Pre-emption vs. Deterrence (Modern Warfare)

I unfortunately did not have the time to prepare for this round as much as I would have liked, but I’ll begin by introducing my three points for why policies of Preemption should trump doctrines of Deterrence. 1)Present Day Security Challenges cannot be deterred. According to the 2014 Worldwide Threat Assessment, annually released to Congress by the combined US intelligence community, the Top 5 global security threats facing the United States today are as follows [1]: 1)Cyber-attacks, cyber-espionage 2)Counterintelligence 3)Terrorism 4)WMD Proliferation 5)Counterspace (attacks on satellites, communications) None of these security threats to the United States however, given their complexities and our inherent vulnerabilities, can effectively be deterred by just having a strong military. The number one security threat facing the US for instance (cyber attacks), happens some 10 million times a day against the Pentagon and Department of Defense [2], where the only known means of deterrence in the world of cyber warfare involves either constantly upgrading firewalls, encryption software, and anti-virus checkers, or showing off your own offensive cyber capabilities. The underlying problems with these two deterrence strategies of course, is that firewalls must be accurate and up to date 100% of the time to guard against constant attack, while utilizing our own offensive capabilities allows the enemy to prepare for and/or update his own cyber defenses, thereby invalidating his fear of reprisal. The world of cyber warfare is also burdened by the problem that hackers and cyber attacks are often from remote locations, are difficult to trace, and cannot easily be identified quickly or at all. A second noteworthy aspect of the above list is the challenge of ideologically driven enemies and rouge state actors who cannot be counted on to act rationally. Rouge states such as Iran and N. Korea have little to no respect for international laws or humanitarian values, while global terrorist groups such as ISIS and AL Qaeda have no fear of death or military reprisal, making deterrence policies next to impossible (more on this last point coming in Round 2). 2)Info Age Threats Demand Immediate Action. The proliferation of WMD and high tech weapons sysems demands that threats be dealt with military force before they materialize. (I unfortunately lack the needed time here again, but will use this point to introduce my argument for preventative war and the failures of deterrence when dealing with arms control). 3)The Best Defense is a Good Offense. The only viable solution of course, to the mentioned threats in this round and other forms of attack that cannot easily be deterred, is to adopt preemptive policies; which is why the 21st century security apparatus has thus far been dominated by the aggressive use of Force and direct intervention. Polices such as the Patriot Act and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allow security and intelligence officials to seize business records and conduct investigations without tipping off terrorists. Other laws allow constant electronic surveillance through NSA wiretapping and meta data collection without needing a formal warrant. The Iraq War removed a longstanding proliferation problem and proved it could be successful when Libya subsequently surrendered its own WMD arsenal. These policies and more, including drone strikes and enhanced interrogation techniques are have what kept America's borders safe and will continue to do so in the future. Sources: . http://online.wsj.com... . http://www.defensenews.com...