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Now it is a different world: the
Warsaw Pact has disintegrated, and the Soviet Union has dissolved. If that
little elf were to come now, we might be inclined to say, "Elf, wave
that magic wand! You will make the world safe for conventional war--and
that is okay with us." We are the biggest kid on the block as far as
conventional capabilities are concerned. We would like to get rid of
nuclear weapons, since countries that are developing them often do so to
equalize overwhelming numbers on the other side. Now we face the danger
that somebody will develop a nuclear capability and use it as an equalizer
against us.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">The Danger We Now Face</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">Suppose that Desert Storm came
three or four years later: Saddam Hussein has half a dozen nuclear
weapons. Although these six nuclear weapons cannot hit the United States,
they can strike Tel Aviv and Riyadh. Under those circumstances, what are
our chances of putting together a coalition to push him out of Kuwait?
Such a world is now emerging, one in which someone, perhaps Saddam Hussein
or Kim-Il Sung, will develop nuclear weapons to prevent us from using our
conventional weapons power. And because of our more open society and the
influence of the media, including television, it could be very difficult
to put together a coalition to fight a conventional war against an enemy
that has half a dozen nuclear weapons and a SCUD-equivalent method of
delivering them.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<CENTER></CENTER>
<CENTER><B><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+1">CONCLUSION</FONT></FONT></B></CENTER>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0">So how do we deal with this? In
the Pentagon, we have developed the counter-proliferation initiative (not
the non-proliferation initiative) and the cooperative threat-reduction
initiative. But we must rethink a whole host of matters that we thought we
had already resolved--in particular, defenses against ballistic missiles,
what we might do with them, and how we might use them to adjust to the new
situation.</FONT></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="Aspin.htm" TARGET="_document">Go
to Top of Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><FONT COLOR="#000000"><FONT SIZE="+0"><A HREF="/94Book/94Workshop.htm">Return
to Os '94 Page</A></FONT></FONT> <BR><A HREF="../index.html">Return to Home Page</A> </P>
<P><FONT SIZE="+1"> </FONT> </P>
</BODY>
</HTML>