Thinking about Deterrence

Enduring Questions in a Time of 

Rising Powers, Rogue Regimes, 

and Terrorism

Edited by

Adam Lowther

Air University Press

Air Force Research Institute

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
ii

Project Editor

James S. Howard

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Thinking about deterrence : enduring questions in a 

time of rising powers, rogue regimes, and terrorism / 

edited by Adam Lowther. 

pages cm

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-1-58566-227-2 (pbk : alk. paper)

1. Deterrence (Strategy) 2. United States—Military 

policy. I. Lowther, Adam, editor of compilation. 

U162.6.D487 2013 

355’.033573—dc23 

 2013035133

Published by Air University Press in December 2013

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations 

expressed or implied within are solely those of 

the author and do not necessarily represent the 

views of Air University, the United States Air 

Force, the Department of Defense, or any other 

US government agency. Cleared for public 

release: distribution unlimited.

Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and Prepress Production

Nedra Looney

Print Preparation and Distribution

Diane Clark

AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS

Director and Publisher

Allen G. Peck

Editor in Chief

Oreste M. Johnson

Managing Editor

Demorah Hayes

Design and Production Manager

Cheryl King

Air University Press

155 N. Twining St., Bldg. 693

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026

afri.aupress@us.af.mil

http://aupress.au.af.mil

http://afri.au.af.mil/

AFRI

Air Force Research Institute
iii

Contents

List of Illustrations v

About the Authors vii

Foreword xi

SECTION 1

The Prospects for Deterrence in Cyberspace

1 Introduction: The Evolution of Deterrence 3

Adam Lowther

2 Operationally Responsive Cyberspace: 

A Critical Piece in the Strategic Deterrence Equation 17

Kevin R. Beeker, Robert F. Mills, Michael R. Grimaila, and 

Michael W. Haas

3 Deterrence in Cyberspace 37

Kamal T. Jabbour and E. Paul Ratazzi 

SECTION 2

The Relevance of Nuclear Deterrence in the

Twenty-First Century

4 Why Nuclear Deterrence Is Still Relevant 51

Elbridge A. Colby

5 How Much Is Enough? A Goal-Driven Approach to

Defining Key Principles for Measuring the Adequacy

of US Strategic Forces 75

Keith B. Payne

6 Tailored Deterrence, Smart Power, and the 

Long-Term Challenge of Nuclear Proliferation 95

Jonathan Trexel

7 Is a New Focus on Nuclear Weapons Research

and Development Necessary? 119

Anne Fitzpatrick
iv

CONTENTS

8 Mathematical Foundations of Strategic Deterrence 137

Edward H. Robbins, Hunter Hustus, 

and James A. Blackwell

Section 3

New Approaches To Conventional Deterrence

9 Deterring Rogues: Modeling the Intent of 

Revolutionary State Actors 169

Gary Schaub Jr

10 Deterring Nonstate Actors 195

Adam Lowther

11 Space Strategic Deterrence: Achieving 

Space Superiority 217

Dale Hayden

12 Unmanned Air Systems and Deterrence 249

James D. Perry

Abbreviations 271

 Bibliography 273

Index 309
v

CONTENTS

Illustrations

Figure

1.1 Conflict pyramid 7

2.1 DOJOC model of deterrence 19

2.2 ORS concept 22

2.3 Implementation of the ORS concept 23

2.4 ORC contributes to benefit denial 24

5.1 Requirements for strategic forces 92

6.1 Strategic deterrence model 96

6.2 Long-term deterrence strategies 100

6.3 Strategy options 101

6.4 Campaigning and bargaining 107

6.5 Bargaining early 108

8.1 Depiction of optimization of the linear

function for first strike 150

10.1 Deterrence model 199

10.2 National interests 203

10.3 Conflict pyramid 204

10.4 Nonstate actor deterrence model 207

Table

2.1 Comparison of ORS to ORC 25

3.1 USAF strategic imperatives are enabled by 

nine primary technical capabilities 38

3.2 Cyberspace differs fundamentally from other domains 42

6.1 Long-term deterrence strategy overview 103
vi

CONTENTS

8.1 Ellsberg’s nuclear warfare incomplete game payoff matrix 139

8.2 Altered model (payoff matrix) of two-player nuclear war 142

8.3 Ellsberg’s incomplete game restated in our context

and notation 143

8.4 Tacit formulation of Ellsberg’s game in our

context/notation 144

12.1 Manned and unmanned endurance 256

12.2 Hours on station per sortie for manned and 

unmanned aircraft at a given range 256

12.3 Number of persistent orbits a force of 100 aircraft

generates at a given range 257
vii

About the Authors

Kevin R. Beeker is a US Air Force senior combat pilot in the A/OA-10 

and has also completed a joint tour flying F/A-18s with the US Navy. 

He currently works in the Combat Targeting Division at US Cyber 

Command, Fort Meade, Maryland. He received his MS degree in 

cyber warfare from the Air Force Institute of Technology, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio.

James A. Blackwell is special advisor to the assistant chief of staff, 

strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, at Headquarters US Air 

Force. He received his PhD and MALD from the Fletcher School of 

International Law and Diplomacy and BS from the US Military Academy. 

He previously served as executive director of the Secretary of Defense 

Task Force on DOD Nuclear Weapons Management. He co-edited 

Making Defense Reform Work with Barry Blechman (Brassey’s, 1990) 

and has authored numerous books and articles.

Elbridge A. Colby is a principal analyst at the Center for Naval Analysis, where he advises a number of US government entities on deterrence and nuclear weapons issues. He previously served in a number 

of government positions, including the New START negotiations and 

ratification team for the Department of Defense and as an advisor to 

the Congressional Strategic Posture Commission. He is a graduate of 

Harvard College and Yale Law School.

Anne Fitzpatrick earned her PhD in science and technology studies 

from Virginia Tech in 1998. Her research includes high-performance 

computing and strategic science and technology analyses. She has 

lived and worked in the former Soviet Union and is fluent in Russian. 

Michael R. Grimaila is an associate professor of systems engineering 

at the Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

He received his PhD in electrical engineering from Texas A&M University. 

His research interests include mission assurance, network management and security, quantum cryptography, and systems engineering.

Michael W. Haas is a principal electronics engineer at the 711th 

Human Performance Wing, Air Force Research Laboratory, WrightPatterson AFB, Ohio. He received his PhD in engineering and applied science from the University of Southampton, United Kingdom. 

His research interests include cyberspace operations, information 

operations, and human interface technology. 

Dale Hayden is the deputy director of the Air Force Research Institute (AFRI). He has authored a number of articles on Air Force 
viii

about the authors

topics, with a focus on space issues. Colonel Hayden completed a distinguished Air Force career in 2008 after more than 25 years of service as a space and missile officer. He holds a PhD in administration 

of higher education from the University of Alabama. 

Hunter Hustus is technical advisor to the assistant chief of staff, 

strategic deterrence and nuclear integration at Headquarters US Air 

Force. He received his MA in political science from the University of 

South Dakota. He previously served as foreign policy and congressional affairs advisor to US Air Forces in Europe and served as a B-52 

electronic warfare officer and NATO staff officer before retiring from 

active duty.

Kamal T. Jabbour is senior scientist for information assurance in 

the Information Directorate, Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, 

New York. He taught and conducted research for two decades on the 

computer engineering faculty at Syracuse University, including a 

three-year term as department chair. Dr. Jabbour has received one US 

patent, published more than 60 papers in refereed journals and conference proceedings, and penned 317 articles on running. 

Adam B. Lowther is a research professor at the AFRI. He is the 

author of numerous books, chapters, journal articles, and editorials 

on contemporary defense issues. Before joining AFRI, Dr. Lowther 

taught international relations and security studies at two universities. 

He also served in the US Navy at several shipboard and shore commands. He holds a PhD in international relations from the University 

of Alabama.

Robert F. Mills is an associate professor of electrical engineering 

at the Air Force Institute of Technology, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio. 

He received his PhD in electrical engineering from the University of 

Kansas. His research interests include network management and 

security, electronic warfare, and systems engineering.

James D. Perry holds an MA degree in security policy studies and 

a PhD in history from George Washington University and was a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1996–97. He 

is currently a senior analyst for Northrop Grumman Corporation, 

where he conducts defense policy, operational, and budgetary analyses 

to support company programs. His particular areas of expertise include 

long-range strike, unmanned systems, and emerging antiaccess 

threats to power projection.

E. Paul Ratazzi is a principal engineer in the Cyber Assurance 

Branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome, New York. His 
ix

research interests include access control and security for mobile devices 

and assured cloud computing. He holds BSEE and MS degrees in 

management from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and an MSEE 

from Syracuse University and is currently a PhD candidate (ABD) in 

electrical and computer engineering at Syracuse University.

Keith B. Payne is the president of the National Institute for Public 

Policy, a professor and the head of the Graduate Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, Missouri State University (Washington 

Campus), the chairman of the US Strategic Command’s Strategy and 

Policy Panel, the editor-in-chief of Comparative Strategy: An International Journal, and a co-chair of the US Nuclear Strategy Forum. 

He has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces 

Policy. He served on the bipartisan Congressional Commission on 

the Strategic Posture of the United States and on the Secretary of 

State’s International Security Advisory Board. He is the author, co-author, 

or editor of over one hundred and fifty published articles and seventeen books and monographs. Payne received a PhD in international 

relations from the University of Southern California.

Edward H. Robbins is a supervisory management analyst for the 

assistant chief of staff, strategic deterrence and nuclear integration, at 

Headquarters US Air Force. He holds a PhD in business (decision 

sciences/financial economics) from Stanford University and several 

degrees in differing areas of applied mathematics. He has worked 

more than a decade for the US military—conducting logistical systems 

analyses, evaluating the functionality of aircraft weapons systems, forecasting Air Force capabilities under future constrained budgets, and 

carrying out/supervising research on strategic deterrence.

Gary Schaub Jr. is a senior researcher at the Centre for Military 

Studies of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. He is a former 

faculty member of the Air War College and the School of Advanced 

and Space Studies, as well as performing a research sabbatical at the 

Air Force Research Institute, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. He holds a 

PhD from the University of Pittsburgh. 

Jonathan Trexel is program manager of the Strategic Deterrence 

Assessment Lab of Science Applications International Corporation. 

He has over 25 years’ experience in intelligence analysis and in deterrence and other national security policy. He holds a bachelor’s degree 

in political science, a master’s in strategic intelligence, and is a PhD 

candidate at the University of Nebraska, specializing in US national 

security and foreign policy.

about the authors

xi

Foreword

We are in the post–post–Cold War era, and the strategic environment continues to shift before our very eyes. The US National Military Strategy notes that “ongoing shifts in relative power and increasing 

interconnectedness in the international order indicate a strategic inflection point.” The landscape at this inflection point is a mix of the 

familiar and the foreign.

The United States remains the world’s preeminent power, as nationstates play the primary role in the globalized world they created. However, there are nation-states of increasing influence that were not coauthors of the existing rule sets and international norms. Many have a 

regional, not a global perspective, but their regional interests cannot 

be pursued without global effect. We do not yet know for certain how 

they will adapt and where they will challenge current structures.

Instant global reach is a defining characteristic of the twenty-first 

century. It reinforces our interconnectedness and, at the same time, 

provides asymmetric opportunity to nonstate actors. Even now, there 

remain non-status-quo states that keep their populaces in the dark or 

subject them to information manipulation.

Nuclear weapons and deterrence remain characteristics of the 

post–post–Cold War era. On 5 April 2009 in Prague, President 

Obama stated, “the United States will take concrete steps towards a 

world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, 

we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security 

strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as 

these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and 

effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to 

our allies.”

Those few words capture many of the challenges facing those who 

study and conduct deterrence in a global environment comprised of 

multiple nuclear-armed states, rising regional non-status-quo powers, 

nonstate actors, and an intertwined network of allies and partners. 

There are regions where multiple states possess nuclear weapons for 

divergent reasons, with conflicting doctrines and beliefs regarding 

their efficacy, and where geography and operational reach shape—or 

shake—stability.

The United States remains the sole power able to reach and influence 

every one of these regions, but our own historical and cultural values 

are manifest in offshore hesitancy which sometimes produces a distinct 
xii

FOREWORD

lag in the development of both grand strategy and operational concepts. We will find ourselves in situations simultaneously conducting 

deterrence (to prevent a power from considering harm against us), 

extending deterrence (to protect allies and partners), and underwriting 

assurance (to maintain security relationships and support nonproliferation). Tailoring twentieth-century platforms and weapon systems to 

such a problem set requires fresh thinking.

To transcend Cold War thinking, we need to move beyond reliance 

solely on deterrence through imposition of costs to integrate denial 

of benefits and other methods for encouraging restraint. This sort of 

thinking requires diversity in our analytical tool kits. We should retain 

effective classic methodologies (e.g., game theory) and at the same 

time integrate newer behavioral approaches outside a rational statebased actor construct.

This transformation in thinking also requires an understanding 

that reductions in arsenal sizes change the problem itself and in a 

nonlinear manner. The combination of smaller arsenals and multiple 

nuclear-armed states is not a matter of arithmetic.

We will see continued efforts to decrease our and our allies’ military expenditures. This demands we increase the rigor behind our 

analysis of the capabilities needed to deter and the platforms, personnel, 

and concepts sufficient to generate those capabilities. While we require sufficiency, we have little room for overcapacity.

A major challenge of deterrence in the twenty-first century lies in 

understanding the contributions of nonnuclear capabilities and proper 

integration of defensive systems. Success will also require the right mix 

of specific capabilities across air, cyber, and space domains that influence adversary decision calculus. Employing conventional and nuclear 

force structures, postures, and doctrines to create synergistic effect 

across these domains will require innovation. Not only will freedom to 

maneuver in these domains provide the president valuable options for 

influencing an adversary’s decision-making process, but it is prerequisite to successfully reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons.

Perhaps it is counterintuitive, but as we “reduce the role of nuclear 

weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the 

same,” we must increase our commitment to improving expertise and 

modernizing our forces. With smaller arsenals, we can afford less risk 

in either systems or personnel. The illusionary, but logical, tension 

between decreasing the role of nuclear weapons, while at the same 

time strengthening deterrence, means it will remain challenging to 
xiii

recruit and retain the best. An encouraging sign is the number of 

young academics conducting new analysis, openly debating, and 

publishing on nuclear issues and twenty-first-century deterrence.

As we continue the work of reducing the size of the world’s nuclear 

arsenals and analyze the rich complexity of our current strategic setting, efforts such as this volume are welcome additions to the much 

needed discussion and debate of deterrence concepts. This work provides much for the serious student of deterrence to contemplate, imposing several ideas and methods to meet the challenges of deterrence 

in the twenty-first century.

WILLIAM A. CHAMBERS 

Major General, USAF

Assistant Chief of Staff for

Strategic Deterrence and Nuclear Integration

FOREWORD

SECTION 1 

The Prospects for Deterrence

in Cyberspace

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Evolution of Deterrence

Adam Lowther

Rapidly evolving strategic challenges, difficult fiscal conditions, and 

a desire to refashion national security policy are giving new life to an 

old concept—deterrence. While two decades of constant military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are largely responsible for 

American decision makers’ focusing on present conflicts, scholars and 

strategists are beginning to undertake a long-overdue reexamination of 

Washington’s approach to national security. This renaissance in strategic 

thinking is leading many to reconsider deterrence theory and practice. 

Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines deterrence as “the prevention from 

action by fear of the consequences. . . . a state of mind brought about 

by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” 

From this definition it is easy to see that deterrence can incorporate a 

wide range of means focused on an equally wide array of actors. Unfortunately for deterrence theory, the concept has often been seen as 

synonymous with Cold War nuclear strategy, which played a major 

role in post–Cold War stagnation. Efforts are now under way to expand the context in which deterrence may prove useful in defending 

national interests against a host of new and developing threats.

During the half-century-long Cold War, the United States and the 

Soviet Union maintained an uneasy peace, largely because each country 

relied on a deterrence theory and policies that focused on preventing 

nuclear war. Theorists such as Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, and 

Thomas Schelling clearly emphasized that conventional conflict 

could escalate into nuclear war, thus requiring careful attention on 

the part of statesmen.1

 The special circumstances of the Cold War 

kept attention focused on preventing nuclear war rather than analyzing the continuities between nuclear and “lesser included” conflicts.

The watershed events represented by the end of the Cold War and 

the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 called into question the 

relevance of deterrence as a strategic approach. It began falling out of 
4 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

favor soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as democratization, 

globalization, and a focus on second- and third-world economic 

development displaced the decades-long emphasis on hard power.2

Nuclear operations seemed less relevant in a world characterized by 

such diverse challenges as failed states, humanitarian disaster, genocidal 

conflict, counter/nonproliferation, terrorism, and asymmetric conflict. Amidst this changing strategic milieu, few sought to adapt deterrence’s central premise—altering an ally’s or adversary’s behavior—

to remain a relevant strategic approach. Instead, a new paradigm was 

needed for a “new world order.”3

A generation later, optimism has faded as conflict and strife have 

proven as persistent as ever. Thus, a new opportunity for deterrence 

is presenting itself. However, if deterrence theory is to be relevant, it 

must move well beyond the vestiges of its Cold War past and focus on 

linking deterrence to desired effects—regardless of the actor being 

deterred. In other words, states that adopt deterrence as part of a 

comprehensive strategy should be able to determine, with a fair degree 

of certainty, that the policies and initiatives intended to deter certain 

behavior actually achieve their objective. Accomplishing this task is a 

difficult one and makes the success of deterrence difficult to determine.

While theorists and practitioners agree that, at its core, deterrence 

is about convincing adversaries and allies that the cost of an undesirable action is greater than the rewards, demonstrating success remains so elusive that a number of policy makers are reluctant to invest in new deterrence concepts and strategies. As in the past, moving 

deterrence forward will require an understanding of an adversary’s 

motives, decision-making processes, and objectives.4

 While the Cold 

War structure may have evolved to give strategists some degree of 

confidence that the principal adversary was deterred by American 

capability, force structure, and alliances, today’s diversity of challenges increases the complexity of formulating successful deterrence 

strategies.5

 In fact, not all adversaries may be deterrable. This may be 

particularly true of some nonstate actors.

Several analysts postulate that globalization has fundamentally 

transformed the security environment, making unilateral state action 

impractical and ineffective.6

 Those who adopt this perspective often 

argue that the threat-based nature of deterrence creates a diplomatic 

and military environment that precludes constructive conflict resolution.7

 Others claim that the fiscal costs of developing and maintaining 

the military platforms necessary to sustain a credible deterrent are 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 5

prohibitively expensive and ineffectively consume limited resources 

that could be more efficiently used to better humanity.8

 Others see the 

primary utility of deterrence as remaining focused on nuclear weapons 

and their potential to prevent or cause major conflicts.

The lack of a post–Cold War “school of thought” has produced a 

situation in which the understanding of deterrence has stagnated. 

Thus, deterrence is receiving woefully inadequate consideration as a 

potential approach to the defense of the nation’s vital, major, and 

peripheral interests. Ultimately, this could lead to policies that do not 

consider the full range of available options. Preventing such an outcome by encouraging deterrence thinking is the objective of this volume. 

Before turning to the specific chapters, which take a more granular 

look at specific aspects of deterrence, addressing four broad questions may serve to set the baseline for understanding.

What Is Twenty-First-Century Deterrence?

When it comes to deterrence, there are more questions than answers. 

Those who expect concise and immediate answers are destined to be 

frustrated by the highly theoretical nature of deterrence thinking. Those 

who would like to move deterrence into new areas may experience similar 

frustration as the conversation quickly becomes constrained to notions 

of nuclear deterrence, arms control, and counter/nonproliferation. There 

are, however, several insights that can inform policy discussions.

First, deterrence may not work in all situations. Some adversaries 

are simply unlikely to be deterred by the means available to the state. 

When such an adversary arises, containment or eradication may be 

the only viable options. However, understanding the culture, interests, 

and objectives of adversaries has the potential to decrease the number 

that cannot be deterred.9

 Possession of a value system that differs 

from Western norms does not make an adversary irrational. It simply 

requires greater knowledge and understanding on the part of the 

United States and its allies if deterrence is to be successful.

For those instances in which statecraft does apply, situations can and 

should be shaped without resorting to the threats inherent in deterrence 

interactions. This suggests that states should develop coherent and comprehensive approaches that are applicable to the global security environment and that they should deliberately employ all instruments of power 

to achieve preferred objectives. In such a context, states would focus and 

tailor their strategies according to the demands of the threat.10
6 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

In those situations where deterrence may apply, policy makers must 

determine the appropriate instruments, ensuring that the desired state 

of affairs (status quo) is effectively communicated and accepted by the 

target audience. Additionally, the success of deterrence depends on the 

ability to understand an adversary’s behavior and possible counter 

moves. Absent such assessment, deterrence will remain a theoretical 

construct with little relation to conditions as they actually exist.

Second, although it may not be possible to deter all nonstate actors, 

it may be possible to deter many.11 This is an area requiring further 

research aimed at developing an understanding of objectives and values. 

Only by understanding a nonstate actor can the United States and its 

allies target what it values most. While it is often said that Islamic 

fundamentalists are undeterrable, they do seek to achieve tangible 

worldly objectives.12 This presents an opportunity to develop an effective set of deterrence policies that may include all aspects of diplomacy, information, military action, and economics. To the extent that 

criminals, insurgents, terrorists, and other groups represent challenges 

to state and international security, they operate outside the accepted 

laws of conflict due to weakness, not an inherent preference for the 

“tactics of the weak.” To suggest that nonstate actors are—by nature—

irrational would be a grave mistake.13

Finally, as long as states possess nuclear weapons and as long as 

there are those willing to share information and technology about 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD), deterrence remains a valid 

strategic approach. Where states have acquired such capabilities, deterrence is the primary approach that provides a foundation for governing 

interaction with adversaries. For those states that seek to acquire 

WMD, deterrence provides an approach that can be used to counter 

the proliferation threat.

What Means Are Available for Deterrence?

During the Cold War, the means of deterrence would not have 

generated significant interest. They were simple, straightforward, and 

well understood. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union on Christmas Day 1991, followed a decade later by the 9/11 terrorist attacks on 

the United States, left many within the academic and policy communities 

searching for new solutions to current problems. Most importantly, 

these events undermined the foundation upon which Cold War deterrence was built. Before 25 December 1991, it was widely understood 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 7

that deterrence and nuclear weapons went hand in hand and were 

reliable partners. The end of the Cold War decoupled the two.

During the 1990s, globalization and democratization filled the void 

left by the Cold War’s end. Although the United States experienced terrorist attacks on more than a few occasions before 9/11, it was not until 

the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, that national security 

policy focused on the defeat of Islamic fundamentalist violence. Nonstate actors became the primary threat to American security. The elimination of al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks rose to preeminence 

among foreign policy and military objectives. Kinetic force became the 

primary instrument of power.

The mood in Washington changed, however, when a new administration took office in January 2009. This presented an opportunity 

to examine the usefulness of deterrence in an international system 

where the primary threats to security and stability are, and will remain, 

rogue regimes and nonstate actors—with the potential for a peer 

competitor down the line.14 For deterrence to once again play a 

prominent role in defense policy, the instruments of deterrence must 

be applicable to current threats.

Unlike the Cold War, violent Islamic fundamentalism does not 

pose an existential threat to the United States. However, this does not 

mean that the United States should not maintain its capabilities 

(means) at all levels of conflict (fig. 1.1).

Nuclear

Conflict

Major Combat

Operations

Lesser Combat

Operations

Insurgency

Terrorism

Nuclear

Conflict

Major Combat

Operations

Lesser Combat

Operations

Insurgency

Terrorism

Figure 1.1. Conflict pyramid
8 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

Nuclear deterrence will remain the capstone of defense policy for 

many years to come. Determining the correct number of weapons 

and the proper mix of delivery platforms is a critical challenge for 

maintaining credible nuclear deterrence. While the threat of nuclear 

conflict is greatly diminished from its Cold War height, nuclear disarmament would allow and encourage adversaries operating at the 

lower end of the conflict spectrum to seek equality with the United 

States. Thus, it may be possible to deter nuclear proliferation by maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.

With a wide variety of threats to security and stability in the international system, a new set of “redlines” that effectively communicate 

boundaries to potential adversaries is required. Not only do rogue 

regimes and nonstate actors pose significant threats to American interests, but their tactics (e.g., terrorism and cyber attack) are among 

the more difficult to deter. These adversaries operate from a rationale 

that is difficult for Americans to understand and develop effective 

deterrence policies to counter.15

Thinking in terms of weapons of mass effect rather than weapons 

of mass destruction may be a better approach. In an era where cyber 

warfare is becoming an increasingly important capability of state and 

nonstate actors—even as terrorism remains a key threat—the role of 

kinetic force is diminishing. Deterring current and future adversaries 

will require an expanded set of tools that rely more on the diplomatic, 

informational, and economic elements of national power.16

Intelligence will play an increasingly important role in supporting 

policies of dissuasion, denial, and deterrence. American Cold War 

strategists believed they understood rational Soviet leaders. The same 

cannot be said of modern adversaries who do not operate within the 

same rational framework as their Western adversaries. Intelligence 

plays a vital role in providing the knowledge and understanding required to develop credible deterrence policies.

Strategic communication will play an important role in undermining an adversary’s attempts to establish the narrative and capture the 

moral high ground—a key component of any deterrence strategy. 

Nonstate actors are experienced at manipulating media coverage to 

gain the sympathy that often accompanies coverage of the “underdog.” They are also adept at maximizing the public relations benefits 

of mistakes made by stronger adversaries. Successful nonstate actors 

are masterful in articulating a set of grievances that draw support 

from target audiences. Effectively countering the communications 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 9

and public relations efforts of nonstate actors has the potential to 

undermine their cause and deter their efforts.

Rather than allowing nonstate actors to deter states through superiority in information/communication operations, states must develop 

the capability to deter nonstate actors through similar advantages. 

This may prove particularly difficult for democracies that are often 

unwilling to develop effective propaganda capabilities.17

Modernizing the instruments of deterrence for an international 

security environment different from its Cold War predecessor is long 

overdue and may yield unanticipated benefits. Doing so does not, 

however, guarantee the success of deterrence. Like all strategies, deterrence is prone to shortcomings that require alternative courses of 

action. As the next section illustrates, deterrence is not a magic bullet.

Why Does Deterrence Fail?

Actors operate within a strategic environment where incomplete 

information and suboptimal choices are characteristic of decision 

making. Some scholars suggest that decision makers operate within a 

framework of bounded rationality where variables such as stress, fear, 

exhaustion, and imperfect information abound.18 Decision makers 

may see their adversaries very differently from what they actually are 

due to the importance of cultural, historical, linguistic, political, or 

religious differences. These limits in rationality and understanding 

can lead to a lack of situational awareness, poor signaling, misinformation, confusion, and the misreading of signals.19

Deterrence may fail because the United States, or any actor, does 

not understand its adversary. As mentioned earlier, American decision makers often operate without understanding the culture, history, language, politics, and religion of an adversary. Mirror imaging 

frequently occurs, leading decision makers to develop deterrence 

policies that are less effective than they could be.20 The war in Iraq is 

one example of where a more complete understanding of these variables may have led to the development of policies that could have 

deterred a domestic-led and/or foreign-led insurgency.

There may also be a “credibility gap” between capability and will. 

Although the United States possesses unrivaled economic and military might, American decision makers, for many reasons, often respond to deterrence failures with insufficient punitive action to restore the status quo and credibility. This creates a gap between 
10 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

capability and will. Thus, future adversaries may not be deterred because of a history of unconvincing American action. For example, 

Osama bin Laden stated in a post–9/11 interview that weak American responses to previous al-Qaeda attacks created an expectation 

that President Bush would respond in a limited fashion to the 9/11 

attacks, as had previous administrations.21

While ambiguity is a necessary element of a deterrence strategy, 

communicating a message that is too ambiguous can mislead an 

adversary and suggest that the United States, for example, will accept 

a change in the status quo when it will not. Ambiguity has worked 

best when uncertainty surrounds the severity of a response, not the 

possibility of a response. One of the most widely cited examples of 

too great a degree of ambiguity is the 25 July 1990 comments of the 

US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, to Saddam Hussein that the 

United States had “no opinion” on the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, 

thus opening the door for the Iraqi dictator’s invasion of his neighbor.

One scholarly study suggests that approximately 30 percent of 

conflicts are initiated by a weaker power attacking a stronger.22 Despite the probability of defeat or annihilation, weaker states frequently 

fail to be deterred by stronger adversaries because they are highly 

motivated (asymmetry of interests), they misperceive the probable 

response, and/or they seek to take advantage of an acute military vulnerability. Although risks often outweigh rewards, weaker states frequently feel risks more acutely.23 The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 

is the most familiar example of a weaker state attacking a much stronger 

adversary despite an admittedly low probability of winning a prolonged conflict. For the Japanese, the risks of not attacking far outweighed the risks of an American response.24 This was clearly the result 

of misperception of American will by the Japanese High Command.

Often deterrence fails because of a combination of the above 

points. Rarely does a single variable cause an adversary to seek a 

change in the status quo despite an articulated deterrence policy. It is 

clear, however, that the United States and others can reduce deterrence failures by more effectively communicating with an adversary. 

Successfully deterring current and future adversaries will depend on 

these variables.
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 11

What Impacts a Deterrence Strategy?

Undoubtedly, this final question is the most difficult of the four. 

The breadth of the question allows for varying interpretations of its 

meaning, which is useful in making three final points.

First, decision makers (political and military) in democracies are 

particularly guilty of focusing almost solely on current threats rather 

than long-term strategic interests. Deterrence, on the other hand, is 

dependent on developing effective policies well in advance of an adversary’s attempt to alter the status quo. This requires decision makers 

to devise a tailored strategy and policy, effectively communicate objectives, and respond to potential threats well in advance of any adversary 

taking action.25

Second, the nuclear umbrella and extended deterrence remain a 

critical component of American foreign policy. As Japan remains 

committed to a nonnuclear defense posture—despite growing 

threats—the credibility of US extended deterrence weighs heavily in 

the strategic calculations of all nuclear umbrella beneficiaries. Further 

reduction in the operationally deployed strategic nuclear force is of 

great concern to the Japanese, for example, and poses a risk of encouraging proliferation if extended deterrence loses credibility. Japan 

and other allies have the potential to rapidly join the nuclear club 

should perceived threats and a lack of US commitment warrant such 

a response.

Third, public debate of deterrence concepts, policy, and strategy is 

a difficult task that often devolves into emotion-laden arguments. 

During the Cold War, Herman Kahn, the respected nuclear strategist, 

advocated a policy that would have enabled the United States to survive and win a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. His frank and 

calculating approach led policy makers, journalists, and scholars to 

dismiss his ideas. Today, it is equally difficult to discuss deterrence in 

public venues. The often unpleasant policy choices that are required 

lead policy makers, journalists, academics, and the American public 

to reject the entire discussion.

Although Herman Kahn found fostering a public debate on nuclear 

strategy difficult, there was at least some interest in the topic by the 

public at- large. Today, nuclear issues are passé and often seen as a 

relic of the Cold War. As in the past, today’s threats require that decision 

makers contemplate unseemly options that the public finds at odds 
12 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

with our values. In part, this volume seeks to further an often stagnant debate.

Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century

To shed new light on deterrence—moving beyond the Cold War—

the contributors to this work were asked to address specific questions 

relating to one or more of the many applications or characteristics of 

deterrence. While a broad consensus exists among the contributors 

that deterrence will remain relevant throughout the twenty-first century, 

there are differences in perspective when it comes to the prospects of 

successfully deterring peer competitors, rogue regimes, and nonstate 

actors across all domains with conventional and nuclear forces. Each 

chapter focuses on a contemporary question that is relevant to the 

current debate and assumes at least some knowledge of deterrence. 

The work is divided into three sections: 

1. The Prospects for Deterrence in Cyberspace 

2. The Relevance of Nuclear Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century, 

and 

3. New Approaches To Conventional Deterrence

Section 1 begins by asking, “Can an operationally responsive cyberspace deter adversaries?” Kevin R. Beeker, Robert F. Mills, Michael R. 

Grimaila, and Michael W. Haas suggest that deterrence in cyberspace 

should look much like the current approach to deterrence in space. 

They argue for the creation of an operationally responsive cyberspace 

capability that brings government and private-sector cyber assets together to focus on a three-tiered approach. Tier 1 centers on the employment of capabilities, Tier 2 focuses on reconstitution efforts, and 

Tier 3 incorporates efforts to develop new capabilities. In all, the authors 

suggest that cyber deterrence is possible, if the right actions are taken.

The next chapter, “Does the United States Need a New Model for 

Cyber Deterrence?,” begins by examining the distinct differences 

between the cyber domain and those of air, land, sea, and space. Kamaal 

T. Jabbour and E. Paul Ratazzi point out how some of the differences 

in fundamental characteristics make traditional approaches to deterrence unlikely to succeed. They offer alternatives that are more likely 

to succeed, given the current state of technology and understanding.
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 13

Section 2 begins with “Is Nuclear Deterrence Still Relevant?” 

Elbridge Colby argues that those who posit a fundamentally different 

strategic environment in which major war is no longer possible are 

mistaken; liberal values, economic globalization, and the international 

community have not changed the nature of conflict. Colby argues 

that human nature has not changed, making fear, honor, and interest 

no less drivers of human action today than they were in the time of 

Thucydides. Thus, nuclear deterrence and the nuclear arsenal remain 

as relevant today as they were during the Cold War.

In “How Much Is Enough?” Keith Payne challenges the current 

approach to sizing the nuclear arsenal, arguing that today’s challenges 

make it difficult to determine the “right” size for the US stockpile. He 

argues that a more flexible approach is needed. Taking into account 

deterrence, assurance, damage limitation, and dissuasion will prove 

critical in determining the optimum size for the arsenal in an everchanging strategic environment.

Jonathan Trexel moves beyond the strict limitations of nuclear deterrence to suggest that a new approach to long-term deterrence is 

necessary in “Can Tailored Deterrence and Smart Power Succeed 

against the Long-Term Nuclear Proliferation Challenge?” In keeping 

with the approach laid out in the 2006 Deterrence Operations Joint 

Operating Concept, Trexel seeks to move deterrence beyond its Cold 

War roots, making it a concept that can be employed against a wide 

array of actors that challenge US interests. One particular challenge 

he discusses is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the years and 

decades ahead.

The next chapter in this section asks, “Is a new focus on nuclear 

weapons research and development necessary?” In addressing this 

question, Anne Fitzpatrick examines the changing nature of knowledge 

in nuclear weapons science and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) since the end of underground testing. She focuses on 

the nuclear weapons enterprise and stockpile stewardship programs, 

exploring recent developments in knowledge generation.

In what ways does Cold War logic inform the US military about 

strategic deterrence challenges of the twenty-first century? Edward 

Robbins, Hunter Hustus, and James Blackwell advance the mathematical foundations of strategic deterrence theory by revising and 

extending a crisis stability model that originated in the 1960s. Their 

game-theoretic analysis discovers a set of mathematical conditions 

through which strategic deterrence will be achieved, and they apply 
14 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

those rules to varying issues of force structure, nuclear warfare operations, and executive-level nuclear warfare decision making.

Section 3 examines deterrence in relation to nontraditional actors 

and tools, beginning with Gary Shaub’s “Are Rogue Regimes Deterrable?” Shaub examines the deterrence literature, highlighting the 

fact that it often explains adversary intent from the perspective of one 

of two frameworks: strategic intent or internal logic. Actors were either 

motivated by a desire to change the status quo to mitigate external 

threats or because they sought to influence an internal audience. He 

suggests that both have explanatory power and are incorporated into 

the US Strategic Command’s Deterrence Operations Joint Operating 

Concept. This, he argues, is the right approach.

This editor suggests that a layered approach to deterrence is required in “How Can the United States Deter Nonstate Actors?” We 

must address the threat posed by nonstate actors at the international, 

domestic, and individual levels. And at each level, policies that employ dissuasion, denial, and threat are critical to ensuring that deterrence does not fail if one particular effort is unsuccessful. In creating 

a layered approach that employs multiple methods, deterrence has a 

greater chance to succeed.

In “Is Space Deterrence Science Fiction?” Dale Hayden argues that 

the Cold War approach to deterrence is insufficient for the challenges 

posed by space. With the United States committed to keeping space 

weapon-free, Hayden suggests that a new approach to deterring adversaries from attacking US space assets is required. He proposes 

creating a space force that is resilient, responsive, and cost-effective. 

If successful, the United States will deter adversaries by demonstrating 

that it can rapidly reconstitute any loss of space-based capabilities.

“Can Unmanned Aerial Systems Contribute to Deterrence?” takes 

an innovative look at the role of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) in a 

conventional deterrence strategy. James Perry suggests that they can 

serve either as strike or as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms that can be employed against peer competitors, 

rogue regimes, and nonstate actors. RPA can play an important role 

in holding at risk that which an adversary values. Because these systems 

are unmanned, the United States can take much greater risks with 

these assets, a fact that may improve the effectiveness of a conventional deterrence strategy.

In summary, the central theme of this work is simple. Deterrence 

remains relevant. Those who advocate deterrence are not stuck in the 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 15

Cold War. In fact, in difficult fiscal times, deterrence may be more 

relevant than ever. The liberal dream held by neoconservatives and 

internationalists alike is an expensive one that the United States may 

no longer have the resources to fulfill. If this is true, expending greater 

energy on deterrence strategies that are often cost-effective strategies 

may be the best approach for the United States.

SECTION 1 

The Prospects for Deterrence

in Cyberspace

Chapter 1

Introduction

The Evolution of Deterrence

Adam Lowther

Rapidly evolving strategic challenges, difficult fiscal conditions, and 

a desire to refashion national security policy are giving new life to an 

old concept—deterrence. While two decades of constant military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere are largely responsible for 

American decision makers’ focusing on present conflicts, scholars and 

strategists are beginning to undertake a long-overdue reexamination of 

Washington’s approach to national security. This renaissance in strategic 

thinking is leading many to reconsider deterrence theory and practice. 

Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines deterrence as “the prevention from 

action by fear of the consequences. . . . a state of mind brought about 

by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” 

From this definition it is easy to see that deterrence can incorporate a 

wide range of means focused on an equally wide array of actors. Unfortunately for deterrence theory, the concept has often been seen as 

synonymous with Cold War nuclear strategy, which played a major 

role in post–Cold War stagnation. Efforts are now under way to expand the context in which deterrence may prove useful in defending 

national interests against a host of new and developing threats.

During the half-century-long Cold War, the United States and the 

Soviet Union maintained an uneasy peace, largely because each country 

relied on a deterrence theory and policies that focused on preventing 

nuclear war. Theorists such as Bernard Brodie, Herman Kahn, and 

Thomas Schelling clearly emphasized that conventional conflict 

could escalate into nuclear war, thus requiring careful attention on 

the part of statesmen.1

 The special circumstances of the Cold War 

kept attention focused on preventing nuclear war rather than analyzing the continuities between nuclear and “lesser included” conflicts.

The watershed events represented by the end of the Cold War and 

the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 called into question the 

relevance of deterrence as a strategic approach. It began falling out of 
4 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

favor soon after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as democratization, 

globalization, and a focus on second- and third-world economic 

development displaced the decades-long emphasis on hard power.2

Nuclear operations seemed less relevant in a world characterized by 

such diverse challenges as failed states, humanitarian disaster, genocidal 

conflict, counter/nonproliferation, terrorism, and asymmetric conflict. Amidst this changing strategic milieu, few sought to adapt deterrence’s central premise—altering an ally’s or adversary’s behavior—

to remain a relevant strategic approach. Instead, a new paradigm was 

needed for a “new world order.”3

A generation later, optimism has faded as conflict and strife have 

proven as persistent as ever. Thus, a new opportunity for deterrence 

is presenting itself. However, if deterrence theory is to be relevant, it 

must move well beyond the vestiges of its Cold War past and focus on 

linking deterrence to desired effects—regardless of the actor being 

deterred. In other words, states that adopt deterrence as part of a 

comprehensive strategy should be able to determine, with a fair degree 

of certainty, that the policies and initiatives intended to deter certain 

behavior actually achieve their objective. Accomplishing this task is a 

difficult one and makes the success of deterrence difficult to determine.

While theorists and practitioners agree that, at its core, deterrence 

is about convincing adversaries and allies that the cost of an undesirable action is greater than the rewards, demonstrating success remains so elusive that a number of policy makers are reluctant to invest in new deterrence concepts and strategies. As in the past, moving 

deterrence forward will require an understanding of an adversary’s 

motives, decision-making processes, and objectives.4

 While the Cold 

War structure may have evolved to give strategists some degree of 

confidence that the principal adversary was deterred by American 

capability, force structure, and alliances, today’s diversity of challenges increases the complexity of formulating successful deterrence 

strategies.5

 In fact, not all adversaries may be deterrable. This may be 

particularly true of some nonstate actors.

Several analysts postulate that globalization has fundamentally 

transformed the security environment, making unilateral state action 

impractical and ineffective.6

 Those who adopt this perspective often 

argue that the threat-based nature of deterrence creates a diplomatic 

and military environment that precludes constructive conflict resolution.7

 Others claim that the fiscal costs of developing and maintaining 

the military platforms necessary to sustain a credible deterrent are 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 5

prohibitively expensive and ineffectively consume limited resources 

that could be more efficiently used to better humanity.8

 Others see the 

primary utility of deterrence as remaining focused on nuclear weapons 

and their potential to prevent or cause major conflicts.

The lack of a post–Cold War “school of thought” has produced a 

situation in which the understanding of deterrence has stagnated. 

Thus, deterrence is receiving woefully inadequate consideration as a 

potential approach to the defense of the nation’s vital, major, and 

peripheral interests. Ultimately, this could lead to policies that do not 

consider the full range of available options. Preventing such an outcome by encouraging deterrence thinking is the objective of this volume. 

Before turning to the specific chapters, which take a more granular 

look at specific aspects of deterrence, addressing four broad questions may serve to set the baseline for understanding.

What Is Twenty-First-Century Deterrence?

When it comes to deterrence, there are more questions than answers. 

Those who expect concise and immediate answers are destined to be 

frustrated by the highly theoretical nature of deterrence thinking. Those 

who would like to move deterrence into new areas may experience similar 

frustration as the conversation quickly becomes constrained to notions 

of nuclear deterrence, arms control, and counter/nonproliferation. There 

are, however, several insights that can inform policy discussions.

First, deterrence may not work in all situations. Some adversaries 

are simply unlikely to be deterred by the means available to the state. 

When such an adversary arises, containment or eradication may be 

the only viable options. However, understanding the culture, interests, 

and objectives of adversaries has the potential to decrease the number 

that cannot be deterred.9

 Possession of a value system that differs 

from Western norms does not make an adversary irrational. It simply 

requires greater knowledge and understanding on the part of the 

United States and its allies if deterrence is to be successful.

For those instances in which statecraft does apply, situations can and 

should be shaped without resorting to the threats inherent in deterrence 

interactions. This suggests that states should develop coherent and comprehensive approaches that are applicable to the global security environment and that they should deliberately employ all instruments of power 

to achieve preferred objectives. In such a context, states would focus and 

tailor their strategies according to the demands of the threat.10
6 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

In those situations where deterrence may apply, policy makers must 

determine the appropriate instruments, ensuring that the desired state 

of affairs (status quo) is effectively communicated and accepted by the 

target audience. Additionally, the success of deterrence depends on the 

ability to understand an adversary’s behavior and possible counter 

moves. Absent such assessment, deterrence will remain a theoretical 

construct with little relation to conditions as they actually exist.

Second, although it may not be possible to deter all nonstate actors, 

it may be possible to deter many.11 This is an area requiring further 

research aimed at developing an understanding of objectives and values. 

Only by understanding a nonstate actor can the United States and its 

allies target what it values most. While it is often said that Islamic 

fundamentalists are undeterrable, they do seek to achieve tangible 

worldly objectives.12 This presents an opportunity to develop an effective set of deterrence policies that may include all aspects of diplomacy, information, military action, and economics. To the extent that 

criminals, insurgents, terrorists, and other groups represent challenges 

to state and international security, they operate outside the accepted 

laws of conflict due to weakness, not an inherent preference for the 

“tactics of the weak.” To suggest that nonstate actors are—by nature—

irrational would be a grave mistake.13

Finally, as long as states possess nuclear weapons and as long as 

there are those willing to share information and technology about 

weapons of mass destruction (WMD), deterrence remains a valid 

strategic approach. Where states have acquired such capabilities, deterrence is the primary approach that provides a foundation for governing 

interaction with adversaries. For those states that seek to acquire 

WMD, deterrence provides an approach that can be used to counter 

the proliferation threat.

What Means Are Available for Deterrence?

During the Cold War, the means of deterrence would not have 

generated significant interest. They were simple, straightforward, and 

well understood. However, the collapse of the Soviet Union on Christmas Day 1991, followed a decade later by the 9/11 terrorist attacks on 

the United States, left many within the academic and policy communities 

searching for new solutions to current problems. Most importantly, 

these events undermined the foundation upon which Cold War deterrence was built. Before 25 December 1991, it was widely understood 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 7

that deterrence and nuclear weapons went hand in hand and were 

reliable partners. The end of the Cold War decoupled the two.

During the 1990s, globalization and democratization filled the void 

left by the Cold War’s end. Although the United States experienced terrorist attacks on more than a few occasions before 9/11, it was not until 

the attacks on New York City and Washington, DC, that national security 

policy focused on the defeat of Islamic fundamentalist violence. Nonstate actors became the primary threat to American security. The elimination of al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks rose to preeminence 

among foreign policy and military objectives. Kinetic force became the 

primary instrument of power.

The mood in Washington changed, however, when a new administration took office in January 2009. This presented an opportunity 

to examine the usefulness of deterrence in an international system 

where the primary threats to security and stability are, and will remain, 

rogue regimes and nonstate actors—with the potential for a peer 

competitor down the line.14 For deterrence to once again play a 

prominent role in defense policy, the instruments of deterrence must 

be applicable to current threats.

Unlike the Cold War, violent Islamic fundamentalism does not 

pose an existential threat to the United States. However, this does not 

mean that the United States should not maintain its capabilities 

(means) at all levels of conflict (fig. 1.1).

Nuclear

Conflict

Major Combat

Operations

Lesser Combat

Operations

Insurgency

Terrorism

Nuclear

Conflict

Major Combat

Operations

Lesser Combat

Operations

Insurgency

Terrorism

Figure 1.1. Conflict pyramid
8 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

Nuclear deterrence will remain the capstone of defense policy for 

many years to come. Determining the correct number of weapons 

and the proper mix of delivery platforms is a critical challenge for 

maintaining credible nuclear deterrence. While the threat of nuclear 

conflict is greatly diminished from its Cold War height, nuclear disarmament would allow and encourage adversaries operating at the 

lower end of the conflict spectrum to seek equality with the United 

States. Thus, it may be possible to deter nuclear proliferation by maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent.

With a wide variety of threats to security and stability in the international system, a new set of “redlines” that effectively communicate 

boundaries to potential adversaries is required. Not only do rogue 

regimes and nonstate actors pose significant threats to American interests, but their tactics (e.g., terrorism and cyber attack) are among 

the more difficult to deter. These adversaries operate from a rationale 

that is difficult for Americans to understand and develop effective 

deterrence policies to counter.15

Thinking in terms of weapons of mass effect rather than weapons 

of mass destruction may be a better approach. In an era where cyber 

warfare is becoming an increasingly important capability of state and 

nonstate actors—even as terrorism remains a key threat—the role of 

kinetic force is diminishing. Deterring current and future adversaries 

will require an expanded set of tools that rely more on the diplomatic, 

informational, and economic elements of national power.16

Intelligence will play an increasingly important role in supporting 

policies of dissuasion, denial, and deterrence. American Cold War 

strategists believed they understood rational Soviet leaders. The same 

cannot be said of modern adversaries who do not operate within the 

same rational framework as their Western adversaries. Intelligence 

plays a vital role in providing the knowledge and understanding required to develop credible deterrence policies.

Strategic communication will play an important role in undermining an adversary’s attempts to establish the narrative and capture the 

moral high ground—a key component of any deterrence strategy. 

Nonstate actors are experienced at manipulating media coverage to 

gain the sympathy that often accompanies coverage of the “underdog.” They are also adept at maximizing the public relations benefits 

of mistakes made by stronger adversaries. Successful nonstate actors 

are masterful in articulating a set of grievances that draw support 

from target audiences. Effectively countering the communications 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 9

and public relations efforts of nonstate actors has the potential to 

undermine their cause and deter their efforts.

Rather than allowing nonstate actors to deter states through superiority in information/communication operations, states must develop 

the capability to deter nonstate actors through similar advantages. 

This may prove particularly difficult for democracies that are often 

unwilling to develop effective propaganda capabilities.17

Modernizing the instruments of deterrence for an international 

security environment different from its Cold War predecessor is long 

overdue and may yield unanticipated benefits. Doing so does not, 

however, guarantee the success of deterrence. Like all strategies, deterrence is prone to shortcomings that require alternative courses of 

action. As the next section illustrates, deterrence is not a magic bullet.

Why Does Deterrence Fail?

Actors operate within a strategic environment where incomplete 

information and suboptimal choices are characteristic of decision 

making. Some scholars suggest that decision makers operate within a 

framework of bounded rationality where variables such as stress, fear, 

exhaustion, and imperfect information abound.18 Decision makers 

may see their adversaries very differently from what they actually are 

due to the importance of cultural, historical, linguistic, political, or 

religious differences. These limits in rationality and understanding 

can lead to a lack of situational awareness, poor signaling, misinformation, confusion, and the misreading of signals.19

Deterrence may fail because the United States, or any actor, does 

not understand its adversary. As mentioned earlier, American decision makers often operate without understanding the culture, history, language, politics, and religion of an adversary. Mirror imaging 

frequently occurs, leading decision makers to develop deterrence 

policies that are less effective than they could be.20 The war in Iraq is 

one example of where a more complete understanding of these variables may have led to the development of policies that could have 

deterred a domestic-led and/or foreign-led insurgency.

There may also be a “credibility gap” between capability and will. 

Although the United States possesses unrivaled economic and military might, American decision makers, for many reasons, often respond to deterrence failures with insufficient punitive action to restore the status quo and credibility. This creates a gap between 
10 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

capability and will. Thus, future adversaries may not be deterred because of a history of unconvincing American action. For example, 

Osama bin Laden stated in a post–9/11 interview that weak American responses to previous al-Qaeda attacks created an expectation 

that President Bush would respond in a limited fashion to the 9/11 

attacks, as had previous administrations.21

While ambiguity is a necessary element of a deterrence strategy, 

communicating a message that is too ambiguous can mislead an 

adversary and suggest that the United States, for example, will accept 

a change in the status quo when it will not. Ambiguity has worked 

best when uncertainty surrounds the severity of a response, not the 

possibility of a response. One of the most widely cited examples of 

too great a degree of ambiguity is the 25 July 1990 comments of the 

US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, to Saddam Hussein that the 

United States had “no opinion” on the conflict between Iraq and Kuwait, 

thus opening the door for the Iraqi dictator’s invasion of his neighbor.

One scholarly study suggests that approximately 30 percent of 

conflicts are initiated by a weaker power attacking a stronger.22 Despite the probability of defeat or annihilation, weaker states frequently 

fail to be deterred by stronger adversaries because they are highly 

motivated (asymmetry of interests), they misperceive the probable 

response, and/or they seek to take advantage of an acute military vulnerability. Although risks often outweigh rewards, weaker states frequently feel risks more acutely.23 The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 

is the most familiar example of a weaker state attacking a much stronger 

adversary despite an admittedly low probability of winning a prolonged conflict. For the Japanese, the risks of not attacking far outweighed the risks of an American response.24 This was clearly the result 

of misperception of American will by the Japanese High Command.

Often deterrence fails because of a combination of the above 

points. Rarely does a single variable cause an adversary to seek a 

change in the status quo despite an articulated deterrence policy. It is 

clear, however, that the United States and others can reduce deterrence failures by more effectively communicating with an adversary. 

Successfully deterring current and future adversaries will depend on 

these variables.
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 11

What Impacts a Deterrence Strategy?

Undoubtedly, this final question is the most difficult of the four. 

The breadth of the question allows for varying interpretations of its 

meaning, which is useful in making three final points.

First, decision makers (political and military) in democracies are 

particularly guilty of focusing almost solely on current threats rather 

than long-term strategic interests. Deterrence, on the other hand, is 

dependent on developing effective policies well in advance of an adversary’s attempt to alter the status quo. This requires decision makers 

to devise a tailored strategy and policy, effectively communicate objectives, and respond to potential threats well in advance of any adversary 

taking action.25

Second, the nuclear umbrella and extended deterrence remain a 

critical component of American foreign policy. As Japan remains 

committed to a nonnuclear defense posture—despite growing 

threats—the credibility of US extended deterrence weighs heavily in 

the strategic calculations of all nuclear umbrella beneficiaries. Further 

reduction in the operationally deployed strategic nuclear force is of 

great concern to the Japanese, for example, and poses a risk of encouraging proliferation if extended deterrence loses credibility. Japan 

and other allies have the potential to rapidly join the nuclear club 

should perceived threats and a lack of US commitment warrant such 

a response.

Third, public debate of deterrence concepts, policy, and strategy is 

a difficult task that often devolves into emotion-laden arguments. 

During the Cold War, Herman Kahn, the respected nuclear strategist, 

advocated a policy that would have enabled the United States to survive and win a nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union. His frank and 

calculating approach led policy makers, journalists, and scholars to 

dismiss his ideas. Today, it is equally difficult to discuss deterrence in 

public venues. The often unpleasant policy choices that are required 

lead policy makers, journalists, academics, and the American public 

to reject the entire discussion.

Although Herman Kahn found fostering a public debate on nuclear 

strategy difficult, there was at least some interest in the topic by the 

public at- large. Today, nuclear issues are passé and often seen as a 

relic of the Cold War. As in the past, today’s threats require that decision 

makers contemplate unseemly options that the public finds at odds 
12 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

with our values. In part, this volume seeks to further an often stagnant debate.

Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century

To shed new light on deterrence—moving beyond the Cold War—

the contributors to this work were asked to address specific questions 

relating to one or more of the many applications or characteristics of 

deterrence. While a broad consensus exists among the contributors 

that deterrence will remain relevant throughout the twenty-first century, 

there are differences in perspective when it comes to the prospects of 

successfully deterring peer competitors, rogue regimes, and nonstate 

actors across all domains with conventional and nuclear forces. Each 

chapter focuses on a contemporary question that is relevant to the 

current debate and assumes at least some knowledge of deterrence. 

The work is divided into three sections: 

1. The Prospects for Deterrence in Cyberspace 

2. The Relevance of Nuclear Deterrence in the Twenty-First Century, 

and 

3. New Approaches To Conventional Deterrence

Section 1 begins by asking, “Can an operationally responsive cyberspace deter adversaries?” Kevin R. Beeker, Robert F. Mills, Michael R. 

Grimaila, and Michael W. Haas suggest that deterrence in cyberspace 

should look much like the current approach to deterrence in space. 

They argue for the creation of an operationally responsive cyberspace 

capability that brings government and private-sector cyber assets together to focus on a three-tiered approach. Tier 1 centers on the employment of capabilities, Tier 2 focuses on reconstitution efforts, and 

Tier 3 incorporates efforts to develop new capabilities. In all, the authors 

suggest that cyber deterrence is possible, if the right actions are taken.

The next chapter, “Does the United States Need a New Model for 

Cyber Deterrence?,” begins by examining the distinct differences 

between the cyber domain and those of air, land, sea, and space. Kamaal 

T. Jabbour and E. Paul Ratazzi point out how some of the differences 

in fundamental characteristics make traditional approaches to deterrence unlikely to succeed. They offer alternatives that are more likely 

to succeed, given the current state of technology and understanding.
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 13

Section 2 begins with “Is Nuclear Deterrence Still Relevant?” 

Elbridge Colby argues that those who posit a fundamentally different 

strategic environment in which major war is no longer possible are 

mistaken; liberal values, economic globalization, and the international 

community have not changed the nature of conflict. Colby argues 

that human nature has not changed, making fear, honor, and interest 

no less drivers of human action today than they were in the time of 

Thucydides. Thus, nuclear deterrence and the nuclear arsenal remain 

as relevant today as they were during the Cold War.

In “How Much Is Enough?” Keith Payne challenges the current 

approach to sizing the nuclear arsenal, arguing that today’s challenges 

make it difficult to determine the “right” size for the US stockpile. He 

argues that a more flexible approach is needed. Taking into account 

deterrence, assurance, damage limitation, and dissuasion will prove 

critical in determining the optimum size for the arsenal in an everchanging strategic environment.

Jonathan Trexel moves beyond the strict limitations of nuclear deterrence to suggest that a new approach to long-term deterrence is 

necessary in “Can Tailored Deterrence and Smart Power Succeed 

against the Long-Term Nuclear Proliferation Challenge?” In keeping 

with the approach laid out in the 2006 Deterrence Operations Joint 

Operating Concept, Trexel seeks to move deterrence beyond its Cold 

War roots, making it a concept that can be employed against a wide 

array of actors that challenge US interests. One particular challenge 

he discusses is the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the years and 

decades ahead.

The next chapter in this section asks, “Is a new focus on nuclear 

weapons research and development necessary?” In addressing this 

question, Anne Fitzpatrick examines the changing nature of knowledge 

in nuclear weapons science and research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) since the end of underground testing. She focuses on 

the nuclear weapons enterprise and stockpile stewardship programs, 

exploring recent developments in knowledge generation.

In what ways does Cold War logic inform the US military about 

strategic deterrence challenges of the twenty-first century? Edward 

Robbins, Hunter Hustus, and James Blackwell advance the mathematical foundations of strategic deterrence theory by revising and 

extending a crisis stability model that originated in the 1960s. Their 

game-theoretic analysis discovers a set of mathematical conditions 

through which strategic deterrence will be achieved, and they apply 
14 │ THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE

those rules to varying issues of force structure, nuclear warfare operations, and executive-level nuclear warfare decision making.

Section 3 examines deterrence in relation to nontraditional actors 

and tools, beginning with Gary Shaub’s “Are Rogue Regimes Deterrable?” Shaub examines the deterrence literature, highlighting the 

fact that it often explains adversary intent from the perspective of one 

of two frameworks: strategic intent or internal logic. Actors were either 

motivated by a desire to change the status quo to mitigate external 

threats or because they sought to influence an internal audience. He 

suggests that both have explanatory power and are incorporated into 

the US Strategic Command’s Deterrence Operations Joint Operating 

Concept. This, he argues, is the right approach.

This editor suggests that a layered approach to deterrence is required in “How Can the United States Deter Nonstate Actors?” We 

must address the threat posed by nonstate actors at the international, 

domestic, and individual levels. And at each level, policies that employ dissuasion, denial, and threat are critical to ensuring that deterrence does not fail if one particular effort is unsuccessful. In creating 

a layered approach that employs multiple methods, deterrence has a 

greater chance to succeed.

In “Is Space Deterrence Science Fiction?” Dale Hayden argues that 

the Cold War approach to deterrence is insufficient for the challenges 

posed by space. With the United States committed to keeping space 

weapon-free, Hayden suggests that a new approach to deterring adversaries from attacking US space assets is required. He proposes 

creating a space force that is resilient, responsive, and cost-effective. 

If successful, the United States will deter adversaries by demonstrating 

that it can rapidly reconstitute any loss of space-based capabilities.

“Can Unmanned Aerial Systems Contribute to Deterrence?” takes 

an innovative look at the role of remotely piloted aircraft (RPA) in a 

conventional deterrence strategy. James Perry suggests that they can 

serve either as strike or as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platforms that can be employed against peer competitors, 

rogue regimes, and nonstate actors. RPA can play an important role 

in holding at risk that which an adversary values. Because these systems 

are unmanned, the United States can take much greater risks with 

these assets, a fact that may improve the effectiveness of a conventional deterrence strategy.

In summary, the central theme of this work is simple. Deterrence 

remains relevant. Those who advocate deterrence are not stuck in the 
THE EVOLUTION OF DETERRENCE │ 15

Cold War. In fact, in difficult fiscal times, deterrence may be more 

relevant than ever. The liberal dream held by neoconservatives and 

internationalists alike is an expensive one that the United States may 

no longer have the resources to fulfill. If this is true, expending greater 

energy on deterrence strategies that are often cost-effective strategies 

may be the best approach for the United States.

Chapter 2

Operationally Responsive Cyberspace

A Critical Piece in the Strategic Deterrence Equation

Kevin R. Beeker, Robert F. Mills, Michael R. Grimaila, and 

Michael W. Haas

Cyber superiority ensures freedom of action in all domains 

(and denies freedom of action to adversaries) . . . predicate 

to all military and national security ops. 

—Lt Gen Robert L. Elder

Introduction

Strategic deterrence is a well-established concept in military doctrine 

and an essential element of national power. However, deterrence in 

cyberspace is proving challenging due to several factors: the asymmetric nature of the domain, difficulties in the accurate and timely 

attribution of hostile activities, lack of established thresholds on what 

constitutes an act of war in cyberspace, an overemphasis on technology, 

and the growing number of adversaries that have access to cyberspace. In this chapter, we draw parallels between the domains of space 

and cyberspace for the purpose of identifying deterrence strategies 

that can impose costs, deny benefits, and encourage adversary restraint. We propose the establishment of an operationally responsive 

cyberspace (ORC) capability, similar in nature to operationally responsive space (ORS), which would significantly contribute to cyber 

deterrence by promoting cyber mission assurance activities that reduce or deny an adversary the benefits of cyber attacks. An ORC office would be responsible for coordinating and directing the research, 

development, testing, operational deployment, and coordination of 

cyber mission assurance efforts within the United States and ensure 

that holistic solutions are developed that account for the organizational systems composed of people, processes, and technology. A focused 

effort to develop a resilient cyberspace infrastructure prepares us to 

fight through cyber attacks and sends a strong deterrence message to 
18 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

potential adversaries that seek to gain benefits through asymmetric 

cyber attacks.

Superiority does not imply complete dominance in a war-fighting 

domain; if superiority in any domain were easily gained, there would 

be little need for our military to deter an adversary from conducting 

attacks against the United States and its interests, both at home and 

abroad. In Operation Desert Storm, the Iraqis flew 122 aircraft to 

Iran to avoid destruction by coalition air forces.1

 This demonstrates a 

successful deterrence strategy on our part because the Iraqis knew 

full well that the cost of attacking the coalition’s air forces would be 

far higher than any benefit to be gained by having them fight directly. 

Granted, those 122 aircraft did not comprise the entire Iraqi air defense capability; Iraq retained and employed other air defense capabilities, resulting in the loss of 37 fixed-wing aircraft and five helicopters 

by the United States and its allies.2

At a micro level, the coalition’s loss of these aircraft might represent 

a “prohibitive interference” for accomplishment of tactical missions, 

but at a macro level, most would accept that the coalition had achieved 

air superiority and was not prohibitively restricted from accomplishing 

its goals. Going into the conflict, we knew there would be opposition, 

and we were prepared to operate in a contested environment. Air superiority had to be established in varying degrees in different geographical 

areas to ensure overall mission accomplishment.

As we mature our understanding of military operations in cyberspace, a number of questions arise. For example, what does cyberspace superiority really mean, and how is it achieved? How can and 

should we deter attacks in and through cyberspace against our national 

interests? Assuming that deterrence fails, how do we conduct operations (fight through) in a contested cyberspace environment? What 

lessons can we learn from deterrence concepts in other domains that 

might shed some light on cyberspace “fight through”? The purpose of 

this chapter is to examine some of these concepts as they relate to 

cyberspace. First, we discuss a deterrence strategy based on denying 

the benefits of an adversary’s actions. This strategy is highly applicable 

to the cyberspace environment because it avoids some of the problems associated with attribution and instead focuses on mission assurance. Next, we discuss what the space community has done in 

terms of developing a mission assurance strategy, the cornerstone of 

which is called operationally responsive space, or ORS. We then show 

the ways in which many of the problems and challenges of cyber-
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 19

space deterrence and security are actually quite similar to space and 

describe how an operationally responsive cyberspace capability will 

go far in addressing many of our deterrence needs.

Deterrence Strategy: Denial of Benefits

Deterrence is all about convincing an adversary to not do something undesirable. A useful framework for developing a deterrence 

strategy is the Department of Defense (DOD) Deterrence Operations 

Joint Operating Concept (DOJOC), which provides the military’s doctrinal foundation for deterrence operations. The central idea of the 

DOJOC is “to decisively influence the adversary’s decision-making 

calculus in order to prevent hostile actions against US vital interests.”3

The DOJOC seeks to accomplish this deterrence through a combination of denying benefits, imposing costs, and encouraging restraint.4

Each of these is viewed from the adversary’s point of view, because it 

is in the adversary’s mind that the decision to commit the act is made. 

The concept is illustrated in figure 2.1. Deterrence is successful when 

the perceived costs incurred by an adversary outweigh the perceived 

benefits in regard to the consequences of restraint (fulcrum). Deterrence fails if an adversary perceives that a benefit of taking an action 

outweighs any associated costs and then commits those actions.

Adding Costs deters

an adversary from

committing an

undesired activity

Denying Benefits

lessens the benefit an

adversary receives

from an undesired

activity

1

2

3

CONSEQUENCES OF RESTRAINT (INACTION)

Cost Imposition Benefit Denial

Shifting the “COR” fulcrum to

the right increases the

effectiveness of US cost

imposition and benefit denial

Deterrence Strategy

Successful deterrence is maintained by countering an adversary’s

perceived benefits with credible costs (1) or by denying the

adversary benefits that may have been gained (2). The US can also

induce adversary restraint by taking actions to ‘shift the fulcrum’ (3) 

Figure 2.1. DOJOC model of deterrence (Adapted from LCDR Hal Okey, 

“Strategic Deterrence [SD] Joint Operating Concept [JOC]Version 2.0,” PowerPoint presentation, http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/strategic/sd_joc.ppt.)
20 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

Beeker et al., in “Applying Deterrence in Cyberspace,” provide a 

more detailed discussion of how the DOJOC model can apply in cyberspace.5

 In this chapter, we focus primarily on the denial of benefits. A 

prime example of how denying benefits can support deterrence and 

mission assurance is our approach to chemical or biological weapons. 

The US military equips its forces with mission-oriented protective 

posture (MOPP) gear and trains its members to carry out their missions despite the potential use of these weapons on the battlefield. 

These actions demonstrate to an enemy that their use of such weapons 

may make it more inconvenient for us to conduct our mission, but we 

will get it done nonetheless. In other words, the adversary will be denied whatever reward it seeks by employing such weapons and, we 

would hope, decide not to use them in the first place. If the adversary 

is not deterred from using those weapons, then our training and 

exercising will ensure that our forces can operate safely and continue 

the mission with minimal casualties.

Similarly, our cyberspace deterrence strategies should seek to deny 

the adversary benefits from its actions against us in and through cyberspace. Exercising and proving capabilities to operate while under duress or fight through cyberspace attacks will contribute to cyberspace 

deterrence. We must be able to fight through attacks in cyberspace, to 

include being able to carry the fight to the adversary when required. 

This in turn will deny the adversary benefits should it desire to attack. 

Demonstrating an ability to operate in a contested network environment will help influence any adversaries not to conduct cyberspace 

attacks against the United States, because there will be little permanent or lasting effect. The ability to recover from and generate a quick, 

effective, and overwhelming response to an attack in cyberspace will 

be an important factor in deterring an adversary’s initiation of attack.

Domain Comparison: Space versus Cyberspace

As we examine deterrence within cyberspace, it is useful to examine 

the common ground between space and cyberspace strategies. Space 

and cyberspace are “utility domains” in that they enable operations in 

other domains. It is difficult to imagine trying to conduct operations 

in the air, land, or sea domains without our space and cyberspace 

capabilities. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on 

military space operations recognized that space systems play an 
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 21

“increasingly important role in DOD’s overall war-fighting capability 

as well as the economy and the nation’s critical infrastructure” and 

that “this growing dependence, however, is also making commercial 

and military space systems attractive targets for adversarial attacks.”6

Similarly, President Obama, in his remarks on securing the nation’s 

information technology (IT) infrastructure, said,

From now on, our digital infrastructure—the networks and computers we depend on every day—will be treated as they should be: as a strategic national 

asset. Protecting this infrastructure will be a national security priority. We will 

ensure that these networks are secure, trustworthy and resilient. We will deter, 

prevent, detect, and defend against attacks and recover quickly from any disruptions or damage.

7

But space and cyberspace are also war-fighting domains in their 

own right—contested domains at that. Military commanders realize 

that space dominance can no longer be assumed. Consequently, 

ADM Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, introduced a new special area of emphasis, titled “Space as a Contested 

Environment,” on 30 March 2009. Space systems are vulnerable to a 

variety of attack vectors, including electronic jamming, dazzling, and 

debris fields causing kinetic destruction. Cyberspace is similar, and 

perhaps even more complicated, because the cost of entry for a cyberspace actor is much lower than for space. Costs include gaining the 

required technical expertise, the ability to command and control attacks, 

and the time to develop attack capabilities as well as the monetary costs 

to participate in the given domain. The interdependency between 

space and cyberspace is significant. Barriers to entry in the form of 

costs are traditionally higher in space, and it becomes much easier for 

someone to attack our space capabilities through the cyberspace domain, which fundamentally changes the deterrence equation. Deterrence strategies must recognize and address these cross-domain attacks; further, space and cyberspace planners must work together to 

explore and understand these issues.

To help ensure we have unfettered access to space, US Strategic 

Command (USSTRATCOM) created an operationally responsive 

space capability, shown in figure 2.2 and 2.3. ORS uses activities in 

three tiers to improve robustness and enhance our deterrence posture. Conceptually, Tier 1 involves leveraging existing capabilities 

(employment) to meet the needs of a joint force commander (JFC); 

an example might be adjusting a satellite orbit to provide better coverage in a war-fighting region. Tier 2 involves replacing a damaged satellite 
22 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

or providing capability via small launchers within weeks (launch/

deploy). Finally, Tier 3 addresses rapid development and deployment, such as deploying a new satellite to fill a capability gap within 

months. USSTRATCOM works closely with all of the combatant 

commands and JFCs to identify requirement gaps in the space infrastructure and prioritize requests for space capabilities.

ORS Needs ORS Approaches Warfighting Effects

Gaps/Needs

Identified and 

Prioritized by

USSTRATCOM

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

“Employ it” Reconstitute lost

capabilities

Augment/Surge

existing capabilities

Fill Unanticipated Gaps

in capabilities

Exploit new technical/

operational innovations

Respond to unforeseen

or episodic events

Enhance survivability

and deterrence

“Launch/deploy it”

“Develop it”

On-demand with

existing assets

On-call with ready-tofield assets

Rapid transition from

development to

delivery of new or

modified capabilities

Minutes to hours

Days to weeks

Months (not years)

Figure 2.2. ORS concept (Adapted from Peter Wegner, “Operationally Responsive Space: Meeting the Joint Force Commanders’ Needs,” US Department of Defense, October 2008, http://www.responsivespace.com/ors/reference

/ORS%20Office%20Overview_PA_Cleared%20notes.pdf.)

A key element of the Tier 2 ORS strategy is the Rapid Response 

Space Center (RRSC), or the Chile Works.8

 The RRSC should be fully 

operational in 2015, and its purpose is to use prebuilt components, 

solar arrays, power sources, and control mechanisms to attach to payloads (such as imagery and communications) to rapidly field a satellite in a matter of days. While establishing an ORS office to develop 

contingency plans may better position the United States in the space 

domain—and to some extent affect adversary decision making—

building and funding a project like the Chile Works sends a much 

stronger message by demonstrating our resolve and ability to sustain 

capabilities in a contested environment.
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 23 Plug-and-Fight Spacecraft Components– Mosa standards S&T: Science and Technology

Figure 2.3. Implementation of the ORS concept (Adapted from Wegner,

“Operationally Responsive Space.”)
24 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

A rapid satellite development and launch capability communicates 

to our adversary that despite its efforts to destroy or degrade our 

space capabilities, we have the resolve and wherewithal to replace 

those space assets if needed. The benefit portion of the adversary’s 

deterrence calculation is reduced by the fact that satellite destruction 

or disruption will not achieve its desired ends. This affects the decision to attempt satellite destruction or degradation; it might even deter 

the adversary from pursuing a destructive antisatellite program in 

the first place.

The United States Needs an Operationally 

Responsive Cyberspace Capability

Given our nation’s heavy dependence on a cyberspace infrastructure, 

one might ask how we are posturing ourselves to continue operating 

given that cyberspace is a contested domain. Cyberspace is perhaps 

more contested than is space because of the much lower cost of entry 

into the domain. Do we have a cyberspace equivalent of ORS? In the 

same way that the ORS office is designed to provide quick reconstitution upon the destruction of our space assets, is there anything that 

can be done in cyberspace to reconstitute quickly after the destruction or compromise of key cyberspace infrastructure? Creating an 

operationally responsive cyberspace capability would be a step in the 

right direction (fig. 2.4).

Reallocating cyber assets to meet

urgent needs

Developing robust cyber continuity

of operations planning (COOP)

to recover and reconstitute

quickly from attack

Transitioning new technologies

to operational use

An Operationally Responsive Cyber Office

Contributes to Adversary Benefit Denial by:

Figure 2.4. ORC contributes to benefit denial
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 25

ORC would be based upon similar principles to those of the ORS 

(table 2.1), but it would likely not operate in the exact same capacity. 

For example, ORS includes the ability to build and deploy satellites 

within weeks to replace damaged assets or provide new capabilities. It 

is unlikely that an ORC office would “build” equipment or software 

that is commonly associated with cyberspace infrastructure (e.g., routers 

and computer operating systems). This is primarily due to the much 

more widely pervasive and varying nature of cyberspace, to include 

large diversity in applications, information databases, network layouts, and actual hardware.

Table 2.1. Comparison of ORS to ORC 

Tier Operationally Responsive 

Space

Operationally Responsive 

Cyberspace

1 Retasking of a remote sensing 

satellite to provide reconnaissance photos

Reallocating satellite or “backbone” 

network bandwidth toward urgent communication need

Requesting additional bandwidth 

from civilian communications 

satellites

Assigning extra computing processors 

across organizational boundaries

2 Building a new satellite with offthe-shelf components in weeks 

or days

Developing of robust cyber infrastructure continuity of operations plans to 

recover and reconstitute quickly

Using virtual servers and desktop thin 

clients

Storing data storage in backup sites

Creating and applying Net Force maneuver concepts

3 Transition of new intelligence, 

surveillance, reconnaissance 

/ communications capability to 

operational use in less than one 

year

Continual transition of new cyber 

reconstitution/recovery technologies to 

operational use

Adapted from Beeker et al., “Applying Deterrence in Cyberspace.”

Instead, ORC would contribute more in the areas of providing leadership and focus for cyberspace operations and capability development. 

Cyberspace is a created domain—created by governments, businesses, organizations, and individuals—which represents another 

significant difference between the domains of space and cyberspace. 

Within the DOD alone, there are many entities responsible for creating, 

sustaining, and defending the cyberspace domain, including the services, 

combatant commands, and combat support agencies. Defending and 
26 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

sustaining the domain is a shared responsibility, and focusing the capability to reconstitute our cyber infrastructure in a single ORC office, even in a limited sense, would be problematic. With that said, we 

need to think about how ORC principles could be achieved. If the 

network or key services are not available, whether due to an attack, 

accident, or self-induced maintenance action, the response to such 

events should not be to send people home until the “IT guys” could 

figure out workarounds at the local level. The ability to fight through 

such events is critical.

While there may not be a direct one-to-one comparison between 

ORC and ORS functionality, an ORC office can still be modeled on 

similar principles. ORC could still have the same three-tier focus, but 

instead of being directly involved in recovery and reconstitution efforts, 

the ORC office would be a focal point for coordinating and encouraging activities and providing guidance throughout government and 

our national critical infrastructure sectors. The ORC office would 

also advocate policy and priorities to ensure that activities in each of 

the tiers requiring national-level attention and investment are pursued. This would include developing principles, lessons learned, and 

best practices (e.g., doctrine) to better help the nation prepare and 

respond to attacks in and through cyberspace. As these principles are 

implemented, exercised, and promoted, they will have an increasing 

deterrent effect upon an adversary’s desire to attack the nation’s cyberspace infrastructure. The objective is to convince our adversaries that 

any attempt to attack our systems would be a wasted effort because of 

a demonstrated ability to reconstitute affected cyber resources quickly.

Although ORC in this context is centralized at the national level, 

the concept can—and probably should—be decentralized in its application. USSTRATCOM oversees space reconstitution and recovery 

efforts for the DOD; the US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) 

could fulfill a similar role in reconstituting DOD cyber capabilities to 

a certain extent without intruding upon the services’ organize, train, 

and equip responsibilities. In this instance, ORC looks very similar to 

ORS. Reconstitution and recovery capabilities must be pushed beyond 

and below the USCYBERCOM commander and should conceptually 

be constituted at the lowest possible levels. Examples abound and include backup servers for information and cyber-specific continuity of 

operations planning (COOP). Some thoughts and ideas related to 

activities that could be pursued in each of the tiers are discussed below.
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 27

Tier 1

As with ORS, ORC Tier 1 focuses on how to employ existing capabilities to achieve a desired effect. For example, a particular organization may need additional bandwidth across satellite communication networks for a period of time to support a task requiring 

increased data rates. Or an organization may need additional computer processors beyond its current capability to complete a modeling 

and simulation run and may require processors from other organizations to accomplish the task.

Both of these examples would contribute to our deterrence posture. 

Cyberspace is a malleable, constructed domain, and the ability to 

change the domain quickly—whether in response to an attack or to 

meet near-term mission requirements—demonstrates a high degree 

of agility and adaptability. Retasking cyber infrastructure assets can 

be extremely complicated due to highly shared resources and the intertwined nature of cyberspace. Cyberspace assets, such as satellite communications and Internet “backbone” pipes, are used by a variety of 

customers that cross organizational boundaries. In these instances, 

there is rarely a single authority or process that can reallocate resources quickly to support emergency requests. An ORC-type office 

could have the responsibility to establish procedures and define authorities for making decisions to reallocate/retask cyber infrastructure assets across organizational boundaries at the national level (e.g., 

government versus private sector or DOD versus Department of 

Homeland Security). At lower levels, single authorities may be easier 

to identify, such as in the DOD, where USCYBERCOM has been 

given the responsibility for securing and defending the Global Information Grid (GIG). Even then, however, the authority to secure and 

defend the GIG may not provide the authority to reallocate assets 

within the GIG. As a result, a similar ORC reallocation function may 

be required at lower organizational levels as well.

Tier 2

With ORS, Tier 2 focuses on deployment, to include the ability to 

launch new satellite capabilities rapidly. In a similar way, we must be 

prepared to reconstitute our cyberspace capabilities to prove and 

demonstrate to an adversary our ability to fight through an attack 

with little or no degradation in capability. To do this, ORC must focus 

on all elements of the cyberspace infrastructure. This includes not 
28 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

only the network links over which information flows and the hardware/

computers which process the information, but also the information 

itself stored in various databases and computer systems.

Significant strides have already been made in handling reconstitution of equipment, software, and data. Best practices for network 

operations include automatic failover, hot swappable storage devices, 

mirroring of databases and websites, and offsite storage of critical 

data, just to name a few. For example, if information at a primary 

operations center is destroyed or compromised, a backup copy of the 

information can be retrieved from an off-site location. In a worstcase scenario where the primary operations center is physically 

destroyed or needs to be moved due to a high threat environment, 

backup sites can even function as alternate operations centers. Private 

companies such as Carbonite, DriveHeadquarters, and others are 

providing similar data storage backup capabilities to both individuals 

and organizations.

A vast majority of the IT professionals at all levels (unit, major 

command, service, USCYBERCOM, etc.) are primarily concerned 

with keeping the network operational—keeping the bits and packets 

flowing. This activity is necessary but not sufficient for cyberspace 

fight through. There is a dichotomy in the perception between network defenders and operations personnel in military operations.9

Network defenders are typically focused on assuring the health of the 

networked information infrastructure with a limited view of the operational importance of the missions supported. In contrast, operations personnel tend to be focused upon their own missions with 

limited understanding of how the missions depend upon the cyberspace infrastructure. These communities are inherently linked because, while network operations personnel focus upon maintaining 

the health and safety of the network and information systems, the 

mission operations personnel, who inherently rely upon the network 

and information systems, focus on assuring their mission operations 

through command decision making. Since the network exists to support organizational missions, there needs to be a stronger focus upon 

mission assurance and mission situational awareness.10

The DOD defined mission assurance for the first time in DOD Directive 3020.40, DoD Policy and Responsibility for Critical Infrastructure, as

a process to ensure that assigned tasks or duties can be performed in accordance with the intended purpose or plan. It is a summation of the activities 

and measures taken to ensure that required capabilities and all supporting 
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 29

infrastructures are available to the Department of Defense to carry out the 

National Military Strategy. It links numerous risk management program activities and security-related functions, such as force protection; antiterrorism; 

critical infrastructure protection; IA continuity of operations; chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosive defense; readiness; and installation preparedness to create the synergy required for the Department of 

Defense to mobilize, deploy, support, and sustain military operations throughout the continuum of operations.

11

While this definition is broad and focused on all critical infrastructure, it clearly identifies that the ability to perform operations is what 

is being protected, not just the information and communications infrastructure. While this sounds like a trivial difference, it is not, because its understanding requires a much stronger link between the 

operations and communications communities. This is one of many 

reasons behind the creation of the cyber operations career field within 

the US Air Force.12 This increased mission focus represents a significant culture change from traditional communications and IT support.

An often-overlooked part of the mission assurance puzzle is business continuity planning (BCP) or continuity of operations planning. 

The purpose of BCP is to mitigate operational risks and help organizations stay in business when confronted with natural disasters, fire, 

data loss, cyber attacks, or other serious events. Effective mission assurance planning requires significant introspection by the end users. 

We must not forget that the whole point of building cyberspace is to 

enable information sharing among diverse and distributed users, and 

only they understand the context of the information being transmitted 

through the network.

BCP should be nothing new for most organizations in the DOD 

and should be included in any organization’s continuity plans, especially those dealing with critical infrastructure. The Center for Strategic 

and International Studies (CSIS) Commission on Cybersecurity for 

the 44th Presidency summarizes the philosophy of COOP: “We will 

never be fully secure in cyberspace, but much can be done to reduce 

risk, increase resiliency, and gain new strengths.”13 The 2009 National Infrastructure Protection Plan, along with the underlying plans

that focus on the nation’s critical infrastructure sectors, also state the 

need for COOP and resiliency plans. However, the primary emphasis 

in these documents continues to be on protection of cyber assets, not 

recovery.

14 As a result, these documents contain little detail or guidance 
30 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

for generating robust COOPs which adequately meet cyber infrastructure requirements.

A strategic-focused ORC office would be an ideal location to develop appropriate COOP guidance for the DOD and national critical 

infrastructure and provide experts to assist governmental and private 

organizations in developing such plans. The need for an ORC office 

to provide this functionality is highlighted by the fact that COOP 

robustness regarding cyber infrastructure is often lacking.15 A classic 

example of inadequate business continuity planning for cyberspace 

infrastructure came to light in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina 

when emergency response efforts were crippled by a lack of communications: companies were unable to contact their employees to coordinate a response, and municipal websites normally used to disseminate disaster recovery and other information were unavailable for 

weeks.16 In these areas, an ORC office could provide needed expertise 

and assistance to organizations and governmental entities to ensure 

their COOP plans sufficiently provide for reconstituting cyber infrastructure following attacks or other events. Further, the ORC could 

take on the role of developing curriculum and training for cyber infrastructure disaster recovery. This would help solve the lack of cyber 

infrastructure disaster recovery material within most IT curricula 

and help ensure that personnel entering the IT career fields are able 

to assist their employers with robust cyber COOP plans.17 As robust 

cyber infrastructure COOPs are implemented, exercised, and updated, they will assist in creating a deterrent effect by demonstrating 

our will, resolve, and ability to continue operations in the face of determined opposition. These efforts will frustrate an adversary’s attack 

and call into question its judgment for initiating such attacks.

In addition to continuity planning, the ORC could also take a lead 

role in leveraging new technologies that enable rapid reconstitution 

and service restoration. One example would be encouraging the use 

of virtual servers. Virtual servers can help provide quick recovery because a server with a hardware failure can be replaced with a spare 

and reimaged in a matter of minutes. Thin clients can provide the 

same type of recovery capability to desktops. Within the USAF, the 

Combat Information Transport System (CITS) is designed to provide 

these technologies and capabilities throughout much of the USAF’s 

cyberspace infrastructure.18 An ORC office could take lessons learned 

and successes from efforts such as CITS and provide insights and advice to other governmental and private organizations on how to 
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 31

implement similar systems. As implementation of these technologies becomes more ingrained within the United States, our ability to 

respond and reconstitute quickly from cyber attacks will improve.

The previous discussion refers to reconstitution of cyberspace infrastructure and data, that is, protection of the data at rest. Another 

significant issue is the ability to fight through attacks that degrade or 

deny our communication links. Since more and more of our communication capabilities are becoming IP-based (i.e., the Internet), our 

critical infrastructure has become less redundant and has fewer alternatives for passing information in the event that IP-based networks 

fail. Also, unlike data backups and computer hardware, it is difficult 

(and expensive) for organizations to quickly deploy new physical network infrastructure. Further, creating redundant network links, especially at the backbone level, is unlikely since the companies that run 

and maintain the current links operate on thin margins that do not 

justify significant investment to build redundant links. This is where 

an ORC office could advocate for funding and developing policy to 

assist in establishing redundant links and improved capability. Without government investment, it is unlikely that redundant links at the 

backbone level will ever be built. Private companies are unlikely to 

provide significant investment in redundant links based only upon 

“proposed” scenarios that have yet to occur. The ORC’s role would be 

to identify the most critical points where redundant links are needed 

and ensure they are appropriately resourced.

Finally, the ORC could assist in identifying and implementing 

strategies for building resiliency in organizational networks. An interesting concept is Net Force Maneuver,19 which is based on the idea 

of polymorphic networks. The objective is to provide the adversary a 

confusing picture of our cyberspace infrastructure, thereby causing it 

to have an incorrect picture of how portions of our cyberspace infrastructure tie to certain missions and operational tasks. An adversary’s 

network reconnaissance and attacks will then be directed at the 

wrong points due to misperception of our network operations, resulting in a diminishing return for its efforts. Hence, the adversary sees 

its cost portion of the deterrence calculation increase, creating a situation where it is less likely to attack our critical cyber infrastructure.

Typically, maneuver warfare is seen as “a warfighting philosophy 

that seeks to shatter the enemy’s cohesion through a variety of rapid, 

focused, and unexpected actions which create a turbulent and rapidly 

deteriorating situation with which the enemy cannot cope.”20 In the 
32 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

traditional war-fighting perspective, offensive maneuver is used to 

arrange conflict at the most advantageous time and location. However, 

from a cyberspace perspective, maneuver can be used in a defensive 

manner to frustrate the abilities of the attacker to identify and successfully attack the right resources. Different strategies for conducting this deception could be pursued. For example, fake (but realistic) 

operating environments could be created to alter the adversary’s perception of key network operations and the location or existence of 

important data. These fake environments, also known as honeypots 

or honeynets, could be placed on alternate links upon which the main 

operations do not rely. In this case, the adversary could be led to attack the wrong targets with little or no effect on main operations. 

Another potential strategy could be virtually maneuvering among 

different links, networks, and databases, and so forth to provide the 

enemy with uncertainty as to where the real cyber operations are occurring at any given time. The ORC office could be responsible for 

maturing these types of strategies and developing new techniques for 

Net Force Maneuver, to include developing doctrine for employment.

Tier 3

The focus of Tier 3 ORS capabilities is the rapid transition of new 

space capabilities from development to delivery in a time frame of 

months versus years. A Tier 3 capability in cyberspace is even more 

critical due to the quick-changing technology throughout the cyberspace domain. Governmental reviews continue to highlight the need 

for research and innovation, including President Obama’s recent 60-day 

cyberspace policy review, which has, as part of its near-term action 

plan, the following:

Develop a framework for research and development strategies that focus on 

game-changing technologies that have the potential to enhance the security, 

reliability, resilience, and trustworthiness of digital infrastructure; provide the 

research community access to event data to facilitate developing tools, testing 

theories, and identifying workable solutions.

21

It is important to note that “resiliency” is included in the research 

efforts, to include “developing options for additional services the 

Federal government could acquire or direct investments the government could make to enhance the survivability of communications 

during a time of natural disaster, crisis or conflict.”22 Also, an action 

to “coordinate with international partners and standards bodies to 
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 33

support next-generation national security/emergency preparedness 

communications capabilities in a globally distributed next-generation 

environment” is included.23

It is encouraging to see an increased focus being devoted to cyber 

infrastructure resiliency and recovery efforts, in addition to the usual 

heavy emphasis on network protection. However, there are several 

foundational research themes that must be addressed in depth to support the implementation of ORC. A significant challenge is to understand fully the cause-and-effect relationship between a given action 

to be undertaken and the subsequent “decision-making calculus” of 

the adversary. The cyberspace domain has many more nation-states, 

nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and ad hoc groups interconnected than does the space domain; there are exponentially more 

interrelated responses that could be triggered by any single action or 

set of actions. In addition, it is not beyond the realm of possibility 

that a set of actions could induce one or more of these interrelated 

nation-states, NGOs, or ad hoc groups to move from a neutral mindset to an adversarial mind-set, adding complexity and potentially 

deepening a conflict. This is true of either defensive or offensive actions 

if made public.

Effects caused by offensive cyber actions can be classified as affecting the physical domain and the cognitive domain. Physical domain 

effects of a cyber action can be evaluated on test hardware and software that replicate, as closely as possible, the hardware and software 

environment being targeted. It is much more difficult to predict how 

future cyber actions will affect the cognitive domain. In addition, 

uncertainty exists regarding cascading effects in the cognitive domain—

that is, subsequent (higher order) effects caused by cognitive domain 

effects that are directly attributable to the initial cyber actions. Cognitive domain effects are a function of many variables, such as culture, 

perceived conditions of one’s environment, the perceived target of the 

attack, level of belief in the knowledge of the attacker’s identity, content of any present internal media coverage, and reaction by governmental, secular, or religious leaders.

Accelerated development and then high-level maintenance of a robust understanding of the cause-and-effect link between defensive 

and offensive cyber actions for deterrence and influence on potential 

adversaries is required to keep pace with rapid advances in cyberspace technology. This increased understanding of cause-and-effect 

links within the cognitive domain will reduce the potential of 
34 │ OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE

deepening future conflicts by presenting combatant commanders 

with a more predictable set of cognitive effects achievable through 

the use of offensive and defensive cyber actions. In essence, the increased understanding of achievable cognitive domain effects associated with a particular set of cyber actions increases the level of security by increasing the assurance that the desired cognitive domain 

effects will be achieved and by reducing the risk of generating unwanted initial or cascading cognitive domain effects, as discussed 

earlier. An ORC office would take the lead in increasing the emphasis 

on research into cyber infrastructure recovery and reconstitution, 

and transitioning new technologies, capabilities, and processes to both 

the governmental and private sectors. Through these efforts, the ORC 

could fulfill Tier 3–type activities and contribute to deterrence by 

proving to our adversaries our commitment to recovery and reconstitution capabilities and mission accomplishment. A comparison of 

efforts within each tier across the space and cyberspace domains is 

presented in table 2.1 as an enabling concept.

Conclusion

The domains of space and cyberspace have such great similarities 

that when policy makers, leaders, and strategists develop deterrence 

policies, they should consider how they could complement and support each other. Deterrence efforts impose costs, deny benefits, and 

encourage adversary restraint. In space, USSTRATCOM’s Joint Operationally Responsive Space Office contributes to deterrence by denying the adversary the benefits of a space attack. ORS efforts signal 

to others that attacks against our satellites and space assets will be less 

effective, because these attacks can be mitigated using a three-tiered 

approach to developing, deploying, and employing space capabilities.

An operationally responsive cyberspace construct could afford 

much the same result for our nation in cyberspace. ORC would contribute to denying benefit to potential adversaries through a combination of robust cyber infrastructure continuity of operation plans, 

focused research and development of new recovery and reconstitution technologies, exercises that demonstrate and advance Net Force 

Maneuver and related concepts, and dedicated research efforts focused 

on cyber infrastructure recovery. The establishment of a national 

ORC office (within USCYBERCOM perhaps) would be a positive 
OPERATIONALLY RESPONSIVE CYBERSPACE │ 35

first step that would contribute to a strategic cyberspace deterrence 

strategy in a very real way. Organizing to fight through cyber attacks 

not only prepares the United States to operate under duress, but sends 

a strong deterrence message to potential adversaries that the nation 

aims to deny the benefit derived from an adversary’s cyberspace attacks.

Notes

1. “Airpower in Operation Desert Storm,” Air Force Fact Sheets.

2. “The Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm Timeline,” American Forces 

Press Service.

3. Department of Defense (DOD), Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept.

4. US Strategic Command, Policy, Doctrine and International Affairs Division 

(USSC PDIAD), “Strategic Deterrence (SD) Joint Operating Concept (JOC) Version 2.0.”

5. Beeker, Mills, and Grimaila, “Applying Deterrence in Cyberspace.”

6. USSC PDIAD, “SD JOC Version 2.0.”

7. “Remarks by the President on Securing our Nation’s Cyber Infrastructure.”

8. Holmes, “Lab to Build Special Order Satellites in Days.”

9. Tinnel, Saydjari, and Haines, “An Integrated Cyber Panel System.”

10. Hale, Grimaila, Mills, Haas, and Maynard, “Communicating Potential Mission 

Impact Using Shared Mission Representations.” 

11. DOD Directive 3020.40, DoD Policy and Responsibility for Critical Infrastructure.

12. US Air Force Public Affairs, “Communications Airmen Meet to Discuss Career 

Field’s Transformation.”

13. Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Securing Cyberspace for 

the 44th Presidency.

14. Department of Homeland Security, National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

15. Vijayan, “Data Security Risks Missing from Disaster Recovery Plans”; and 

Government Accountability Office, Internet Infrastructure.

16. Landry and Koger, “Dispelling 10 Common Disaster Recovery Myths.”

17. Ibid.

18. Paone, “CITS Key to Air Force Cyber Superiority Goal.”

19. Hunt, Bowes, and Gardner, “Net Force Maneuver.”

20. Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1, Warfighting.

21. The White House, Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and Resilient 

Information and Communications Infrastructure.

22. Ibid., 35.

23. Ibid.

Chapter 3

Deterrence in Cyberspace

Kamal T. Jabbour and E. Paul Ratazzi

History teaches that wars begin when governments believe 

the price of aggression is cheap.

—Pres. Ronald Reagan, 1984

Cyberspace is a domain where cyber operations are conducted to 

enable or achieve military effects and objectives. While traditional 

warfare concepts and doctrine should be expanded to include this 

domain, they must account for its unique properties. These include 

both fundamental differences as well as evolving technical characteristics. As the first line of any defensive strategy, deterrence is an important concept that is of particular interest in this regard. Following 

a review of cyberspace, cyberspace operations, and key differences 

between this and other domains, this chapter discusses the various 

types of deterrence that are possible in cyberspace.

Introduction to Cyberspace

Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated 

Terms, defines cyberspace as “a global domain within the information 

environment consisting of the interdependent networks of information technology infrastructures, including the Internet, telecommunications networks, computer systems, and embedded processors 

and controllers,” and cyberspace operations as “the employment of 

cyber capabilities where the primary purpose is to achieve military 

objectives or effects in or through cyberspace. Such operations include computer network operations and activities to operate and defend the Global Information Grid.”1

We view cyberspace first and foremost as a foundational domain 

that enables US military superiority and secondarily as another warfighting domain in its own right, where specific effects can be achieved 

through cyberspace operations. In the past, cyberspace has been 

viewed as a largely uncontested environment.2

 However, a recent Air 

Force Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) study concluded that during a 
38 │ DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACE

conflict the nature and availability of this environment could and 

would change dramatically.3

 Furthermore, there is mounting evidence that our national approach to security in this domain is not 

keeping pace with the threat,4

 our military networks have widespread 

vulnerabilities,5

 and the strategy to protect our national interests in 

this new environment has been largely unsuccessful.6

A new strategy for securing cyberspace must employ new technical 

solutions that implement many of the war-fighting concepts that have 

served us well in other domains. Presumably, deterrence, as the first 

line of defense and a fundamental element of defensive strategy, must 

be explored as the foundation for this new strategy. 7 Unfortunately, 

traditional notions of separate offensive and defensive cyber forces 

serve to limit artificially the full potential of a deterrence strategy in 

cyberspace. Since various areas of cyberspace can be simultaneously 

occupied by both red and blue forces, offensive and defensive operations must likewise occur simultaneously and in concert and not be 

treated as separate endeavors. A framework for integration of offense 

and defense is thus required to go beyond a Maginot Line model.8

Cyber Operations Vision

In 2009, we developed a science and technology–based vision for cyberspace operations.9

 This vision identified nine key technical capabilities that 

form an enabling framework for the Air Force’s strategic imperatives of 

global vigilance, global power, and global reach, as shown in table 3.1.

Table 3.1. USAF strategic imperatives are enabled by nine primary 

technical capabilities

Global

Vigilance

the ability to keep an unblinking eye 

on any entity—to provide warning on 

capabilities and intentions, as well as 

identify needs and opportunities

Situational Awareness

Assurance

Avoidance

Global 

Power

the ability to move, supply, and position assets—with unrivaled velocity 

and precision anywhere

Access

Survival

Cross-Domain 

Operations

Global 

Reach

the ability to hold at risk or strike any 

target, anywhere, and project swift, 

frequently decisive, precise effects

Precision Effects

Effects Assessment

Response Action

Adapted from Norton A. Schwartz, “Fly, Fight and Win,” CSAF’s Vector, September 2008, http://www.af.mil

/library/viewpoints/csaf.asp?id=405. 
DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACe│ 39

One feature of this new framework is that it blends offense and defense within each imperative and thus optimizes the use of both capabilities in support of cyberspace operations. Several of the nine technical 

capabilities directly support deterrence strategy. Specifically, assurance 

and avoidance technologies can significantly raise the costs of attacks 

while simultaneously lowering the probability of success.

Assurance. A credible fighting force does not conduct warfare 

with unreliable, untrustworthy, and untested weapons that fail under 

adversary attack. Assurance in cyberspace demands building warfighting systems that ensure specific missions, even in a contested 

environment, using formal, requirements-driven systems engineering 

processes. When performed properly, assurance results in systems 

that guarantee the ability to execute mission-essential functions 

(MEF), even where the adversary is attempting to deny our use of 

cyberspace. War-fighting systems developed with this approach will 

be inherently more difficult and costly to attack, therefore decreasing 

the benefits of attempting attacks.

Avoidance. Unlike a traditional cyber defense mind-set that assumes the extent of the attack surface to be fixed and that addresses 

risks with additional intrusion and attack detection mechanisms, 

avoidance seeks to create a strategic advantage in cyberspace by avoiding threats altogether. Threat avoidance reduces or eliminates the need 

to fight, increases the difficulty of attacking, and lowers the probability 

of a successful attack. Threat avoidance may be accomplished by way 

of three interrelated approaches: reducing the target-system cross 

section, increasing agility, and implementing deterrence.10

In reducing the target-system cross section, we make many threats 

irrelevant by eliminating vulnerabilities and their exposure beforehand. As with assurance, vulnerabilities can be “designed out” 

through a systematic, requirements-based process. However, mission 

dynamics and ever-changing threats dictate that these secure configurations be maintained constantly and automatically to ensure minimum exposure and responsiveness to system-level mission requirements.11 Furthermore, legacy protocols and architectures can be 

replaced with those that favor defense and support defensive prerequisites that are standard in other domains. When nonrepudiation 

is deemed important, protocols that guarantee attribution and facilitate 

geolocation must be employed. Likewise, if broad classes of threats 

exploit stored-program computer architectures, then architectures 

using physically separate memories must be considered. In effect, 
40 │ DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACE

many “laws” that govern cyberspace operations consist of synthetic 

protocols, interfaces, devices, and architectures that can be redesigned 

to avoid attacks by ensuring a defensive advantage through “threat 

noninteroperability.”

Agility in cyberspace implies maneuverability and the capability to 

evade attacks. Attacks are avoided by denying the adversary the advantage of time and the benefit of previously collected intelligence. A study 

of activities across the lifecycle of an attack showed that an attacker 

spends up to 95 percent of that time in preparation for the actual attack 

execution.12 A conclusion based on this estimate asserts that mechanisms designed to frustrate the intelligence-gathering and preparation 

phases of an attack are highly effective in increasing the probability that 

the attack will never occur.13 Real-time agility is accomplished through 

the use of polymorphic techniques at multiple points within the system 

and network architecture to present an agile, evasive “moving target” 

that forces an attacker to spend 100 percent of the time in the “find” 

state of the kill chain.✳ As an example, rapid address and port hopping 

among peers across untrustworthy internetworks can thwart an attacker’s ability to find, fix, track, and target key systems and allow these 

systems to deploy escape tactics when faced with a viable threat.14

The third element of threat avoidance, cyber deterrence, is the subject 

of this chapter. Although assurance and threat avoidance contribute 

to deterrence by way of increased cost and decreased benefit, deterrence is arguably more complex and more difficult to implement than 

these purely technological means. This is because deterrence includes 

considerations beyond those that are strictly technological, such as 

expressed intent and political will.15 Furthermore, fundamental differences between cyberspace and other domains add to this complexity 

and render many assumptions of traditional deterrence theory invalid. 

As such, a brief examination of the properties of cyberspace is warranted.

Properties of Cyberspace

As a war-fighting domain, cyberspace is fundamentally different 

from other domains. An understanding of these differences is an important prerequisite to developing approaches to cyber deterrence.

Several of them have a significant impact on the underlying assumptions of traditional deterrence theory.

✳Based on the Air Force–centric definition of the kill chain: (1) find, (2) fix, (3) track, 

(4) target, (5) engage, and (6) assess (F2T2EA).
DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACe│ 41

Cyberspace Is Unbounded and Changes Rapidly. Unlike air, 

space, sea, and land, which are essentially fixed in size, cyberspace is 

a technological domain that changes and expands every time humans 

touch it. Although limited by physical laws, cyberspace operations 

become useful through the protocols, devices, and architectures that 

harness them. It is through these designs that we connect, communicate, process, store, attack, and defend in cyberspace.

These “laws” of cyberspace operations dictate how we interface 

systems, how links and nodes behave, and what works and what does not 

work. This is analogous to how we harness the physical laws of other 

domains for the conduct of warfare. However, unlike in other domains, 

the laws of cyberspace operations change as technology changes.

The result of this evolution is that the threat environment and the 

means for defense are constantly changing. A zero-day attack executed 30 years ago against an IBM System/360 via malicious punch 

cards would not be effective today for the same reason Windows malware propagated via a USB thumb drive would not have been effective 30 years ago. While the laws of physics have not changed in 30 

years, their technical applications have changed. In cyberspace, technological change brings new capabilities and threats at the same time 

it obsolesces current ones.

Cyberspace Is Nongeographic. Possibly the most challenging aspect of cyberspace for the application of traditional concepts is that it 

has no geographic dimensions or boundaries. For millennia, almost 

every aspect of warfare has been intimately tied to geography. Strategic 

advantage, doctrine, success, failure, the element of surprise, and 

many other characteristics and results of warfare have depended on 

geographic features. Like space, cyberspace has no defined range of 

operations or areas of responsibility.16 However, unlike even space, 

cyber has none of the geographic dimensions so familiar in other 

domains. The frames of reference that do exist in cyberspace (e.g., 

logical connectivity) are highly dynamic.

Cyberspace Is Jurisdictionally Complex. Determining jurisdictional boundaries in cyberspace is complicated and not yet well defined. On one hand, some argue that cyberspace is international 

space (i.e., global commons) that lacks territorial jurisdiction and 

that its jurisdiction should be based on nationality, much like the 

high seas or outer space.17 On the other hand, because cyberspace 

exists only where technology exists, every piece is privately owned 

and operated and subject to the owners’ laws, regulations, and terms 
42 │ DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACE

of service. On this premise, jurisdiction would be determined based 

on the owner of a given piece of cyberspace.

Cyberspace Is Nonattributional. Although not an inherent trait 

of cyberspace, many aspects of current cyberspace operations lack 

attribution and favor anonymity. Moreover, an overall global move 

toward technology that would provide a high degree of nonrepudiation in cyberspace is unlikely due to its status as a global commons 

and increasing trends toward digital anonymity.18

The United States Is Asymmetrically Dependent on Cyberspace. 

Our increasing reliance on cyberspace, usually viewed as an indicator 

of technological superiority, has become a vulnerability.19 The United 

States is target rich in cyberspace, while many of our adversaries are not.

Cyberspace Has a Low Cost of Entry. No vast arsenals, complex 

delivery systems, or standing armies are required for an entity to 

threaten or attack others in cyberspace. In addition, anonymity is 

virtually guaranteed, further lessening the nonmonetary costs of 

launching attacks.20 Finally, there is no significant cost for the adversary to maintain a sustained attack or if an attack fails. Table 3.2 contains a summary of this comparison.

Table 3.2. Cyberspace differs fundamentally from other domains

Cyberspace Air, Space, Sea, and Ground

Size Unbounded Essentially fixed

Rate of change High Low

Governed by Technology Physical laws

Ownership and 

jurisdiction Private Sovereign and international

Cost of entry Low High

Attribution

Difficult or impossible as currently 

implemented

High due to physical evidence

Dimension Connectivity Geographic

Cost of attack Little or none Expended munitions 

Cyber Deterrence

Traditional approaches to deterrence include threat of retaliation, 

assured mutual destruction, denial, increased cost to the adversary, 

and decreased benefits for the adversary. The inherent characteristics 
DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACe│ 43

of cyberspace, as well as the ways in which it is currently utilized, will 

have a significant impact on the viability of these strategies if they are 

simply borrowed from tradition without revisiting the assumptions 

behind each. Many of these traditional approaches, especially deterrence through threat of retaliation, have serious shortcomings in the 

cyber domain because of the fundamental differences outlined previously 

and summarized here.

1. Lack of attribution.

2. Low cost of aggression with high payoff for success.

3. Inconsequential (due to conflicting, impeding, or nonexistent 

laws).

4. Low probability of detection.

5. Target has more to lose than the attacker.

6. Emerging technology can instantly “change the game” and invalidate basic assumptions.

In addition, many criticisms of deterrence strategy are based on 

weaknesses that are only amplified in the cyber domain. Assumptions about the identity, intent, nature, or rationality of a typical cyber 

adversary can be readily called into question when forming the basis 

for retaliation.

With all these potential pitfalls, is cyber deterrence worth pursuing or even possible? Obviously, if it can be realized at all, the foundation for deterrence in cyberspace will be much different than for 

other domains. The basic theory must be reestablished from the 

ground up, and many of the fundamental assumptions that have been 

the hallmark of deterrence in the nuclear era will have to be reevaluated. Policy and national strategy must be created and clarified so 

that adversaries have a basis for decision making and consequence 

evaluation. Finally, specific technologies must be developed and/or 

implemented in critical portions of cyberspace to enable cyber 

deterrence. Beginning with an evaluation of the basic theory, we 

analyze each of these traditional approaches.
44 │ DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACE

Deterrence through Threat of Retaliation

The current joint definition of deterrence is “the prevention from 

action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of mind 

brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable 

counteraction.”21

This somewhat narrow view of deterrence has its roots in the Cold 

War. It conjures up images of nuclear Armageddon and a doctrine of 

deterrence through massive retaliation and mutually assured destruction, especially for those with childhood memories of fallout 

shelters and duck-and-cover drills. From this definition, which focuses only on consequences through counteraction, one might conclude that deterrence can only be achieved through a threatened 

counteraction. Some have argued that the geographic and attribution 

ambiguities in cyberspace make this form of deterrence largely unachievable. These domain characteristics lead to several key difficulties including no actionable basis for deterrence, lack of high confidence, rapid attribution, and lack of a credible and demonstrated 

capability for response.22

Although these problems may indeed preclude effective deterrence of an attacking cyber adversary, this form of deterrence is actually employed routinely and effectively in cyberspace. Every day, millions of DOD and corporate computer users are deterred from 

violating organizational policy concerning their use of cyberspace. 

Penalties for misuse are understood and displayed at every login, attribution is virtually certain by way of access credentials, and retribution can be swift and severe. Therefore, deterrence by threat of retaliation does exist in cyberspace but only against users who have a 

tangible risk and fear certain retaliation. These are authorized users, 

not the adversary.

Before concluding that deterrence of an adversary by these means 

is not possible due to the difficulties outlined above, recall from the 

previous section that cyberspace is a technological domain. In this 

domain, cyberspace operations must obey laws that are derived from 

the design of the technology. Because of this, it should be possible to 

design cyber infrastructure that enables this type of deterrence 

against even the adversary. Just as authorized users are deterred from 

misusing corporate resources because of technological means that 

enable retribution, a properly designed cyberspace would allow unauthorized users to be similarly held at risk.
DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACe│ 45

Assured Mutual Self-Destruction

More and more, cyberspace is becoming interconnected, with 

many of its users dependent on the proper functioning of shared resources. Cloud computing, for example, offers any individual or organization access to vast computing and storage resources without 

the added baggage of owning and maintaining the resources. Companies and governments are outsourcing their enterprise applications 

and storage needs to providers such as Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. The “black box” nature of these services makes it difficult, if not 

impossible, to know where a particular application is executed or a 

particular file is stored within the cloud. Even precision attacks 

against these services may likely have widespread unintended effects, 

possibly against the interests of an attacker. Similar to the way in 

which we and our adversaries are mutually dependent on the financial stability of world markets, actors in cyberspace are increasingly 

dependent on the proper functioning and availability of cyber infrastructure. This mutual dependence translates into a deterrent force if 

mission-essential functions are placed carefully and securely alongside collateral activities that would be disadvantageous for the adversary to disrupt or destroy.

Deterrence by Denial

This deterrence relies on the buildup of defensive technologies to 

neutralize or mitigate attacks. Deterrence by denial works well in a 

“defense-dominant” environment such as missile defense, where the 

denial of attack success costs more than the expected benefits.23 Unfortunately, in cyberspace an adversary incurs very little cost when an attack fails and is usually free to keep trying without incurring additional 

costs. Thus, deterrence by denial is not currently feasible in cyberspace. 

However, the fact that there is no cost for attempting and failing an attack is simply a result of how cyberspace is currently implemented. If it 

were implemented in such a way that attack detection was certain and 

attribution rapid and reliable, the cost for failure might begin to outweigh the expected benefit for some attackers. For example, if a critical 

function were isolated physically or logically from the rest of cyberspace, the added effort required of an attacker might become prohibitive and expose the attack, thereby providing a deterrent. Similarly, 

selective substitution of hardware for software in critical systems denies 

an attacker the ease of remote modification of a target.
46 │ DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACE

Deterrence through Increased Cost to the Adversary

Increasing the cost of attack to the point where an adversary decides 

it is no longer worthwhile requires an understanding of the adversary’s cost model and the level of its relative expertise. Agile cyber 

systems that break attack planning cycles and render an attacker’s 

knowledge base worthless may increase the cost and/or difficulty of 

an attack enough to deter. Manipulating how our defenses are presented to affect the adversary’s perception of costs can also serve to 

deter. For example, prepositioning an application on thousands of 

dissimilar systems across the domain increases disproportionately 

the cost to an adversary. 

Deterrence through Decreased Benefits for the Adversary

In an environment where there will always be some level of vulnerability, deterrence through decreased benefits is based on ensuring that successful attacks do not result in significant payoffs for the 

adversary. Assuming an attack is detected, this approach might involve deceptive techniques to lure attackers into honeypots or into 

extracting bogus information. An attacker that perceives (whether 

true or not) that its costly attacks are producing useless results may be 

deterred from continuing.

This type of deterrence can also be realized by way of highly resilient 

systems—systems that have an innate ability to adapt to unexpected 

inputs, such as those likely presented by an attacker, and continue 

operating in spite of the attack—for example, genetic algorithms that 

allow a software system to evolve when new negative test cases are discovered during operation.

Summary and Conclusion

As a fundamental element of defense, deterrence has served as the 

foundation of US military strategy for decades. With cyberspace now 

recognized as both an enabling domain and a war-fighting domain in 

its own right, it is understandable that war fighters and policy makers 

wish to extend deterrence concepts to cyberspace. Going forward, we 

must recognize that deterrence models will be unique for every domain, especially cyberspace. Much of the current theory and approach has been built within the context of nuclear deterrence. Blind 
DETERRENCE IN CYBERSPACe│ 47

application of this framework will fail, since the context and very 

properties of the domain are completely different.

Based on an analysis of the properties of cyberspace, we conclude 

that there are several opportunities for application of new deterrence. 

The threat of assured mutual self-destruction of cyberspace assets 

and approaches that manipulate the adversary’s cost-benefit equation 

seem to hold the most promise. Realization of these will require fundamental technological changes to the cyberspace domain as well as a 

new set of rational policies that are scientifically sound and enforceable by way of the technical characteristics of the domain.

Notes

1. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 141.

2. Shaud, “In Service to the Nation,” 35.

3. US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, Defending and Operating in a Contested 

Cyber Domain, 2.

4. The White House, Cyberspace Policy Review, v.

5. Defense Science Board, Challenges to Military Operations in Support of US Interests, 

vol. 2, 320.

6. CSIS, Securing Cyberspace for the 44th Presidency, 12.

7. Alberts, Defensive Information Warfare, 59; and Tirenin and Faatz, “A Concept 

for Strategic Cyber Defense.”

8. US House, statement of William A. Wulf.

9. Jabbour, “The Science and Technology of Cyber Operations.”

10. Air Force Research Laboratory, Information Directorate, Integrated Cyber 

Defense & Support Technologies.

11. Narain, Levin, Malik, and Kaul, “Declarative Infrastructure Configuration 

Synthesis and Debugging.”

12. Lowry, “An Initial Foray into Understanding Adversary Planning and 

Courses of Action.”

13. Air Force Research Laboratory, Proactive and Predictive Cyber Indications 

and Warnings, 82–83.

14. Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome Research Site, “Polymorphic Cyber Defense.”

15. For a discussion of expressed intent, see Kaufmann, The Evolution of Deterrence; 

and for political will see Frederick, “Deterrence and Space-Based Missile Defense.”

16. Chilton, “Cyberspace Leadership.”

17. Menthe, “Jurisdiction in Cyberspace.”

18. Libicki, “Deterrence in Cyberspace.”

19. Shaud, “In Service to the Nation.”

20. Ibid., 36.

21. JP 1-02, 161.

22. Libicki, “Deterrence in Cyberspace”; and Tirenin and Faatz, A Concept for 

Strategic Cyber Defense.

23. Harknett, “To Deter or Not to Deter.”

SECTION 2

The Relevance of Nuclear 

Deterrence in the Twenty-First 

Century

Chapter 4

Why Nuclear Deterrence Is Still Relevant

Elbridge A. Colby

Is nuclear deterrence still relevant to US policy? From the heights 

of its prominence in the depths of the Cold War, nuclear deterrence 

has fallen into relative obscurity. Given the nature of the conflicts in 

which the United States is engaged today, attention in defense circles 

focuses on counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and high-level conventional conflict. So stark has been the shift that a blue-ribbon panel 

appointed in the wake of embarrassing incidents within the US nuclear 

bomber force found “a serious erosion of focus, expertise, mission 

readiness, resources, and discipline in the nuclear weapons enterprise 

within the Air Force” and a general lack of interest in nuclear matters 

within the Defense Department as a whole.1

 The broader intellectual 

climate has been even less favorable than the neglect suffered within 

the defense community. Indeed, much of the focus received in recent 

years by issues relating to nuclear deterrence has been generated by 

the well-publicized effort to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely, an 

effort that in one way or another has received the endorsement of 

both President Obama and his 2008 Republican rival, Senator John 

McCain, legions of former senior officials, and countless cultural, 

religious, and other influential figures. Someone not steeped in the 

intricacies of nuclear deterrence might be forgiven for thinking that 

the broader military’s lack of interest and the testimonies against its 

necessity by its former high priests and practitioners, like Henry 

Kissinger, must constitute pretty powerful evidence that nuclear deterrence is no longer relevant—or even needed.

There is an element of truth to this view. The obsessive, at times 

almost maniacal, focus of the Cold War years on nuclear weapons has 

passed, and has passed on good grounds. For a variety of reasons, the 

intense competition between the United States and the Soviet Union

The author would like to thank Bruno Tertrais, George Quester, and Robert Jervis 

for their helpful comments in preparing the manuscript. Professor Jervis was especially, but characteristically, generous in reviewing a chapter that takes aim at one of 

his own arguments.
52 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

in the years between 1945 and the denouement of the USSR in the 

late 1980s manifested itself above all in a nuclear weapons arms race. 

Each side sought to develop and deploy nuclear weapons that could 

provide what it perceived to be an advantage—not only in military 

terms but also in the geopolitical perceptual test of strength. This 

dynamic pushed the two superpowers to field forces with unimaginable 

destructive capabilities that were well beyond the bounds of any rational 

strategic goal and demanded the creation of the peculiar neologism 

“overkill.” With each side possessing tens of thousands of thermonuclear weapons, both had the power to annihilate not only each other, 

but perhaps even civilized life on Earth. Accompanying these arsenals were fervent efforts to develop strategies for their use. Some of 

these efforts were reasonable attempts to grapple with the contorting 

challenge of seeking to satisfy political objectives with weapons 

whose destructiveness transcended the boundaries of the politically 

sensible; others, however, seemed so untethered from a firm grasp of 

the weapons’ catastrophic power that they imbued nuclear deterrence as a whole with an air of unreality, if not morbid insouciance, 

perhaps best captured by Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove.

2

The dissolution of the Soviet Empire and consequent relaxation of 

tensions between West and East, the disappearance of a credible alternative to socially minded liberal-market systems, and the overweening dominance of the United States in the post–Cold War era, 

however, have ushered in a radically different perspective on the salience 

of nuclear deterrence. From being a central concern of geopolitics 

and, indeed, of humanity, nuclear deterrence suddenly has become 

marginal and, to many, unnecessary. The chief virtue claimed for it 

during the dark days of the Cold War had been the prevention of 

major war, but in the wake of the demise of the great challenger to the 

free market’s ascendancy, such war no longer seems, to many, to be a 

serious possibility. Indeed, some analysts have gone so far as to claim 

that war is, in fact, obsolete, a residual vestige of more primitive eras.3

And one cannot but observe that the rate of wars has declined substantially over the past centuries.4

 This development has been seen as 

stemming from a variety of roots. Some have emphasized the triumph 

of pacifying liberal democracy and the eclipse of rival ideologies.5

Others have stressed a softening of once belligerent social mores and 

intellectual attitudes and the correlative development of strong 

“norms” against war.6

 Still others have pointed to the declining economic rationality of war, noting that, in an age of relatively open and 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 53

free trade, the advantages of territorial conquest in a Malthusian 

world no longer apply.7

 Such arguments for why major war is no longer 

a serious possibility may be synthesized into two main thrusts: humanity has moved beyond war, and war no longer pays.

If this view is correct, then it surely follows that nuclear deterrence 

is indeed irrelevant—and, worse than that, dangerous, given the everpresent chances of accident or miscalculation.8

 A world in which 

great war is impossible or perhaps even just extremely unlikely would 

also be a world in which nuclear weapons would serve no rational 

purpose, for the only justification for maintaining and threatening 

to use arms of such apocalyptic destructiveness is if they are effective at restraining Mars in the first place. But is it true that major war 

is no longer possible?

Does War No Longer Pay?

Let us first consider the narrower claim for war’s obsolescence—

that it no longer pays. According to this argument, traceable to the 

school of Adam Smith, the long-term gains to be had from trade outweigh those held out by aggressive war. Nations, and interest groups 

within nations, profit more from the liberal path of specialization and 

free commerce, which propels the broad enrichment of all parties, 

than from conquest or subordination.9

 Moreover, especially in a 

world of highly destructive nonnuclear weaponry and in which nations 

can mass their populations into great armies, the costs of war are also 

potentially very high, even without nuclear weapons entering into 

the equation.

There is much truth to this argument. In a post-Malthusian world 

in which it is primarily productivity rather than the exploitation of 

the land that equates to prosperity, it does pay to orient society toward the cultivation of productive and efficient labor rather than 

military might. Beyond the requirements of defense and the stabilization of the overarching order, it often does not make sense to use the 

military instrument to extract wealth, even for an order’s hegemon, 

because such use is likely to undermine the free market system itself 

by spurring countervailing responses by the exploited or those fearing exploitation and by undermining confidence in the stability and 

market rationality of the order. Even within a country, exploitation 

may lead to ultimately counterproductive distortions in the economy.10
54 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

Vesting too much confidence in this argument for the passing of 

major war, however, might be to confuse the telos of a system with 

the actual dynamics of its workings. Capitalism, taken to its logical 

conclusion, would presumably involve the abolition of restraints on 

the free hiring and firing of labor, the dissipation of international 

constraints on the movement of persons and goods, and, indeed, 

even the retirement of the concepts of nationhood and citizenship 

themselves. Yet is there any reason to think such developments likely, 

let alone desirable? Are human societies straining to approximate the 

capitalist ideal of a perfectly rational allocation of capital and effort in 

the pursuit of the best aggregate outcome, even at the expense of the 

unproductive? The answer must be a clear no. Quite to the contrary, 

human beings seem keen to maintain themselves in groupings of one 

kind or another, above all the nation-state, designed to protect individuals and social groups from a too perfect market rationality and to 

improve their advantages relative to others.11 The persistence of this 

behavior indicates that states and other entities still seek economic 

protection and advantage from noneconomic sources, and thus may 

still seek to wrest economic wealth or shelter through military force, 

including through coercion rather than pure brute force—even if 

such advantages are less impressive than the absolute gains they might 

garner in a perfect international market system.12 This suggests that 

market suboptimal “errors,” ranging from Saddam Hussein’s brazen 

attempt to gain Kuwait’s oil riches to variants of the more subtle “Finlandization” feared for West Germany during the 1970s, are still possible.

Nor is the danger of war in liberal capitalism confined to suboptimal 

“errors.” For instance, observers of the international political economy 

have emphasized that the liberal market system is not reliably selfgenerating but rather is best sustained by a hegemonic power prepared to enforce the rules of the system, both through economic measures and military force.13 Yet the exertions of such hegemons tend to 

sow the seeds of their own demise, leading to weakening of the system, 

perilous instability, and, ultimately, the breakup of the hegemon’s 

power.14 The absence of an effective hegemon can, in turn, lead to the 

balkanization of economic relations and thus to inefficiencies and 

distortions in the economic system that appear invidious to some 

members. Even if neither the hegemon nor the system’s participants 

saw the advantages of waging war during a hegemon’s ascendancy, 

the same might not hold true for periods of a hegemon’s wane, let 

alone when there is no hegemon at all. In straightforward terms, 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 55

states may often have to make do in a world that is not optimally organized on liberal trade principles, a world in which the use of military force might not, from a purely economic point of view, be the per se 

suboptimal option.

But there is a deeper problem with the argument that war no longer 

pays—for wars have been waged for reasons other than material gain, 

and indeed in some cases with the assessment that war would likely 

result in material loss rather than gain, as in the case of Japan in 

1941.15 In many instances this has resulted from the often tragic nature 

of the structure of international politics in which states may feel most 

secure in costly domination or the weakness of their rivals and neighbors 

rather than in a more prosperous but insecure peace.16 France’s policy 

of seeking to cripple Germany in the interwar years out of fear of its 

resurgence stands as a classic example. The policy no doubt was economically suboptimal, but Paris saw it as the safer option, the loss of 

wealth be damned. If nations still feel insecure in a competitive and 

anarchic international environment, then there is little reason to see 

why these classical impulsions to war no longer operate.

Nor is the structure of the international environment the only generator of war. Pride, honor, the libido dominandi, the thrill of warfare 

and conquest, and the like are also primal drivers of human interaction 

and have historically played important, if not at times dominant, 

roles in fostering war.17 The ambitions of Hitler, Mussolini, Napoleon, 

Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Julius Caesar, and Alexander the 

Great—as well as the armies and peoples they led—simply cannot be 

understood without reference to the salience of pride, honor, the allure 

of power and domination, and glory. While calculations of advantage 

clearly have factored into the considerations of leaders and their populaces, demonstrating that exploitative war is not as profitable as a freemarket peace only tinkers at the edges of the calculations of those for 

whom comfortable prosperity is but one good among others at best, let 

alone a secondary one, or even, as it was for the Communists, Fascists, 

and steppe barbarians, an object of disdain.

The proposition that war does not pay may, then, be generally true, 

but, given the incomplete scope of its applicability and the verity that 

wars do not stem solely from the pursuit of material gain, it is surely 

far too narrow a base to conclude that war is passé.
56 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

Beyond War? The Issue of Security Communities

What, however, if deeper forces are at work in making war no longer 

possible, even in a nuclear weapons-free world? Indeed, some argue 

that not only does war no longer pay, but international politics does 

not need to generate the insecurities that can lead to war, and the 

nature of society and mores has so fundamentally changed in advanced 

liberal democratic systems that great war is no longer a serious option 

(at least within certain circumstances).

Rather than vainly seeking to survey a vast and variegated literature on this question, it may be more appropriate to focus on a synthesis of these arguments offered by Robert Jervis in his book American Foreign Policy in a New Era. Jervis is not only one of the foremost 

international relations scholars of the era, but he is also highly respected for his judiciousness, wisdom, and immunity to faddishness. 

Moreover, he is generally identified as a “realist” in political science 

terms, so taking on his argument for the obsolescence of major war is 

to take on the argument in its most careful, sophisticated, and resilient 

form. His arguments for the proposition that “war among the leading 

great powers—the most developed states of the United States, Western 

Europe, and Japan—will not occur in the future, and indeed is no 

longer a source of concern for them,” can thus reasonably be taken as 

a champion for the set of arguments as a whole.18

Jervis’s basic argument is that war can and, within certain conditions, has become a thing of the past. Drawing from the work of constructivist and liberal as well as realist analysts and scholars, he argues 

that a “security community” in which war is no longer plausible has 

emerged as a result of “the destructiveness of war, the benefits of peace, 

and the changes in values” among the participant nations which more 

or less correlate with the North Atlantic community and Japan.19 The 

outcome has been that, within this community, “neither the publics 

nor the political elites nor even the military establishments expect war 

with each other.”20 Indeed, these developments have made “war unthinkable” within the precincts of the security community.21

Jervis sees this transcendence of the serious possibility of war as 

stemming from several factors. Culling from the constructivist 

school, he first argues that the norms, values, ideas, attitudes, and the 

like that used to impel nations and peoples to war have been replaced 

within the security community by those that render war against fellow 

security community members not only anathema, but unthinkable—
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 57

simply not a genuine policy option. As he puts it, “Although war is still 

seen as necessary when imposed on states by extreme circumstances . . . 

no one talks about the importance of honor, which sparked many 

wars in the past, or sees wars as a way to satisfy national or individual 

quests for glory. States with these outlooks will not fight each other.”22

Moreover, these changes in values are “self-reinforcing,” constituting 

“a benign cycle of behavior, beliefs, and expectations” that allows nations under its influence to get out of the cycle of anxiety and distrust 

that characterizes states in the suspicious anarchy of realist thought.23

The second strand of argument that Jervis draws upon is the liberal 

one, emphasizing the importance of democratization, economic interdependence, and, to a lesser degree, the role of inter- and supra-national 

organizations. Jervis is more skeptical of the role of these factors, noting 

that multiple conditions invariably attach to arguments for the salience 

of democracy and economic interdependence and dismissing the 

role of international organizations as “slight.”24 Nonetheless, he contends that the gains brought by peaceful coexistence and the habits of 

democracy, when operating together with other factors such as the 

softening of mores, have contributed to making war implausible 

within the community.25

Finally, Jervis points to the critical importance of the traditional 

realist influences of power and fear. Indeed, his argument is not that 

nuclear weapons have made no difference. Rather, he judges that “a 

necessary condition” of great-power peace “is the belief that conquest 

is difficult and war is terribly costly,” and that nuclear weapons in 

particular have made it “hard for anyone to believe that war could 

make sense.”26 Yet while Jervis holds that the presence of nuclear 

weapons was essential for the creation and consolidation of the security community of pacific nations, he argues that the progress of “the 

Community is path-dependent . . . [that] forms of cooperation [have] 

set off positive feedback and are now self-sustaining.”27 Given that he 

argues that war among participants in the community is 

“unthinkable”—a word variously defined as deeming something impossible to conceive or imagine or not capable of being grasped by 

the mind—it stands to reason that nuclear weapons either are or will 

become irrelevant and presumably unnecessary among them, and so 

the same would hold true if the security community were to expand.

Jervis is careful to note that this “community” is composed only of 

those states which have been subject to the relevant influences, but 

they are also those states that represent the vanguard of history.28
58 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

Given that Jervis argues that the security community is self-sustaining 

in part because its system is superior in delivering value to its members, 

it stands to reason that the model will expand in one way or another 

as the rest of the world develops.29 This is especially so because Jervis 

emphasizes the critical pacifying importance of nuclear deterrence in 

making war too costly, a realization that changes in values then work 

upon to cement the obsolescence of war. Jervis also cautions that war 

is still possible between members of the security community and outsiders such as China and Russia (as well as smaller nations) but argues 

that, even here, such disputes are “not like those that characterized 

great-power conflicts over the past three centuries.” Rather than contests for supremacy, he sees these tensions as stemming from advocacy 

for “milieu goals” and so presumably as more amenable to amelioration and eventual transcendence.30

The upshot of Jervis’s argument, which synthesizes a vast literature 

and captures the spirit of a prominent contemporary intellectual attitude, is that the maturation of mores and the progress of democracy 

and free trade, when combined with the lessons learned from the 

costliness of war and its limited value, have created a self-sustaining 

and self-propagating community of nations and peoples for which 

war is simply unthinkable—as foreign to political and social life as 

dueling is to interpersonal relations.31 To this view, while war is still 

with us as a matter of fact, this is a contingent rather than a necessary 

aspect of human social interaction. Indeed, the direction of history 

indicates that it is a passing characteristic; its salience is inversely correlated to the increasing development of human society. Needless to 

say, a world in which war is simply unimaginable, beyond the pale, is 

also a world in which nuclear weapons would be unnecessary.

Europe as a Model? The Centrality of Power 

But this is not in fact the world in which we live, nor the one in 

which we can expect to live in the future. The root flaw in Jervis’s 

argument, and in the arguments of those who contend that war is 

passé, is a conception of history and of human political and social 

development that markedly overestimates the durability of historically contingent value systems while seriously downplaying the enduring 

centrality of competition, fear, uncertainty, and power. Jervis is right 

in marveling at the creation of a pacific community of nations and 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 59

peoples and at the stark changes in mores and attitudes that have 

helped propel and cement this community.32 He is even right in emphasizing that such a community has considerable resilience. But is 

he right that the basic nature of human politico-social interaction—

and to some degree human nature itself—has changed, or is capable 

of changing, so deeply through the alteration of value systems? The 

answer is that it has not, nor is it capable of such change. Even as conditions and mores have changed, the same basic competitive dynamics 

that Hobbes boldly outlined three and a half centuries ago (and that 

Darwin sketched out in the animal kingdom) remain active today 

and will continue to remain so as long as human beings are constituted as they have been for millennia.33 Because of this enduring reality, 

we must always be acutely aware that war is possible and thinkable 

and that the most reliable method for minimizing its recurrence is 

through the prudent manipulation of fear and interest.

Let us first examine the particular case of the “security community” 

of Europe, for it is within this milieu that Jervis makes his claims of 

war’s impossibility. Jervis is right that Europe has become a continent 

in which war among its major nations is undesired and indeed implausible. But this is not, at its root, due to changes in the values of 

Europeans but rather to developments in the European power structure—

developments that have not removed the possibility of war as such 

but rather transferred them to a different plane. The most important 

factors in explaining the current implausibility of war in Europe are 

the combination of the essential irrelevance of European state power 

since the end of the Second World War and the presence of American 

power. These factors have combined to make serious war between 

European states pointless, exceptionally difficult to mount, and unnecessary, not to mention unattractive—pointless because such wars 

would not directly affect the primary, relevant power balance; difficult because European states have not had the power to go to war 

without American assistance and authorization; and unnecessary because European security has been guaranteed by the hegemon, the 

United States. 

What has happened? Wars throughout history, and particularly 

major wars in modern Europe, have been driven primarily by the 

desire to dominate a given state system or to stave off such domination 

by another.34 The Thirty Years’ War was a struggle by the Habsburg 

Empire to assert its dominance over Europe and by the Protestant 

powers and France to resist such domination. The wars of Louis XIV 
60 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

represented successive attempts by France to achieve supremacy over 

Western Europe. The wars of the French Revolution and especially 

Napoleon were the apotheosis of this attempt. Finally, World Wars I 

and II represented efforts by Germany to dominate Europe. Each of 

these conflicts directly affected the European power balance, was 

necessary in that the independence or autonomy of the states could 

not, it was believed, be protected without going to war, and could be 

initiated at will by any of the major parties to the war. Throughout the 

modern period, and well before it, state policies on war and peace 

have been driven above all by such considerations. Great Britain’s historical policy of intervening on behalf of the weaker coalition to prevent the consolidation of power on the continent stands as a prime 

example of this, as do France’s policies seeking to counterbalance 

German power in the years leading up to each of the world wars.

With the end of the Second World War, however, Europe had essentially exhausted itself, leaving the field to the true victors, the giants 

America and Russia, whom Tocqueville had recognized would come 

to overawe and outclass Europe.35 But the European powers were not 

simply conquered or garrisoned as a matter of contingency; rather, 

they had been “priced out of the market” of the great power contest.36

For, after 1945, the European states simply could not stand in the 

same category as the superpowers militarily or economically. No individual European state or plausible combination of states could 

match either American or, during the Cold War, Soviet power. Unlike 

the two superpowers, the states of Europe could not develop secure, 

effective, and discriminate strategic nuclear and adequate conventional forces, and thus faced, at best, the deathly choice of “suicide or 

surrender” if abandoned by Washington to Soviet aggression or coercion. As with the princely states of the Holy Roman Empire after 

Napoleon or the American states in the wake of the Civil War, the 

European states had been transcended as politico-strategic units. 

Therefore, instead of a power balance among the European states, 

after 1945 there ensued first a bipolar structure between the United 

States and the USSR and then a hegemonic unipolar structure under 

US auspices, with the European states of Jervis’s “security community” serving as allies, irritants, or neutrals, but not leading strategic 

actors of their own. 

These developments, strengthened by the central role of the United 

States and the dollar in international economic stability, have meant 

that the contest for power and dominance over Europe since 1945 has 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 61

taken place at a level beyond which individual European states have 

been able to play leading roles, a point that was driven home rather 

harshly by the United States and the Soviet Union during the Suez Crisis 

of 1956. So dependent upon external protection and leadership have 

the European states been since 1945, and indeed increasingly over the 

course of the Cold War, that many astute analysts have regarded them 

as being part of an American “empire,” albeit a liberal one.37

In any case, war between European states in the post-1945 world 

would, unlike those before 1945, have been irrelevant to determining 

the status of the European system, unnecessary for their preservation, and essentially impossible without US authorization. War 

among these states would have been pointless, in that it would not 

have created a more stable or more beneficial strategic environment. 

It would also have been unnecessary, for the safety and security of the 

states rested on the guarantee of the United States. Nor would it have 

been permitted. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union, during 

the term of its empire, would have allowed its allies or client states to 

fight one another.38 Indeed, most NATO nation-states, and especially 

the most powerful European state, Germany, have been and are simply 

incapable of operating substantial military forces independent of US 

assistance, as evidenced in the 2011 Libyan operation. 

This is not to deny the role of changes in values, liberal systems of 

government, and other factors in propelling and cementing the peace 

within the European community. Europeans have clearly become less 

martial (just as Americans have become considerably more martial 

since assuming a global security role), but this in some ways suits 

their role as security wards of the United States. And European democratic governments have not pushed for intra-European war and have 

avoided (with the partial exception of France) directly challenging or 

excessively undermining the American-led security system. And 

economic growth has enabled Europeans to focus on prosperity and 

social welfare. While these factors are important, they are ultimately 

secondary causes, aids to the underlying dynamic of the transcendence of the intra-European state balance.

Jervis is right, then, that war within the European security community is implausible under current circumstances. But why that is 

negates the proposition that such implausibility means that strategic 

competition and war can be pushed out of international politics. For 

the basic reason why Europe is a security community is that the relevant echelon for strategic interaction has risen above intra-European 
62 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

state boundaries to a level at which the European states cannot act 

autonomously without uniting. The once fiercely independent states 

of Europe thus resemble the once fractious states of the United States, 

the patchwork of princely fiefdoms and republics of the Holy Roman 

Empire, the city-states, and principalities of pre-Risorgimento Italy, 

the warring tribes of Italy before the Social War, and the proud polises

of ancient Greece before Philip of Macedon. In each of these cases, 

political, social, or economic developments made once-intransigent 

disputes among states irrelevant and ultimately led to their forming, 

usually through compulsion, into a larger entity which then directed 

those energies outward against some common opponent.39 No one 

can imagine Virginia fighting Massachusetts and New York today, nor 

Saxony fighting Bavaria, but that is not because the potential for war 

has disappeared from human affairs; it is rather because these political 

units cannot compete with more-efficiently organized, larger entities.

Indeed, it is instructive in this respect to note the progress toward 

the unification of Europe. For centuries, from Charlemagne through 

Charles V and Louis XIV on to Napoleon and Kaiser Wilhelm, Europeans have dreamed of unification of the states of Europe but have 

consistently failed. Only today has there been significant, stable progress toward such unification. Why? Clearly the increased fellow-feeling 

in Europe and the decline of militarism have played roles, but more 

determinative has been the compulsion to scale. Economically, increased unification through the abolition of trade barriers and synchronization of economic policies has allowed Europe to increase efficiency and thereby seek to compete in a globalized economy. 

Politically, it has allowed Europe to try to exercise some of its lost influence on the world stage. And, perhaps most revealingly, it has 

served as a way to try to achieve some autonomy from and balance 

with the superpower, particularly through the greater, if increasingly 

uncertain, strength afforded by the euro. Though this unification represents a pacification of intra-European relations, it does not mean 

the end of strategic competition as such—rather it is in part an attempt to engage on that very strategic plane from which Europe has 

largely been excluded by its inability to achieve scale—to punch, in 

more colloquial terms, at the heavyweight level. 

Europe’s progress toward becoming a security community does 

not represent, then, a transcendence of war, but rather mainly a displacement of war from its traditional arena among the states of Europe 

to a broader vista. For better or worse, the United States is Europe’s 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 63

security guarantor and, in key respects, its benign imperial overseer, 

and the United States is engaged in strategic competition—with a rising 

China, with a recalcitrant Russia, with an ambitious Iran, and so 

forth. Europe’s development cannot be seen, then, as a model for or 

an augury of world pacification. It is, rather, another chapter in the 

long history of the interaction of state power, technology, and strategic 

competition, one for which war continues to be supremely relevant. 

Strategic competition and the possibility of great war remain.

The Historical Contingency of Peaceful Europe 

The pacific stability of postwar Europe stems primarily, then, from 

the obsolescence of the European state system and from the security 

patronage of the United States. Shifts in values and systems of government have helped, but they could not uphold such stability without a 

favorable power structure. But we would be remiss if we reduced this 

story to power politics and liberalism alone and dismissed more 

organic factors in explaining what has happened in Europe, for there 

may be deeper currents at work in reducing the probability of war 

within Europe.

Foremost is the possibility that Europe is in a civilizational phase 

of softening mores, introversion, and complacency. Organic conceptions of the rise, flourishing, and decline of nations and civilizations 

are woefully unfashionable in an empiricist age, but they have been 

central to explanations of history and international politics from antiquity until the twentieth century.40 From Plato to Toynbee, thinkers 

have observed that powerful nations, peoples, cities, and the like appear to go through stages of development involving some variations 

of a vigorous and energetic rise, a proud flourishing, and a softening 

or stultifying decline. The Romans, whose martial prowess, stern discipline, and unwavering determination overpowered every rival in 

the ancient Mediterranean, became known in the late imperial period 

rather for their opulence and their unwillingness to shoulder the demands of civic virtue.41 The Byzantines, who under Justinian reconquered most of the Mediterranean and under Heraclius, took on the 

Persian Empire, retreated before the Arab invasions in large part because of exhaustion and internal discord before ultimately succumbing 

to the Ottoman Turks. Machiavelli dedicated himself to understanding 

why the Italians had declined from the mastery of the Romans to the 
64 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

disunion and weakness of the city-states and principalities of the Renaissance.42 Perhaps the best example in the early modern period is 

Spain, which became the premier power in Europe in the sixteenth 

century before exhausting itself in the confessional wars, debasing its 

economy, and yielding to a long decline. Beyond Europe, Chinese 

imperial dynasties appeared to past observers to follow a pattern of 

vigorous conquest, flourishing, luxuriation, and finally overthrow. 

The Ming and the Manchu dynasties followed this pattern. In the 

Middle East, the stern and lean Arabs who rode out of the desert and 

conquered all before them eventually were seen to become lethargic 

and fell to the steppe Turkic peoples.43

Europe’s current, more pacific phase, then, might be seen as a stage 

in its civilizational development.44 Throughout the history of postantique Europe, war as a manifestation of vigorous interstate competition has been a constant, indeed perhaps a driving force, in Europe’s 

success in gaining world supremacy.45 But the cataclysms of the two 

world wars, the declining influence of and confidence in the traditional sources of Western civilization, and the adoption of modernity 

by and consequent rise of non-European nations and peoples, among 

other factors, have contributed to what has to be seen as a decline in 

civilizational vigor, for lack of a better term, by the European peoples.46

This might be particularly intensified by the marked aging of the European population. Europeans are not just less bellicose within Europe, 

within the “security community”; they are also less bellicose in general. 

In earlier eras, such a civilization would likely have fallen prey to 

hungrier, more aggressive peoples or nations, as Rome fell to the 

Germanic barbarians, China to Mongols and Manchus, and Arabs to 

Mongols and Turks. Even during the Cold War, such a Europe left to 

its own devices almost certainly would have fallen under Soviet sway 

or outright dominion. But as Europe has been and is protected by the 

United States and by nuclear weapons, this did not come to pass.

That Europe has entered into such a historical phase does not, 

then, mean that war is passé in general—Europe may be at the end of 

its run rather than at the end of history. Peoples and nations have 

many times before lost the appetite for war, but that has not meant 

that war, to paraphrase Trotsky, was not interested in them. Indeed, 

we should not take Europe’s development as a one-way ratchet, for 

history may be sinusoidal rather than a bell curve. The Chinese, who 

were bywords for the “sick men” of Asia in the nineteenth century, 

have clearly recovered a civilizational vigor they had lost during the 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 65

heyday of Western supremacy. China in recent years has exhibited 

very clearly an appreciation for the military instrument, even as it 

promises to surpass Europe in economic success.47 So we should be 

extremely cautious about assuming that Europe itself has abandoned 

its warlike ways for good.

Yet our caution about foretelling the demise of war should not be 

tied only to views of history, for there are wellsprings of human belligerence that go even deeper than the historical contingency of the 

security community of Europe.48 Though the “realists” of neorealism 

are right that war is endemic to an anarchic state system, man is not 

driven toward war only by the structure of the international system, 

which is a relatively recent phenomenon in human development, but 

also by his deepest instincts and sentiments.49 Pride, honor, biological 

necessity, the desire to dominate, the desire to feel “the passion of life 

to its top,” ideological or religious obligations, et cetera have combined to drive people, and especially men, to go to war.50 It would be 

inane to try to catalog fully the historical examples of those who have 

gone to war for more than pure reasons of state, but a few might include Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, and Louis XIV, who pursued conquests for glory; the religious wars of the Arab Conquests, 

the Crusades, and the confessional wars, which, while they are certainly not reducible to religious motivations, can hardly be understood without them; and Napoleon and Hitler, whose wars sprang 

from combinations of vainglory, ideological zeal, and mania. Man is 

not by nature a pacific animal, as attested by the bloody example of 

early human history, in which a substantial fraction of deaths—

perhaps even as high as half—were caused by violence.

51 Nor must 

one see human beings as highly instinctive or emotional for war to 

take place. Hobbes envisioned man in his natural state acting purely 

out of self-interest and saw that a war of all against all would be the 

result in the absence of the Leviathan.52 Changes in values and the 

application of power are epiphenomenal upon this enduring reality 

of humanity’s native capacity for and inclinations toward bellicosity. 

Unless our nature is decisively changed to a reliable selfless humility, 

which seems exceptionally unlikely, human beings will continue to 

have a propensity toward competition and war.

War remains, in brief, eminently possible, ever potential.53 Deep 

structural shifts in power and in the nature of European civilization 

over the past half-century, and particularly in the past 20 years, have 

obscured this reality, but it remains.
66 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

The Pacifying Effect of Nuclear Weapons

Yet, thankfully, as the past 65 years demonstrate, great war is preventable. But its prevention begins precisely with this recognition 

that war is always possible, that it is always “thinkable.” From this 

beginning, states can take actions to make war unlikely. Even with 

their bellicose instincts and incentives, men, especially those who 

rise to positions of authority, are rarely madmen. Above all, they 

value survival and the preservation of what they have and love. 

Threatening these things can serve to turn an adversary away from 

war.54 So can superior power, albeit less reliably.55 Moreover, the libido 

dominandi and the other impulses that drive people toward war can, 

at least to some extent, be channeled into less destructive pursuits, 

especially when such attractions are coupled with a clear threat of 

devastation if the aggressive path is taken.56 Thus a combination of 

the exploitation of fear and interest on the one hand and the redirection of warlike instincts toward other endeavors can combine to 

lessen substantially the probability of war. These are the core verities 

of deterrence and of enlightened statecraft.

In a nonnuclear world, this task was and would be a great and dubious 

challenge. Since conventional weapons effect damage at a scale readily 

cognizable by the human mind and generally tolerable to a committed nation (excepting prodigies of effort available largely only to great 

states fully mobilized), war in a conventional world was and would be 

a matter of calculations of foreseeable risks and perceptible gains and 

losses. Deterring great war in such a world was and would be both 

very demanding and, in the long term, unreliable. This is because 

there would always be situations in which a state could see the serious 

possibility of gaining more through war than it would lose, often 

justifiably. While catastrophic wars, such as the Thirty Years’ War, the 

Napoleonic Wars, and World War I, would always be possible and 

thus serve as deterrents, situations would continually arise in which 

decision makers could assess that their expected benefits would outweigh the possibility of such disaster. These assessments would often 

be reasonable or at least defensible. Throughout history, for every 

cataclysmic war, there were multiple smaller but still major wars that 

advanced the interests of a party—and, equally importantly, multiple 

instances of the explicit or implicit threat to go to war that resulted in 

an advantage for the threatening party and that decisively shaped the 

international environment. Bismarck unified Germany under Prussian 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 67

control through a series of highly successful, contained wars against 

Denmark, Austria, and France. Similarly, Sardinia and then Italy 

waged a series of advantageous wars to consolidate control over the 

peninsula against other Italian states, Austria, and France. Nor would 

all such wars be wars of conquest or aggrandizement. Rather, they 

could result from attempts to gain influence or dominance. Bismarck 

advised against Germany taking possession of Alsace and Lorraine, 

since he viewed the war against France as primarily a means to assert 

dominance and secure a unified Germany in Central Europe. In a 

nonnuclear world, such a strategy might similarly be pursued by a 

rising power such as China in its near abroad. Nor would all leaders 

be as restrained as Bismarck. Leaders like Napoleon or Hitler who are 

fully prepared to countenance massive but still limited (compared to 

nuclear conflicts) wars could always arise.

In a nonnuclear world, then, war was and would be a potentially 

attractive policy option—indeed, it might often be the optimal choice, 

assuming that benevolent or humanitarian impulses do not always 

prevail in strategic decision making. That implies that the only sure 

way to deter attack or coercion would be to be so strong as to resist 

and, ideally, overpower one’s opponent. This, of course, is one part of 

the tragic “security dilemma”—that is, becoming strong enough to 

mount a formidable defense is highly likely to make one strong 

enough to molest the very powers that posed the threat in the first 

place, leading them in turn to build up to avert such a possibility, and 

so on.57 In such a nonnuclear world, deterrence was and would be 

uncertain, as calculations of advantage for closely matched conventional conflicts would be speculative and “near run things”; unstable, 

as perturbations in the power balance, technological developments, 

and differential growth could determine the winner in a fight; and 

ultimately unreliable, as war was and would be effectively inevitable.58

This is why nuclear weapons remain as relevant today as they have 

ever been in the past. For nuclear weapons are by far the most effective method of deterring aggression. The prompt, sure devastation 

that a major nuclear attack can wreak on a targeted country is so 

catastrophic that the credible threat to initiate one is almost sure to 

dissuade any country from aggression. Considerations of state power 

and security, of glory and honor, of conquest and plunder, all pale in 

contest against the absolute destruction and defeat of all worldly ends 

that a major nuclear strike represents. Whereas in a nonnuclear 

world, aggression and war involve calculations of comparative advantage 
68 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

and calculable risks, great war is much less likely in a nuclear world 

because no worldly objective can justify the destruction that a largescale nuclear attack would cause—destruction that in its prompt devastation is thousands of times greater than what conventional weapons 

can cause. Nuclear weapons cut through calculations of advantage to 

speak directly to man’s most basic instincts of survival and preservation. In a sense, as Robert Jervis himself has pointed out, nuclear 

deterrence represents the negation of strategy, since it sunders military action from any plausibly commensurate political ends.59 Needless to say, nuclear deterrence does not prevent every conflict or ensure against war, but when it is implicated, its cautionary pall makes 

war dramatically less likely. 

It is this blunt reality that explains the post-1945 peace, not progressive values or liberalism or economic interdependence. Indeed, 

postwar history offers a more compelling testimony to the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence than any merely abstract argument can 

offer. Whereas humanity has suffered great wars from time immemorial, 

the world has passed through a great and fearsome standoff in the 

Cold War as well as its aftermath without major conflict precisely because all responsible have recognized the consequences of a full-scale 

war in a nuclear age. Nor was this recognition cheap or easy, as to be 

effective nuclear deterrence must rely on a real and fearsome capability 

and the credible threat to use it. Thus the Cold War is a story of continual imagined wars, with both sides again and again comparing 

how they would fare in a conflict, balancing each other’s force developments, and working to strengthen their capabilities and make manifest 

their resolve.60

Yet it is the very success of nuclear weapons in making great war 

such an extremely perilous and unattractive endeavor that has, paradoxically, made them seem irrelevant. They have, in a sense, been 

victims of their own success, so pacifying that they have made the 

peace seem independent of their influence. Countries spend and focus 

less on armaments and armies because they know how limited the 

gains are from such investments as long as nuclear weapons overhang. Yet this has the effect of making it seem like war is simply falling 

away of its own accord. But we should not confuse the effect with the 

cause. Nuclear weapons are what make great war unlikely—not new 

values or economic interdependence.

If nuclear weapons continue to play a salient role in world politics, 

we might expect this restraint to continue. But if they do not, as those 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 69

who see the development of self-sustaining security communities 

presumably would argue, then war will tend to become more of a matter 

of calculable gains and losses and thus is likely to become more salient 

again in human affairs. Needless to say, this would be a catastrophe.

The Role of Nuclear Strategy

To say that nuclear weapons remain relevant, indeed central, to 

peace and stability, however, is not quite to say that nuclear strategy is 

so central, or at least as central as it once was. During the Cold War, 

debates about nuclear strategy occupied center stage in deliberations 

about defense policy and even about foreign policy more broadly. 

The deployment by the United States of the Pershing II intermediaterange ballistic missile and BGM-109B ground-launched cruise missiles to Europe, for instance, was one of the highest-profile foreign 

policy issues of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Contrarily, the debates 

today surrounding whether NATO retention of its nuclear capabilities 

within Europe are mostly for those who till the fields of nuclear weapons 

and NATO for a living. More broadly, debates about the contours of 

our nuclear strategy, such as the varying pros and cons of counterforce targeting, the survivability of the land-based strategic force, and 

the role of tactical nuclear weapons, to name a few, have abated markedly.

This development is likely to endure and, on balance, is a good 

thing. The strategic stability that preserves the peace is almost certainly less sensitive to changes in nuclear targeting doctrine and other 

finer aspects of nuclear strategy than was sometimes thought, at least 

in some quarters, during the Cold War.61 Nuclear weapons deter 

above all through the promise of inflicting horrendous destruction. 

So long as the credible resolve to effect such devastation is firmly 

established, any additional superior military capability that nuclear 

weapons provide is effectively irrelevant, as meaningful victory in a 

true large-scale nuclear exchange is impossible. If so much of what 

one values is lost, it does not really matter if the other side loses more. 

Even so steely and determined an opponent as the Soviets seem to 

have understood this, despite what they said to the contrary.62

This is not to say that nuclear strategy is not still very important 

and relevant. Quite to the contrary—above all because for nuclear 

deterrence to be effective it must rest on the credible threat to employ 

nuclear weapons. Thus nuclear capabilities and the plans to use them 
70 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

must bear some relation to the potential conflicts that could arise. 

This means that defense planners and strategists will continue to 

need to grapple with the irreducibly complex, unpredictable, and 

changing issues of how to field, and if necessary employ, nuclear 

weapons in ways that deter major aggression and coercion. 

The rise of China in particular will likely make nuclear strategy 

again more salient than it has been since 1991. Let us presume that 

China’s rise will, at the very least, create great pressure on American 

hegemony in the Western Pacific and the East Asian littoral. In such 

a situation, will the United States be able to continue to extend a credible 

nuclear umbrella over its allies and associates in East and Southeast 

Asia as China waxes in strength? Will Washington and these allies 

and associates want the United States to do so? If they do, what kind 

of military posture and strategy will be most effective and efficient in 

deterring Chinese aggression, coercion, or aggrandizement against 

US-protected states? If the Chinese manage to wrest superiority in 

conventional military terms away from the United States—which, after 

all, is located across the Pacific Ocean—will the United States find it 

attractive to place more reliance on nuclear weapons for extended 

deterrence purposes? What posture would this entail, and with what 

kinds of weapons and delivery systems? Will US allies and associates 

be drawn (again) toward nuclear weapons programs of their own?63

Would such “friendly” proliferation be more stabilizing than the attempt by the United States to maintain its hegemony? Similar, albeit 

probably less stressing, questions may well arise about Russia and 

nuclear-armed regional powers such as Iran and North Korea. Thus, 

even as it is unlikely to dominate public consciousness as it did during 

the Cold War, nuclear strategy will remain relevant and indeed probably become more important over the coming decades.

Conclusion

It is a remarkable fact that the mighty scourge of war has, to a degree 

only dreamt of by earlier ages, passed away. Countries and peoples that 

had waged and endured war from before recorded history have not 

suffered its direct effects for over half a century. Needless to say, this 

is a good to be cherished and one whose preservation we are dutybound to pursue. Thus we must search out why this peace has descended upon the advanced world and seek to extend its operation. 
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 71

But in so doing we must exercise the utmost caution when we infer 

from pacific consequences gentle causes. For we have seen that fear 

and interest provide a firm grounding for peace and that pacific mores 

and liberal values can build upon that grounding. But we have not 

seen, nor does history, biology, or philosophy give us a sturdy basis 

for believing, that we can safely entrust our security and the vitality of 

civilization solely to a vision of the new man formed by changes in 

values and attitudes, economic incentives, and democracy. Prevalent 

as these influences may be, they are not nearly dominating enough to 

persuade the prudent to abandon the tested method of deterrence. 

War remains eminently thinkable and possible; thus it is best kept at 

bay through the threat of punishing force. Nuclear weapons and the 

deterrence they provide thus remain not only relevant, but essential. 

For no other weapon is so fearsome in its destructiveness and thus in 

its effects so manifestly incommensurate with any worldly gain that 

would trigger its usage at any significant scale. War as the continuation 

of political advantage, war as an expression of man’s animal nature, war 

as a manifestation of man’s prideful and self-aggrandizing nature—all 

of these must be restrained in the face of the absolute weapon, for 

their pursuit is not merely illogical or misguided if it results in nuclear 

devastation, but actually mad, indeed completely incompatible with 

the most basic rationality. This is as secure a bind as we are likely to 

find. War, in a sense, is a caged animal. The beast may seem tamed by 

its years of confinement, but we would be most unwise to trust our 

lives to its good graces.

Notes

1. Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD [Department of Defense] 

Nuclear Weapons Management, 1.

2. For a critique of this way of thinking, see Morgenthau, “The Fallacy of Thinking 

Conventionally about Nuclear Weapons.” For a history of some of the more fervid 

theorizing (as well as the more solidly grounded), see Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon.

3. Mueller, Retreat from Doomsday; and Mueller, The Remnants of War.

4. For a persuasive argument that violence as a whole has declined, see Pinker, 

The Better Angels of Our Nature. While Pinker’s argument that violence has declined 

is compelling, his arguments for why it has declined, while containing significant 

elements of truth (including the important role of nuclear weapons), is nonetheless 

deeply flawed and in certain respects highly tendentious. A full treatment of Pinker’s 

arguments goes beyond the scope of this chapter, however. 

5. Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man.
72 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

6. Wendt, Social Theory of International Politics; and Sheehan, Where Have All 

the Soldiers Gone?

7. Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State. For the classic statement of the argument that commerce would make war impossible, see Angell, The Great Illusion. See 

also Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy; and Schumpeter, “The Sociology 

of Imperialism,” in his Imperialism and Social Classes, 55–98.

8. Sagan, The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons.

9. For the classic argument along these lines, see Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature 

and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. See also, inter alia, Hume, Essays Moral, Political, 

and Literary, especially “Of the Jealousy of Trade,” 327–31; and Ricardo, On the Principles 

of Political Economy and Taxation.

10. For an example of the practical influence of this way of thinking, see Lee, 

From Third World to First—The Singapore Story, 481, 612, inter alia. Lee recounts the 

central importance of free trade in allowing formerly aggrandizing countries such as 

Germany and Japan to “grow through trade and investments. They cooperated and 

competed with other nations and were able to prosper and flourish without wars.” 

But Lee emphasized that this beneficial development is contingent on the active 

maintenance of open markets and free trade. It is not a given.

11. For an analysis of this, see Huntington, “Why International Primacy Matters.”

12. Liberman, for instance, argued that “ruthless invaders can, in fact, successfully 

exploit industrial societies, at least for short periods of time. Control over industrial 

societies, moreover, can be maintained for longer periods of time at relatively low expense.” Liberman, Does Conquest Pay, 4.

13. See, e.g., Robert Gilpin, Global Political Economy. As Gilpin summarized, “A 

liberal international order requires strong leadership and cooperation among the 

major economic powers. . . . American leadership and interstate cooperation constitute the only possible foundation for an open and stable global economy.” Ibid., 388.

14. See Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, chap. 4, 156–85.

15. Kershaw, Fateful Choices, chap. 10, 431–70. 

16. For explications of this view, see Waltz, Theory of International Politics; and 

Mearsheimer, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.

17. See, for instance, Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, esp. 80; and Augustine, 

City of God, esp. 196–201, 212–14.

18. Jervis, American Foreign Policy in a New Era, 12. For another, similarly judicious 

argument akin to Jervis’s, see Schroeder, “Does the History of International Politics Go 

Anywhere?” For the classic anticipation of this argument, see Kant, Perpetual Peace. See 

also, inter alia, Charles-Irénée Castel, abbe de Saint-Pierre, A Project for Settling an Everlasting Peace in Europe.

19. Jervis, American Foreign Policy in a New Era, 28. For more on the concept of the 

“security community,” see Deutsch et al., Political Community and the North Atlantic 

Area; and Adler and Barnett, eds., Security Communities.

20. Jervis, American Foreign Policy in a New Era, 12.

21. Ibid., 17.

22. Ibid.

23. Ibid., 16. For the classic description of states in anarchy, see Morgenthau, 

Politics among Nations.

24. Jervis, American Foreign Policy in a New Era, 18–24.
WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT │ 73

25. Ibid., 26–27.

26. Ibid., 26.

27. Ibid., 29.

28. Ibid., 29–32, inter alia. This argument resembles a variant of the Hegelian argument laid out by Fukuyama in The End of History. While Jervis does not predict that all 

other nations will necessarily track the development of what he refers to as the “leading 

powers,” it is clear that he sees the “leading powers” as representing the most advanced 

form of social organization. Fukuyama similarly argued that, while history would continue in the contests among nations and peoples, no other form of socio-political organization would supersede social liberal democracy and that the world would tend 

toward that form of organization over time. Fukuyama, End of History, 64, 311, inter 

alia. Hegel’s original argument is laid out in his The Philosophy of History.

29. Jervis, American Foreign Policy in a New Era, 13–14. Jervis does note that backsliding is possible, but these cautionary remarks cannot be understood as essential, since, 

if so understood, they would entirely undermine his argument that “war is unthinkable.” 

If backsliding to a situation in which war is thinkable is possible, then war itself is eminently 

possible and eminently thinkable. War cannot be both unthinkable and yet also plausible. 

As Jervis himself argues, “some of these changes may be irreversible.” Ibid., 28.

30. Ibid., 14.

31. Ibid., 28.

32. For a peerless description of this development, see Judt, Postwar.

33. Hobbes, Leviathan; and Darwin, The Origin of Species.

34. See, for instance, Thucydides, Peloponnesian War, esp. 49; and Polybius, The 

Rise of the Roman Empire, esp. 535.

35. De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 395–96.

36. For an exceptionally insightful analysis on this point, emphasizing the implications of the military revolution brought on by World War II and the nuclear age for 

European autonomy, see Schlesinger, European Security and the Nuclear Threat since 

1945. Schlesinger observed that Europe had been “hopelessly priced out of the game” 

by the need for sophisticated strategic forces and that the result after 1945 had been an 

increasing dependence on the United States, 10. This, he saw, had led to the “ultimate 

strategic dominance of the United States and the Soviet Union,” 25.

37. William E. Odom and Robert Dujarric, America’s Inadvertent Empire (New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004).

38. As Tony Judt put it, 

Western Europeans owed their newfound well-being to the uncertainties of the 

Cold War. The internationalization of political confrontations, and the consequent engagement of the United States, helped draw the sting from domestic

political conflicts. Political issues that in an earlier age would almost certainly have 

led to violence and war—the unresolved problem of Germany, territorial conflicts 

between Yugoslavia and Italy, the future of occupied Austria—were all contained, 

and would in due course be addressed, within the context of Great Power confrontations and negotiations over which Europeans had very little say. 

Judt, Postwar, 242.

39. For a historical analysis of this development, see van Creveld, The Rise and 

Decline of the State; and Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics.
74 │ WHY NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IS STILL RELEVANT

40. See, for instance, Plato, The Republic, Book VIII 252–84; Gibbon, The Decline 

and Fall of the Roman Empire; Montesquieu, Considerations on the Causes of the 

Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline; and Toynbee, A Study of History. For a 

more recent, influential example, see Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

41. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

42. Machiavelli, The Discourses.

43. See, for instance, Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. 

Trans. F. Rosenthal. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1967. 

44. For a more recent example of this perspective, see Huntington, The Clash of 

Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 301–3.

45. Parker, The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare.

46. For a recent assessment of this dynamic, see Caldwell, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West.

47. See, for instance, DOD, Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.

48. For an analysis of the multiple causes of war, see Levy and Thompson, Causes of 

War, who conclude in their analytical survey of explanations of the causes of war that 

“there are multiple causal paths through which war can occur,” 213.

49. See, for instance, Morgenthau, Politics among Nations. For a classic statement 

of neorealism, see Waltz, Theory of International Politics.

50. See Keegan, A History of Warfare, esp. 3–12; and van Creveld, The Culture of 

War. For “the passion of life to its top,” see Holmes, “Memorial Day Speech.”

51. Keeley, War before Civilization, 88–90. See also Wade, Before the Dawn, 9.

52. Hobbes, Leviathan, Part I, chap. 13, 82–86. 

53. For a similar assessment on the end of war, see Huntington, “No Exit.” As 

Huntington pithily but sagely advised, “To hope for the benign end of history is human. 

To expect it to happen is unrealistic. To plan on it happening is disastrous.”

54. Schelling, Arms and Influence, inter alia.

55. Snyder, Deterrence and Defense, 14–16.

56. Such ideas were central to the whole thrust of Enlightenment thought on the free 

market, represented above all in Smith’s Wealth of Nations. See, for instance, Mandeville, 

“The Fable of the Bees,” 19–154. For a modern appraisal, see Hirschman, The Passions and 

the Interests. A very clear example along different lines is the militaristic Society of Jesus, 

founded by the ex-soldier Ignatius of Loyola on the military model and commanding perfect obedience from its members to its general and its ultimate commander, the Pope.

57. Herz, “Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma.”

58. For an analysis of the role of differential growth rates in causing great power 

conflicts, see Copeland, The Origins of Major War.

59. Jervis, The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy.

60. See, for instance, Blackwill and Legro, “Constraining Ground Force Exercises 

of NATO and the Warsaw Pact.”

61. For a similar assessment, see Freedman, The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, 

especially the conclusion.

62. See interviews of former Soviet officials in Hines et al., Soviet Intentions 1965–1985.

63. For a history of some earlier moves toward nuclear weapons by US allies, see 

Campbell et al., eds., The Nuclear Tipping Point.
Chapter 5

How Much Is Enough?

A Goal-Driven Approach to Defining Key Principles for 

Measuring the Adequacy of US Strategic Forces

Keith B. Payne

A particular approach to identifying deterrence requirements inherited from the Cold War has resulted in frequent proposals regarding 

US strategic force requirements that are based in general on the number 

of survivable offensive forces deemed adequate to threaten designated enemy targets. This formula focuses on the number of survivable 

weapons necessary to threaten a select set of enemy targets, whether 

urban/industrial, military forces, political centers, or other physical 

assets. A focus on fewer, soft, unprotected targets—such as urban/

industrial—can equate to the requirement for relatively fewer nuclear 

weapons for deterrence than does a focus on more numerous, hardened, 

and protected targets—such as military targets. In either case, the 

logic and formula are clear: Possessing the number of forces necessary to threaten the selected targets essentially is equated to having an 

adequate deterrent.

Calculating “How Much Is Enough” for Deterrence

Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara was explicit in his use of 

this formula throughout the 1960s to identify US strategic force requirements, but it continued to be reflected in official assessments of 

strategic requirements well into the 1980s and continues to dominate 

unofficial commentary to this day.1

 An entire generation of US officials and commentators was schooled in this methodology. Continued

Portions of this chapter are adapted from Keith B. Payne, The Great American 

Gamble: Deterrence Theory and Practice from the Cold War to the Twenty-First Century

(Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 2008); Keith B. Payne, study director, Planning 

the Future U.S. Nuclear Force, vols. 1 and 2 (Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 

2009); and his “How Much Is Enough? A Goal-Driven Approach to Defining Key 

Principles for Measuring the Adequacy of US Strategic Forces,” Comparative Strategy

31, no.1 (2012): 3–17.
76 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

faith in this Cold War force-sizing formula provides the basis for 

most contemporary public claims that the force requirements needed 

to provide nuclear deterrence can be identified with relative precision 

and confidence.

This familiar Cold War methodology is comforting and convenient. It appears to allow the otherwise very challenging question of 

“How much is enough?” to be answered with apparent mathematical 

precision. For example:

No sane adversary would believe that any political or military advantage 

would be worth a significant risk of the destruction of his own society. As 

noted earlier, the delivery of one hundred U.S. warheads would be sufficient to 

destroy the society and economy of Russia or China, and as few as ten detonations 

could kill more people than have ever been killed in any country in any previous 

war. Thus ten to one hundred survivable warheads should be more than enough 

to deter any rational leader from ordering an attack on the cities of the United 

States or its allies.2

 (emphasis added)

Other commentators may suggest larger numbers, but they still link 

confidence in the functioning of deterrence to the number of weapons.

The appropriate mission for U.S. nuclear weapons is deterrence. And the U.S. 

arsenal of more than 5,000 nuclear weapons has the capacity to deter any 

threat regardless of how many resources Russia, China, and/or any other 

country devote to modernizing their arsenals.3

There is nothing objectionable to the notion that deterrence planning includes identifying US military threats to enemy assets and using 

the related number of offensive nuclear weapons to help guide the 

acquisition requirements for strategic forces. The problem with confidence in this simple Cold War formula, however, is that it presumes 

a known, reliable, and predictable link between a specific number of 

US nuclear weapons and the desired deterrent effect and, on that basis, 

leads to confidence that deterrence will work predictably with some 

designated number of weapons. In truth, the formula provides no 

basis for such confidence. In addition, the number of nuclear weapons 

so identified as adequate for deterrence typically is also presented as 

the standard for the US nuclear arsenal in general—as if deterrence is 

the only pertinent goal. It is not.

Using this simplistic formula to define deterrence requirements 

and US strategic force requirements in general is popular sport in the 

United States. It is, nevertheless, a flawed and even dangerous approach to answering the question, “How much is enough?” There are 

too many uncertainties in the functioning of deterrence for confidence 
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 77

in claims that any particular number or types of strategic forces will 

deter predictably. Answering the question, “How much is enough?” 

even when done with rigor, involves speculation and a myriad of 

unavoidable uncertainties. There are, for example, uncertainties involved in the technical estimates of weapon effects and target vulnerabilities. More important, however, is that informed estimates 

about the deterrent effect of US forces must include assessments of 

opponent decision-making processes, values, intentions, histories, 

levels of determination, goals, stakes and worldviews, and the possibilities for reliable communication across a broad spectrum of current 

and future opponents. Are the opponents in question susceptible to 

US deterrence threats? If so, are punitive threats to urban/industrial 

or some other types of targets useful for deterrence? To whom must 

threats be communicated and how? How might the credibility of US 

threats be established with any confidence? And how might we 

understand the level of credibility enemies attribute to our threats?

These types of questions are not minor details with regard to predictions about the functioning of deterrence and related assertions 

about deterrence requirements. A serious effort to identify those requirements must involve a multidisciplinary examination of such 

questions with full recognition of the great variation in answers possible across opponents, time, and context. It also may require access 

to special and occasionally highly classified information. Even the 

most comprehensive analytic efforts cannot avoid speculation on key 

variables and, as is discussed below, the contemporary threat environment magnifies the uncertainties.

What Is New and Different? and What 

Difference Does It Make?

Specific expectations about opponent decision making and behavior 

are embedded in the Cold War’s target-based formula for deterrence. 

Those expectations foster confident predictions about how opponents will think and behave and, thus, how deterrence will function. 

On this basis, the formula points to the requirements deemed necessary 

for deterrence. Some of these embedded expectations about the opponent and context may have been reasonable in the unique conditions 

of the Cold War, but they are questionable or simply erroneous in the 

current geopolitical context. Some of the pertinent changes from the 
78 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Cold War strategic environment to the present that must move our 

considerations of deterrence requirements in new directions are 

explored briefly below.

Detection, Attribution, and Accountability

The conditions of the Cold War facilitated the expectation that the 

United States would recognize if an attack had occurred, by whom, 

and with what. Armed with such knowledge, the United States could 

identify the likely opponent in advance and bring to bear its specified 

retaliatory deterrence threat. However, if an attack cannot be recognized as such—or the attacker remains unidentified—then punitive 

retaliatory threats can have little specific direction.

In the contemporary environment there may be little basis for 

confidence in the attribution of attack, particularly with regard to 

biological weapons (BW) and limited nuclear threats.4

 It may even be 

difficult in practice to distinguish between an opponent’s employment of a biological agent and a naturally occurring health disaster.5

How and against whom would US leaders communicate threats to 

deter an attack that might not be recognized as such or might not be 

traceable to its source? Generic deterrence threats issued to all who 

will listen, of course, are possible. But, in such cases, confidence in 

the old target-based formula to identify “How much is enough?” for 

deterrence will be unwarranted.

New Opponents and Unprecedented Threats to Be Deterred

During the Cold War the United States pursued efforts to define 

“stable” deterrence requirements and to “lock in,” via arms control, a 

stable balance of terror based on those requirements. Doing so seemed 

reasonable during the Cold War because enduring features of that threat 

environment meant that a relatively set formula could consistently define 

a balance of terror and the related strategic force requirements.

The contemporary threat environment, however, is far more dynamic 

than that of the Cold War; it may be more analogous to other historical 

periods in which the parameters of threat changed quickly.6

 The continuity and centrality of the Soviet threat has been replaced by a 

kaleidoscope of opponents, threats, and potential threats. US deterrence goals and priorities correspondingly have become more varied, 

both in the numbers of target audiences and the range of actions to be 

deterred. The increasingly broad spectrum of opponents in the con-
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 79

temporary era offers more openings for misunderstanding, misperception, ignorance, extreme motivations, distorted communications, 

highly divergent values, and the lack of mutual familiarity to prevent 

the reliable functioning of deterrence. Another factor contributing to 

the uncertainty about the functioning of deterrence is the need to 

know so much about so many diverse and largely unfamiliar opponents, such as their goals, values, and their decision-making processes.

In such a dynamic geopolitical environment, no single formula 

can define the set of adequate US forces to be “locked in” for deterrence. There is no easily calculable metric to define deterrence requirements because such assessments must now include a wide spectrum of opponents, contingencies, and possible stakes/goals, all of 

which may shift as new threats emerge and old threats decline or 

reemerge. Informed strategies for deterrence must vary according to 

opponents and contexts as must the corresponding types of deterrent 

threats and necessary supporting forces. The force levels that might 

constitute an “adequate” basis for meeting US deterrence goals will 

depend on these details of the engagement, including opponents’ values, 

vulnerabilities, risk tolerances, perceptions, access to information, 

and attention. What can reasonably now be said with confidence is 

that US deterrence threats and supporting strategic forces intended 

to provide the desired deterrent effect will change and vary depending 

on the particulars of audience and context.

Implications for Measuring the Adequacy of US 

Strategic Forces for Deterrence

Deterrence strategies and strategic force standards in the contemporary, fluid environment demand humility in prediction, flexibility 

in application, and preparation for deterrence failure or irrelevance. 

The diversity of opponents, circumstances, and threats suggests that 

contemporary deterrence priorities are for a spectrum of US force 

options and flexibility in planning, along with the traditional requirements for sufficient force quantity, lethality, and survivability. The 

threats to be deterred will shift as will opponents’ susceptibility to 

deterrence strategies; this dynamic points to the need for differing 

approaches to deterrence and a broad spectrum of US capabilities 

that enable us to adapt deterrence strategies to this variability of 

opponents, threat conditions, and stakes.
80 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

“How Much Do You Know?” Must Precede “How Much Is 

Enough?”

When diverse and unfamiliar opponents present numerous uncertainties, then seeking to understand the hows and whys of their 

unique decision making should be the first priority of a deterrence 

strategy. Information important for deterrence purposes includes 

understanding an opponent’s “mind-set and behavioral style,” and 

anticipating how that unique mind-set and behavioral style will affect 

the opponent’s response to US deterrence threats. The absence of an 

investigation into such matters “can result in the disintegration of 

even the best deterrence strategy.”7

The scope for this necessary investigation is wide-ranging—from 

the opponent’s formal authority structure and processes to the cultural 

norms that affect decision making. For example, some states and 

terrorist organizations properly categorized as having “high-intensity 

aggressive ideologies” can have “propensities toward martyrdom and 

apocalyptic visions . . . with no risk being too high if top decision 

makers prefer self-destruction to nonrealization of their vision.”8

Now, gaining insight into such possible opponent characteristics 

must inform any serious attempt to understand how to deter them 

and the requirements for doing so.

What Is the Role for Nuclear Weapons in Deterrence?

Confident a priori assertions that nuclear threats are sure to make 

a decisive difference for deterrence on every occasion, or that they 

provide little or no significant added value, betray unwarranted certainty regarding how opponents will calculate and behave in the future. 

Even with a careful assessment of the pertinent details of opponent 

and context, precise prediction about the link of threat to deterrent 

effect is subject to uncertainties.

Some general inferences may be made in this regard. A quick review 

of available evidence points toward the possibly unique value of nuclear 

weapons for deterrence in some cases. For example, during the 1991 

Gulf War the Iraqi leadership believed that the United States would 

respond to Iraqi WMD use with nuclear weapons—and that expectation appears to have deterred them. That case appears to offer empirical evidence that nuclear deterrence, at least on occasion, can be 

uniquely effective. Additional evidence may be found in the specific 

acknowledgement by former Indian army chief, Gen Shankar 
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 81

Roychowdhury: “Do nuclear weapons deter? Of course they do. Pakistan’s nuclear weapons deterred India from attacking that country 

after the Mumbai strikes.”9

 As this and other cases suggest, there is 

little doubt that on some occasions it has been “the reality of nuclear 

deterrence” that has had the desired “restraining effect.”10 In the future, 

as in the past, the working of deterrence on such occasions may be 

extremely important.

Nuclear weapons also may be necessary to threaten those assets 

opponents have demonstrated to be of highest value and unsurprisingly seek most to protect. As Defense Secretary Harold Brown emphasized, US deterrence threats in general should be capable of holding at 

risk those assets valued by the opponent.11 This may be particularly 

pertinent to contemporary US deterrence goals, because rogues and 

other potential opponents are expending considerable effort on hard 

and deeply buried bunkers, some of which reportedly can be held at 

risk of destruction only by nuclear weapons.12

For deterrence to “work” on those occasions when nuclear deterrence is uniquely decisive in the challenger’s decision making—

whether those occasions are few or many—could be of great importance, given the potential lethality of emerging WMD threats to the 

United States. To assert otherwise—that US nuclear weapons now 

provide no unique added value for deterrence—contradicts available 

evidence and lays claim to foreknowledge about opponent decision 

making that cannot exist. Given literally decades of experience, the 

burden of proof lies with those who now contend that nuclear weapons 

are of little value for deterrence.

The probability of deterrence failure because of the absence of a US 

nuclear threat cannot be calculated a priori with precision for any particular case. It may be nonexistent or high, depending on the specific 

circumstances of the contingency. Even if the risk of deterrence failure 

for this reason is low, the possibility would still deserve serious consideration because the consequences of a single failure to deter a WMD 

attack could be measured in thousands to millions of US and allied 

casualties. Of course, the risk of deterrence failure in the absence of 

credible US nuclear capabilities may not be low in some cases.

In the contemporary environment when the stakes at risk for the 

United States in a regional crisis do not include national survival and 

when postconflict reconstruction and minimization of damage to 

civilians and neighboring states may be priority goals, the credibility 

of the US deterrent may rest not on how much damage can be threatened 
82 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

à la the Cold War’s “assured destruction” standard, but rather on how 

controlled is that threatened damage. Consequently, low-yield and 

highly-accurate nuclear weapons may contribute to a US deterrent 

threat that is more believable than otherwise would be the case. The 

US “legacy” Cold War nuclear arsenal’s generally high yields and limited 

precision could threaten to inflict so many innocent casualties that 

some opponents eager to find a justification for military action may 

seize on the hope that a US president would not execute an expressed 

nuclear deterrent threat, given the likely level of collateral damage. 

An opponent’s doubts regarding the US threat in such cases would 

work against the desired deterrent effect. This possibility points toward the potential value of both advanced nonnuclear and highly 

discriminate nuclear threat options for deterrence credibility. Some 

studies conducted late in the Cold War and looking 20 years into the 

future pointed to the same conclusion.13

There can be no promises that nuclear weapons, including more 

“discriminate” nuclear capabilities, will make the difference between 

deterrence working or failing on any given occasion. An opponent 

could miss such fine points regarding US nuclear capabilities or could 

be so motivated that the specific character of the US nuclear threat is 

irrelevant to its decision making. What can be said, however, is that 

no existing study or even series of studies can rightly conclude that 

nuclear weapons can be dismissed as unnecessary for deterrence purposes. Indeed, such a study is well beyond the art of the possible.

Implications for US Nuclear Force Sizing for Deterrence

This discussion suggests that US nuclear capabilities, including 

those with accuracy and low yields, may contribute uniquely to US 

deterrence goals. It does not attempt to identify “the number” of nuclear 

weapons adequate to ensure deterrence around which the United States 

can plan for the midterm or long term. As noted above, to do so would 

be to lay a false claim to knowledge of a specific link between the opponent’s decision making and some specific number of US nuclear weapons. 

More useful than such pretense are the conclusions that:

•  US force requirementsfor deterrence cannot be considered fixed—

they are as subject to change as is the threat environment itself.

•  There is no number of nuclear weapons that can be linked predictably to the reliable functioning of deterrence.
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 83

•  Priority measures of merit for US strategic forces should now

include sufficient force quantity, lethality, survivability, and flexibility to threaten the wide array of targets potentially important 

for deterrence.

•  US deterrence planning and strategies should have the flexibility

and adaptability necessary to adjust to a rapidly changing and 

surprising threat environment, and to the possibility of deterrence failure.

Any honest effort to answer the more specific question “How 

much is enough?” in an informed fashion must follow a broad, multidisciplinary net assessment across multiple opponents, deterrence 

goals, and possible contingencies, and recognize the many uncertainties and limitations involved. Even informed analyses can capture 

only a “snapshot” in time and require constant review and likely revision 

to remain pertinent.

Finally, whatever level of US strategic capability may be judged 

useful for deterrence at a given point in time cannot be the standard 

of adequacy for US strategic forces, in general, because those forces 

must serve additional goals beyond deterrence. This last point is a 

particularly significant departure from Cold War practice when deterrence was the priority among priorities and was the declared basis for 

formulating strategic force requirements. When US strategic forces 

must serve additional priority goals that may entail different force 

requirements, conclusions about deterrence requirements can tell us 

only part of the story about overall US strategic force requirements.

The Adequacy of US Strategic Forces to Meet Multiple

National Goals

In the twenty-first century, deterrence remains an important national 

goal, but on occasion additional national goals may be equally or 

even more important and US strategic forces will support these additional goals. Consequently, the sizing and measures of merit for US 

strategic forces must be informed by the requirements that follow 

from multiple national goals. The three goals beyond deterrence discussed below are not new; the prioritization of these goals in relation 

to deterrence and each other has shifted over time and place, but they 

have been included as US national security goals by Democratic and 

Republican administrations for decades.14
84 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Damage Limitation

In the contemporary environment of multiple potential sources of 

WMD threat, including limited WMD threats from rogue states and 

terrorist organizations, the functioning of deterrence is important 

but uncertain. If and when it fails, the immediate US priority will be 

the limitation of casualties and damage to the extent possible. The 

value of strategic forces to support damage limitation directly should 

now be included in the definition of adequacy and measures of merit 

for US strategic capabilities. This value was anticipated by the Johnson 

administration as early as 1964.15

The findings from recent studies of limited nuclear attacks against 

US cities are not surprising—the United States presently is ill-prepared 

for even a “small” nuclear attack.16 However, there are numerous 

practical steps that can be taken to reduce the level of societal vulnerability to limited nuclear attacks.17 As the author of one recent study 

concludes, “There actually is quite a bit that we can do [to save lives]. In 

certain areas, it may be possible to turn the death rate from 90 percent 

in some burn populations to probably 20 or 30 percent—and those are 

very big differences—simply by being prepared well in advance.”18

In this contemporary context, imperfect damage-limitation measures 

may be the only means of societal protection in the event deterrence 

fails. In such an instance, they will likely be judged worth the effort 

whatever the ratio of their cost to the cost of the opponent’s offensive 

capabilities. When the prospective lethality of threat is high, the reliable functioning of deterrence is questionable, and damage-limitation 

measures can provide appreciable protection, including the goal of 

damage limitation as a determinant of US strategic force adequacy is 

the only prudent approach. The Johnson administration identified 

precisely the same logic and defensive objective in the 1960s. A number 

of plausible biological and nuclear contingencies now fit this genre of 

threat, which is why various forms of damage limitation against mass 

destruction attacks now are potentially so important.

Civil defense measures may now be essential to contemporary US 

damage-limitation goals. There is no recent precedent of serious US 

support for civil defense programs but, during the Cold War, Secretary 

McNamara identified civil defense as the single-most cost-effective 

approach to societal damage limitation.19 In the contemporary environment, civil defense preparations against limited nuclear and biological 
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 85

attacks—including nuclear terrorism or bioterrorism—could make a 

valuable difference in the level of societal destruction and casualties.20

In the context of contemporary limited WMD threats, when the 

alternative of deterrence functioning predictably to prevent war may 

not exist, the opportunity cost of not pursuing damage-limiting capabilities could be exceedingly high. The possible reduction in societal 

destruction from damage-limitation capabilities may be a matter of 

good government and—for the United States—a fundamental responsibility of the federal government as mandated by the Constitution. 

Of course, the actual value of defenses for any given contingency will 

be shaped by the nature of the threat, the cost of defenses, their expected 

effectiveness in reducing casualties and destruction, and the expectation that deterrence will work, fail, or be irrelevant in crisis.

During the Cold War a common notion was that the deployment 

of strategic defenses for cities would be “destabilizing.”21 If the United 

States, for example, deployed strategic defenses for its cities, the concern was that the Soviet Union could be motivated to gain a strategic 

advantage by striking first for fear that the United States—emboldened 

by its defenses—might itself strike first. Strategic defenses were 

judged to be one of the few factors that would destabilize an otherwise stable balance of terror.

Despite the widespread acceptance of this notion that US societal 

defenses are destabilizing, it was at least questionable during the Cold 

War and makes little sense in the contemporary environment. One 

way this author illustrates this point for students is to ask them to 

imagine that the United States and China are in a stable balance of 

terror relationship; neither country has an incentive to strike first for 

fear of the other’s unacceptable nuclear retaliation. Then the students 

are asked to imagine that the United States begins to build and deploy 

strategic defenses. Over the course of months or years, the United 

States builds defenses that protect from nuclear attack the first 10 

percent of the US population, then 20 percent, then 30 percent, and 

so on to 90 percent of the population. One group of students is selected 

to represent the Chinese leadership. These students are then asked at 

what point in this process and along this time line are they motivated 

to initiate a strategic thermonuclear war with the United States—a 

war that will result in their own “assured destruction.” That point 

never occurs because the students are quick to realize that despite US 

defenses, if their priority goal is national and/or personal survival, 

initiating a strategic nuclear war with the United States that will 
86 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

virtually ensure their own destruction is never in their interest. Even 

if the United States deploys thick defenses, they recognize that by 

striking first, Chinese leaders would simply ensure a strategic nuclear 

war in which they would lose their highest priority value. For these 

students, unencumbered by Cold War stability dogma, the continuing 

survivability and effectiveness of US offensive retaliatory forces eliminates any motivation they might otherwise have to strike first; there 

is no such instability even in the context of robust US defenses.

The point of this exercise is to illustrate why US strategic defenses 

need not be thought of as destabilizing in this sense, if the United States 

simultaneously attends to the continuing deterrence effectiveness of its 

own offensive nuclear forces. The students representing China in this 

experiment often suggest a wide variety of Chinese reactions to the US 

deployment of defenses, but their reactions never include initiation of 

a strategic nuclear war. Indeed, to the extent that the students believe 

that the United States is emboldened by its strategic defenses, they are 

quick to reassure the United States by word and deed that China will 

not engage in any such action lest the United States be provoked. In 

contrast, in these experiments all bets are off regarding benign Chinese 

behavior if China can regard US offensive retaliatory nuclear forces as 

highly vulnerable to attack or ineffective. That, however, is the case 

with or without the added imagined presence of US strategic defenses. 

When US offensive forces provide deterrence stability against a first 

strike, US defenses do not upset that stability.

Assurance

Another national goal that should contribute to the measure of US 

strategic force adequacy is the assurance of allies, particularly including 

the contribution of US strategic forces to extended deterrence. This goal 

is far from new and has great continuity over decades. The 1974 

“Schlesinger Doctrine,” for example, included the standard of “essential 

equivalence” for US strategic forces with the Soviet Union, in part to 

assure allies with regard to US strategic guarantees. The notion was that 

allied perceptions of US credibility would be strengthened if they viewed 

US forces as being at least comparable to those of the Soviet Union.22

Assurance involves allied perceptions of US power and commitment 

and the related questions of what and how US strategic capabilities can 

address the allies’ unique fears and circumstances.23 Useful insight 

regarding the requirements for assurance may be gained through an 
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 87

effort to understand allied fears and perceptions. The step of asking 

our allies how the United States might best provide the assurance 

necessary to help them remain secure and confident in their nonnuclear 

status is an obvious first step.

Some allies recently have been explicit that the US extended nuclear 

deterrent is a key to their assurance, and they link their own willingness to remain nonnuclear to the continuation of a credible US 

extended nuclear deterrent. For example, some senior Japanese officials have become seriously concerned about the continuing credibility 

of the US extended nuclear deterrent; they have indicated that if the 

US extended nuclear deterrent loses credibility, other security options will have to be examined. Some in Japan see specific characteristics of US nuclear forces as particularly beneficial for extended deterrence. These force characteristics include a range of nuclear 

capabilities: flexibility, promptness, low-yield, and precision to allow 

US deterrence threats that are not made incredible by the prospect of 

excessive collateral damage. Japanese officials have indicated support 

for the ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons, but they also believe 

that this process must be pursued in a careful, step-by-step manner 

that ensures Japanese security. This mandates the maintenance of a 

credible US nuclear deterrent for the foreseeable future.

NATO allies often insist that US nuclear weapons must remain 

deployed in Europe to provide the necessary assurance, while Japanese 

officials are equally explicit that US nuclear weapons must be “oncall” in a timely fashion, but not deployed on Japanese territory. The 

contemporary challenge in this regard is obvious: As WMDs spread 

to regional rogue powers, US allies in rough neighborhoods correspondingly become increasingly concerned about the details of the 

US extended nuclear deterrence commitment and the forces intended 

to make it credible. Their various and diverse views with regard to the 

US nuclear forces necessary for extended deterrence and assurance 

will need to be integrated into US force-sizing considerations. 

There is a direct connection between allied perceptions of the assurance value of US nuclear weapons for extended deterrence and 

nuclear nonproliferation: The degradation of US nuclear extended 

deterrent credibility would create new and powerful incentives for 

nuclear proliferation among some US friends and allies who, to date, 

have felt sufficiently secure under the US extended nuclear deterrent 

to remain nonnuclear.24As a 2007 report by the Department of State’s 

International Security Advisory Board concludes:
88 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

There is clear evidence in diplomatic channels that U.S. assurances to include 

the nuclear umbrella have been, and continue to be, the single most important 

reason many allies have foresworn nuclear weapons. This umbrella is too important to sacrifice on the basis of an unproven ideal that nuclear disarmament in 

the U.S. would lead to a more secure world. . . . A lessening of the U.S. nuclear 

umbrella could very well trigger a cascade [of nuclear proliferation] in East 

Asia and the Middle East.25

The United States can decide what priority to place on the assurance 

of allies and how it will proceed to support that goal, but only the allies 

can decide if they are assured. In the contemporary environment, available evidence suggests strongly that assurance is an important goal and 

that the particular characteristics for US nuclear weapons described 

above are critical to the assurance of key allies.

Dissuasion and Inducements

Another national goal that should be included in the measure of 

US strategic force adequacy is dissuasion. Dissuasion also is not new; 

it was articulated well as a national goal by Secretary McNamara in 

the 1960s and the Clinton administration’s “lead and hedge” strategy 

was intended to help dissuade a Russian return to arms racing.26

Dissuasion is the “flip side” of the traditional recommendation that 

US strategic force choices be guided by the expectation that US restraint 

would induce opponents’ restraint. The expectation is that US armament 

choices should be shaped by the goal of affecting opponents’ weapons 

acquisition policies. With dissuasion, the contention is that in some cases 

the manifest capability of standing US forces or the US potential for the 

acquisition of strategic capabilities can discourage opponents from competition; the goal is to undercut the opponent’s expected value return 

from arms competition to such an extent that the opponent decides 

against competition.

Dissuasion adds a unique temporal dimension to the measures of 

merit for US strategic forces and the definition of adequacy. The seeds 

of dissuasion must be sown in advance of the manifest appearance of a 

threat. To discourage opponents from taking the course of armaments 

competition, by definition, requires the dissuasive effect of US strategic 

potential when opponents are making acquisition decisions, not after 

the threat emerges. If dissuasion works, the feared competition never 

materializes. There are several possible contemporary US dissuasion 

goals, including dissuading
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 89

•  rogue states from investing in WMD and missiles,

•  the Chinese leadership from pursuing a significant buildup of

strategic nuclear weapons, and

•  the Russian leadership from reverting to the former Soviet goal

of building up its strategic forces in pursuit of counterforce capabilities against the United States. 

How and whether the character of US strategic forces can contribute 

to dissuasion is not self-evident, and numerous uncertainties are unavoidable in attempting to dissuade. Nevertheless, the potential for 

dissuasion linkages may yield to examination and considering how to 

dissuade opponents and potential opponents with the size and character 

of US strategic forces is as coherent a goal as attempting to induce an 

opponent’s restraint by US restraint—a theme of US arms control 

policy for decades.

For example, the continued unbeatable survivability of US deterrent forces may be a key to discouraging Russia or China from pursuing Soviet-like extensive counterforce strategic capabilities. And, the 

US potential to develop, deploy, and reconstitute forces in a timely 

fashion may be key to being able to dissuade opponents from unwanted weapon or force deployment initiatives.

Multiple Goals, Strategic Force Sizing, 

and Contemporary Measures of Merit 

for US Strategic Forces

The measures of merit for nuclear forces must transcend the old 

narrow formula for determining overall requirements from deterrence goals alone. Requirements for damage limitation, assurance, 

and dissuasion may change, and their respective priorities can shift 

across time and circumstance, but they are of continuing relevance 

and importance in the contemporary threat environment. How could 

they not be included in the calculation of US strategic forces?

Given multiple goals with shifting priorities and the diversity of 

strategic forces that may be suited to these goals, an overarching US 

strategic requirement is for flexibility and resilience in the force 

structure and the capability to adapt planning to variable demands. 

There is no “point solution” in terms of US force numbers or types 
90 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

that can withstand time or scrutiny. Consequently, an arms control 

agenda that attempts to codify any point solution risks locking in a 

force structure that is incompatible with shifting needs.

Strategies for deterrence, assurance, dissuasion, and defense—and 

the calculation of force requirements to support those goals—should 

be informed to the extent possible by a comprehensive understanding 

of specific opponents and allies in order to tailor US strategies accordingly, set priorities and limit the prospects for surprise. In a dynamic 

strategic environment, US strategic forces should provide defensive 

hedges as well, to include the potential for imperfect protection against 

the possibility of surprising behavior and deterrence failure.

If US force sizing is to be goal-/strategy-driven—as opposed to 

strategies being driven by some preselected, preferred number of 

warheads—the calculation of strategic requirements must reflect the 

integration and rationalization of shifting requirements across these 

goals. No single definition of requirements can be adequate. There 

are likely to be overlapping force requirements to support the goals of 

deterrence, assurance, dissuasion, and defense, but no one goal is 

likely to suggest the same set of force requirements as another because the goals themselves are so different.

Approaching the question of strategic force sizing as the integration 

of requirements across multiple national goals suggests some conclusions about general principles for US strategic forces. While precise 

requirements and details must await the type of broad-based, comprehensive net assessment suggested above, these general principles are 

important starting points and can be identified.

•  The most important post–Cold War deterrence-related measures

of merit for US forces include the quantity, lethality, and flexibility 

necessary to threaten the spectrum of targets potentially important for deterrence, the resilience of the US force structure, and 

adaptability of deterrence planning and strategies to adjust to 

shifting threats and contingencies.

•  The requirementsfor assurance must include an understanding of

and integration of allied concerns. Those concerns appear to focus 

on the provision of US nuclear capabilities with various preferred 

force characteristics and locations. This points to a spectrum of 

possible requirements because allies judge US forces according to 

their own varying and unique security circumstances. Some allies 

appear to care deeply about the quantity, characteristics, and location 
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 91

of US nuclear forces. Ensuring that US strategic capabilities are 

seen as being at least comparable to those of Russia appears to be 

a basic parameter for assurance.

•  The requirements for damage limitation and optimal defensive

measures will also vary considerably depending on the set of 

threats against which US officials expect them to perform, and 

the desired level of effectiveness. The threats to be considered 

could include terrorist and rogue WMD threats that are judged 

to be of questionable susceptibility to deterrence. Numerous 

past analyses also suggest that relatively austere civil defense 

measures can provide the highest initial return on the dollar for 

protection across a broad spectrum of plausible nuclear threats.

•  Given the unique time line associated with the requirements for

dissuasion, they are likely to include the manifest potential of 

the US industrial infrastructure to dissuade well before threats 

materialize. The more agile and flexible the US capability to do 

so, the less likely the need for standing forces to carry the burden 

of dissuasion. To the extent that the US infrastructure is moribund, the greater is the opportunity for opponents to see the 

potential value in arms competition. The long-standing requirement for US force survivability could also help discourage any 

repeat of a Soviet-like drive by China or Russia to acquire a powerful counterforce c apability against US strategic forces.

Comprehensive US strategic force requirements may be considered 

the sum of these parts. The graphic below (fig. 5.1) illustrates conceptually a variety of basic measures of merit for strategic forces that the 

national goals discussed here suggest and that are likely to entail both 

overlapping and unique strategic forces requirements. The prioritization of these goals and the instruments used to advance them will 

change with different threat circumstances, defense budgets, and 

technical and political realities. But, as noted above, the goals themselves have had great continuity. Even if budgetary, technical, and political 

realities preclude meeting the various requirements suggested by 

these goals, understanding their basic strategic force requirements 

should help to identify force measures of merit coherently, to understand potential contradictions, trade-offs, and shortfalls and thereby 

help allocate wisely the resources available.
92 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

Forces with the lethality, exibility,

quantity, and survivability to threaten a

spectrum of targets, and adaptability in

planning

Optimal mix of

defenses, scaled

to designated

threats

Agile/exible

industrial

infrastructure

and force

survivability

Nuclear and nonnuclear capabilities with a

focus on quantity, presence, visibility, speed,

discriminate eects, and threat credibility

Deterrence

Dissuasion

Assurance

Damage

Limitation

Figure 5.1. Requirements for strategic forces

In the contemporary strategic environment, it is impossible to provide high-confidence, quantitatively precise, and enduring answers to 

the question “How much is enough?” for deterrence. The familiar game 

of linking confidently some specific number of nuclear weapons to deterrence and the adequacy of US strategic forces in general remains 

popular, but it is unsupportable. Whether the answer is 100, 500, 1,000, 

or 1,500 weapons, that answer is of little value for defining deterrence requirements without the rigorous analysis of opponents and contexts described above. Even if that analysis is done rigorously, identifying the 

requirements for deterrence is an incomplete basis for defining the 

necessary parameters for US strategic forces in general. The integration 

of requirements across the four goals described above points to some 

important additional measures of merit for US strategic forces.

The numbers and types of weapon deemed necessary for deterrence are likely to be fluid, but the importance of resilience, flexibility, 

and survivability for deterrence and dissuasion indicates the continuing value of multiple US strategic-force platforms. The traditional 

nuclear triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers has long been 

valued for the flexibility, diversity, and survivability inherent in its 

differing attributes and redundancy. A different mix of strategic-force 

platforms may provide the same benefits in the future, but the flexibility and survivability of forces provided by a diversity of strategic 
HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH? │ 93

platforms will remain important. Those platforms should also allow 

some margin for uploading and downloading weapons as necessary to 

assure, deter, dissuade, and defend in a dynamic threat environment.

The goal of assurance provides some additional pertinent metrics 

for US force adequacy. For example, officials in some NATO countries 

have indicated that US strategic nuclear force levels should be comparable to Russia’s and that US nuclear weapons must remain deployed 

on NATO territory. These metrics appear to have nothing to do with 

the possible demands of “war fighting,” but are important for the 

psychological/political goal of allied assurance. And, as noted above, 

Japanese officials have indicated that US nuclear forces, while not 

deployed on Japanese territory, should be credible, readily available 

in the area, capable of discrete targeting and visible as necessary. This 

mix of desirable characteristics again suggests the value of a mix of 

US force platforms with a range of possible force loadings.

These force attributes of resilience, diversity, flexibility, and survivability, and the adaptability of US planning were compatible with the 

Cold War’s high numbers of weapons and strategic platforms, and 

with continuous nuclear modernization programs. Those attributes 

may also be possible at lower numbers of deployed forces and platforms, but the pursuit of ever lower numbers will impose limitations 

on these measures of merit and call into question the viability of the 

US industrial infrastructure necessary to produce strategic forces. 

Recognition of these various force and infrastructure attributes—

important for deterrence, assurance, dissuasion, and damage limitation—

should contribute to how adequacy is defined for the US strategic 

arsenal and the US arms control agenda. If so, some helpful parameters 

will be injected into the ongoing discussion of “How much is enough?”

Notes

1. For example, see the explicit use of this target-based methodology linked to 

deterrence in Senate, Testing and Operation Requirements for the B-2 Bomber, 8–20. 

See also Seiler, Strategic Nuclear Force Requirements and Issues.

2. Fetter, “Nuclear Strategy and Targeting Doctrine,” 57. 

3. Reif, “Nuclear Weapons.”

4. Davis, “The Attribution of WMD Events.” See also Phillips, “Uncertain Justice 

for Nuclear Terror.” 

5. Senate, The Continuing Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction; and Carus, 

Bioterrorism and Biocrimes, 20. 
94 │ HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH?

6. See the discussion of the extreme fluidity of contemporary developments in 

National Intelligence Council, Mapping the Global Future, 4, 18–19. See also the discussion of past rapid changes in threat conditions in Odom et al., The Emerging Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States, 19–21.

7. Craig and George, Force and Statecraft, 188.

8. Dror, “High-Intensity Aggressive Ideologies as an International Threat,” 161.

9. Quoted in “Pak’s N-bomb Prevented India from Attacking It after 26/11,” 

available in Department of State, ISN News, 10 March 2009.

10. As concluded by Lebow and Stein, We All Lost the Cold War, 356.

11. See Senate, Hearings on MX Missile Basing System, 6–7.

12. Medalia, “Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005–

FY2007; and his, “Bunker Busters”: Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear Earth 

Penetrator Debate, 1. See also the extended discussion of this subject in Guthe, “Implications of a Dynamic Strategic Environment.”

13. See the Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy, Discriminate Deterrence, 2.

14. Guthe, Ten Continuities in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, Strategy, Plans and Forces.

15. Secretary of defense to the president, draft memorandum, 3 December 1964, 

24. Document has been redacted and declassified.

16. Senate, Hearings on Nuclear Terrorism. 

17. Ibid., 6–11.

18. Dallas, quoted in, “Study Finds U.S. Not Ready for Nuke Hit,” Washington Times, 

21 March 2007, A-3. This article quotes Dr. Dallas from Bell and Dallas, “Vulnerability of 

Populations and the Urban Health Care Systems to Nuclear Weapon Attack—Examples 

from Four American Cities.”

19. Secretary of defense to the president, draft memorandum, 6 December 1963, 

I-21–22. Document has been redacted and declassified.

20. Carter, May, and Perry, “The Day After”; and Payne et al., Bioterrorism and a 

Strategy of Concomitant Deterrence, 78–88.

21. See Payne, The Great American Gamble, 43–44, 219–20.

22. See a review of the officially expressed reasons for essential equivalence in 

Payne, “The Schlesinger Shift: Return to Rationality.”

23. Howard, “Reassurance and Deterrence.”

24. See the discussion in Department of State, International Security Advisory 

Board, Report on Discouraging a Cascade of Nuclear Weapons States, 22–23.

25. Ibid., 23.

26. Secretary of defense to the president, draft memorandum, 1 November 1965, 

5, 22 (document has been redacted and declassified); and secretary of defense to the 

president, draft memorandum, 15 January 1968, 13 (document has been redacted 

and declassified).
Chapter 6

Tailored Deterrence, Smart Power, and the 

Long-Term Challenge of Nuclear Proliferation

Jonathan Trexel

There are many strategic deterrence challenges facing the United 

States now and over the long term. For example, one might want to 

deter aggression, deter an adversary from using weapons of mass destruction (WMD) once a conflict has begun, or deter cyberspace or 

counterspace attacks in a crisis. But a growing challenge for the 

United States, one that will likely recur (possibly several times) in the 

coming years, is stemming nuclear weapons proliferation among potential adversaries.

When we consider the ways to support the president’s emphasis on 

addressing nuclear nonproliferation, there is a role for strategic deterrence. But when one considers this problem, a conceptual bridge is 

needed to help think about such challenges with a long-term perspective. Strategic deterrence concepts provide one such bridge. My 

intention is to present three broad, long-term deterrence problems or 

scenarios as ways to think about deterrence activities and capabilities 

and then cull ideas for future discussion.

From a strategy perspective, some long-term context for current 

thinking on near-term deterrence planning and strategy is provided. 

The current deterrence framework, as outlined in the 2006 Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DOJOC), suggests that we 

build deterrence strategies responding to understandings of potential 

adversary perceptions. These strategies necessarily tend to be products of military planning processes characterized by near-term definitions of the problems and emphasis on hard-power capabilities and 

activities. However, as one proceeds over the time horizon of our understanding of emerging and distant threats and how potential adversaries might calculate regarding acquisition and/or development of 

nuclear weapons, the role of the military instrument likely diminishes and soft power increases in prominence.
96 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Background

The broad idea that deterrence is about decisive influence applies 

to long-term and near-term deterrence problems. The primary differences between long-term and near-term deterrence concepts are of 

magnitude and outcomes. A short review of near-term deterrence 

from the Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept follows.

Deterrence operations convince adversaries not to take actions that threaten 

US vital interests by means of decisive influence over their decision making. 

Decisive influence is achieved by credibly threatening to deny benefits and/or 

impose costs while encouraging restraint by convincing the actor that restraint will result in an acceptable outcome.1

The Deterrence Framework

The goal in near-term deterrence is to influence an actor to restrain from taking egregious action against us or our allies (fig. 6.1). 

We begin by understanding the actor’s core decision factors: the 

things that matter most from a strategic perspective. Next we consider those factors within a specific scenario to assess the actor’s decision calculus. This calculus is the actor’s computation of the relative 

costs and benefits of taking specific actions and is the focus of near-term 

I. Actor Core

Decision Factors

II. Actor Decision

III. Deterrence Strategy

Requirements

IV. Action Execution

Changed/Eects Achieved

V. Impact: Perceptions

Environmental

Personal

ID/Values

. Capabilities?

. Intelligence?

. Effects

. Ways

. Actions

. Impose Costs

. Deny Benefits

. Encourage Restraint

. All Instruments

Costs of

Action

Benefits of

Restraint

Benefits of

Action

Costs of

Restraint

Figure 6.1. Strategic deterrence model
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 97

deterrence. Understanding the adversary’s decision calculus informs deterrence strategy development including determining the desired 

cognitive effects on the actor and determining the means of national

power to achieve those effects. Core decision factors are the objects of 

deterrence strategies because changes in core decision factors change 

an actor’s decision calculus. Therefore desired cognitive effects are 

products of altering an actor’s core decision factors. Deterrence strategy 

requires a cycle of assessment, strategy adjustment, and reassessment. 

Importantly, the hard power, or force, used to accomplish this influence can go beyond nuclear assets to include conventional and even 

defensive capabilities. Further, nonmilitary capabilities and activities 

are important to consider precisely because they matter in potential 

adversary decision making.

The appropriate application of power (both military and nonmilitary) 

to achieve a deterrence objective, taking into consideration the adversary and his decision calculus, is tailored deterrence. Unpacking 

an adversary’s decision calculus is the essential feature in strategic 

deterrence strategy development and is the springboard for understanding how to tailor US strategy to deter effectively an adversary’s 

decision to pursue a program intended to develop nuclear weapons.

Deterrence Tailoring

The features of a tailored deterrence strategy depend in part on 

whether the strategy is intended to deter near- or long-term threats.2

For example, if the concern involves a state’s acquisition or development of nuclear weapons, one might employ a near-term strategy 

that includes denying the adversary access to the various parts of the 

nuclear fuel cycle, while at the same time, through diplomatic means, 

raising the value of cooperation so as to enhance stability through 

economic interdependencies and treaties. A broad US government 

strategy might also attempt to incorporate pursuing common interests 

such as fighting disease, hunger, and famine and promoting education and human capital investment at the societal level, all the while 

threatening to impose costs for aberrant behavior upon the leadership. In contrast, a long-term strategy might be to lessen the value 

attributed to nuclear weapons as a means of guaranteeing security by 

reducing fears of external attack. Considering both near- and longterm aspects of the proliferation problem can help us understand
98 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

how to sculpt a more consistent long-term US national deterrence 

strategy. This is accomplished by understanding the actor and how our 

deterrent actions might need to change should long-term efforts fail.

On Power

The United States possesses significant national power. When applied this power must be measured, timely, and decisive even in pursuit of deterrence strategies aimed at nuclear proliferation challenges. 

The consequences of inappropriate application of US power can include a lasting, tarnished US image in the international community, 

irrevocable loss of precious resources, strains of overextension, as 

well as deterrence failure. Conversely failing to plan and organize, to 

marshal, and to use US power will frustrate other national security 

strategies and compound adverse consequences upon us regardless 

of the problems at hand.

When we think of power, we often think of the acronym DIMEFIL 

(diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, 

and law enforcement). However, we typically do not consider applying all these elements of power in a coordinated or synchronized way 

toward deterrence. Economic power, for example, has many aspects 

and serves many purposes; it undergirds social well-being, trade, 

taxes, government programs, and so forth, but it can also be used to 

influence others through, for example, the withholding of economic 

benefits. Unfortunately, when we think of our nation’s “deterrence” or 

“strategic deterrence,” we usually associate such power with longrange nuclear forces.

Strategic deterrence is principally a competition of wills. In the 

twenty-first century, our political opponents’ decision calculus will 

include many considerations beyond such weapons. The application 

of US power to achieve deterrent effects should, therefore, consider 

all types of power and not be limited to long-range nuclear forces. 

How power is applied is what distinguishes its utility as a deterrent. 

This is to say, the power to influence others in what matters most is 

not simply physical destructive power. Rather, deterrent power, in 

this way, can be thought of as any power marshaled specifically for 

deterrent effects. Deterrent power can be either hard power or soft 

power or a fusion of the two into what is today termed smart power.

3

The sum of our nation’s varied strategic capabilities is tailorable. A 

purposeful, disciplined, collaborative, and tailored deterrence cam-
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 99

paign development process is needed for deterrent power to achieve 

its desired cognitive effects. Effectively marshaling deterrent power, 

however, can be useful in day-to-day conditions, acute deterrent 

problems, and long-term strategic deterrence scenarios, such as those 

dealing with nuclear proliferation described below.

Smart power is known for the caution and care in which it is applied and the self-limiting objectives that guide its application. Smart 

power can range from positive policy attraction by others (described 

by some as soft power) to armed coercion and the decisive use of 

force (hard power), albeit within a framework of smart power. Smart 

power can include the powers to attract and to instill fear, governmental and nongovernmental, military and nonmilitary, kinetic and 

nonkinetic, as well as less tangible instruments, such as US strength 

of character. The smart-power concept should be attractive to US 

policy makers because it can be applied as the capacity to influence. It 

can more effectively deter our potential and immediate adversaries 

from egregious actions, assure our allies and friends of US commitment and resolve, develop improved relations with competitors and 

indifferent states to dissuade them from trends infringing on our interests, relieve fears in foreign social groups of US intentions and possibly foster good will among them, and reassure our citizens’ fears. 

Long-Term Deterrence Concept

Some long-term deterrence problems and strategies consider actor 

decisions beyond the alternatives of action or restraint described in 

the basic deterrence framework above. The long-term deterrence 

concept suggests presenting alternatives to an adversary that are 

aimed at abandonment of an egregious decision altogether for a more 

attractive favorable decision that is potentially of greater long-term 

value. Unlike typical near-term deterrence strategies, the long-term 

deterrence approach provides pathways to a totally different outcome 

for everyone involved. The actor is influenced away from egregious 

action for the indefinite future, not by restraint alone but by replacing 

the adversary’s choice with a mutually acceptable alternative course 

of action (COA). So while a fundamental distinction exists in that 

near- and long-term deterrence options presuppose different deterrence pathways (restraint versus alternative COA), the central idea 
100 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

remains the same: decisive influence over an actor’s decision calculus 

resulting in enhanced US national security.

Overview

Three broad strategies pertaining to the concept of long-term deterrence of nuclear weapons (NW) development are summarized below (fig. 6.2). These include 

1. engaging in a deterrence campaign to influence an actor’s decision to act or refrain over an extended period of time, 

2. offering an actor an acceptable option of an entirely new alternative COA when favorable circumstances arise during an ongoing deterrence campaign, and 

3. encouraging friendly relations early as a preventive measure.

#1: Campaign

#2: Campaign

/Oramp

#3:

Encourage

Long-Term

Deterrence

Inuence

Strategies

Time Horizon

Threat

Nuclear Weapons

Program

Development

Near-Term

High

Terminal

5-10 Years

Emerging

Developmental

10-20 Years

Distant

Research

Offramp

“Friendly”

Figure 6.2. Long-term deterrence strategies

These scenarios also reflect different target core decision factors as 

time and circumstances change demanding from us appropriate 

long-term deterrence capabilities, approaches, and strategies (fig. 6.3). 

Each long-term deterrence strategy will be explored briefly below 

and also point to three broad strategy options. 

1. Deter by confronting the actor, given its adversarial identity 

and values, thus confounding the threat and the threatening behavior indefinitely. 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 101

2. Deter by convincing the otherwise adversarial actor to be 

friendly, thus removing the prospects for threatening behavior 

by changing the nature of the threat. 

3. Deter by encouraging the actor to be friendly before becoming 

adversarial and thus preventing the threat and threatening behavior from ever emerging.

Actor Core

Decision Factors

Environmental

ID/Values

Actor Decision

Long-Term

Deterrence

 Deterrence Strategy

US Capability Requirements

. Decisive Influence of Actor

. Address Threats and Behavior

. Acceptable Outcomes

Toward Restraint

Confront/Campaign

Convince/Campaign-Bargain

Encourage/Bargain

Toward Alt. COA

Hard Power?

Soft Power?

Figure 6.3. Strategy options

Historical Insights

There are several historical cases one can use for support or comparison strategies to deter potential adversaries from pursuing WMD 

programs. South Africa and Libya are two such cases.4

 South Africa 

made the decision to abandon its nuclear weapons program principally out of fear of potential expansion of Soviet influence and with it 

possible invasion.5

 However, factors surrounding the decline in Soviet power, internal domestic problems, and a marred international 

image led South Africa’s leadership to see its security position enhanced without nuclear weapons. It was not the deterrence strategy 

of imposing external costs that mattered most, but the drastic alteration of the post–Cold War security environment that changed how 

South African leaders valued their nuclear weapons.
102 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

The most celebrated case of an adversarial state giving up its nuclear weapons program is the case of Libya. Libya’s nuclear weapons 

program originated in some of the most trying years of the broader 

Arab-Israeli conflict and was intended in part—perhaps a large 

part—as a deterrent and counter to the Israeli nuclear program. The 

A. Q. Khan network also aided it. Libya never acquired nuclear weapons, 

but its leadership’s decision calculus for pursuing its WMD program 

was changed by a combination of developments, including the loss of 

a significant program equipment shipment, consideration of the US 

invasion of Iraq, the possibility Libya could also be attacked, and 

overtures suggesting a significant bargain was at hand.

While Libya stood to lose the prestige of eventual nuclear status 

and, with it, nuclear deterrent security, Libyan leaders seem to have 

perceived that their nuclear program might actually make them less 

secure. The bargain of program abandonment in exchange for lifting 

economic sanctions, an end to political isolation, removal from the 

state sponsors of terrorism list, renewal of direct investment in Libya, 

and other inducements collectively served Libya’s interests, particularly with regard to its security position. In the cases of both South 

Africa and Libya, security was understood to be better without nuclear weapons. Especially in Libya’s case, security was seen as the opportunity to choose an alternative course of action and to provide its 

leadership with a choice with which we can all live. 

Long-Term Deterrence Scenarios

There are two broad possibilities when we consider the sort of 

long-term deterrence that includes continuous deterrence. The first is 

continuous deterrence of an existing threat. The second is continuous 

deterrence of an emerging threat evolving over a long period of time. 

The existing DOJOC concept can be used to describe the differences 

between these two in terms of adversary perceptions and appropriate 

deterrence strategies.

Scenario 1: Continuous Campaign

Unlike other deterrence challenges, the pursuit of nuclear weapons entails a series of decisions made by the adversary over a period 

of several years, beginning with an initial decision to proceed with 

research and fuel-cycle needs and culminating with final decisions to 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 103

test a nuclear device and deploy weapons. The issue of an actor pursuing nuclear weapons over several years suggests we take a broad, 

long-term view in order to craft and implement an effective deterrence strategy (table 6.1).

Table 6.1. Long-term deterrence strategy overview

Continuous 

Campaign

Campaign 

Bargain Bargain

Desired Actor 

Choice Restrain Off Ramp to 

Alternative COA

Alternative 

COA

US Strategy 

Approach Confront Convince Encourage

Goal of Long-Term 

Strategy on Threat Contain Remove Prevent

Threat 

Characteristics Existing Threat Emerging Threat Distant Threat

US Power 

Emphasis Hard-Soft Soft-Hard Soft

Strategy’s Effect on 

Actor’s Relations 

with the United 

States

Adversarial 

(Unchanged) Toward Friendly Friendly

Goal of Strategy 

on Actor’s Value of 

WMD

Confound 

(Value Likely 

Remains High)

Marginalize Eliminate

In the first scenario, an actor might contemplate taking an action 

we deem egregious or against our interests and, as a result, might lead 

us to conduct an active deterrence campaign against this threat over 

an extended period of time, if not indefinitely. As long as conditions 

remain basically unchanged, the option available to the actor associated with this situation is simply a decision to act or not act—that is, 

a decision to proceed with the egregious action or restrain from doing 

so. Examples of this scenario might include North Korea’s contemplation of attacking South Korea over the past several decades or perhaps Soviet decision making relative to a nuclear attack during the 

Cold War period. Given the actor’s historical animosity toward the 

United States, the US deterrence strategy in this scenario would be to 

confront the actor and seek to acquire and maintain continuous influence over his decision to restrain from taking hostile action and 

doing so indefinitely or until the threat ends. This is done by under-
104 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

standing the actor’s decision calculus. The task then is to threaten 

and/or actually impose costs, deny sought-after benefits, and encourage restraint by reducing the actor’s perceived costs of restraint and 

reinforcing the actor’s perceived benefits of restraint. These actions 

stabilize the threat in conditions of a general deterrence, status quo 

environment indefinitely, hopefully leading to the adversary’s eventual abandonment of the threat to the United States as he recognizes 

its diminishing value.

The key here is that the actor’s motivations for considering pursuit 

of nuclear weapons are value based. Nuclear weapons would be valued 

as addressing the security concerns of a rogue state, which might include a relatively weak military position or significant imbalance, 

fears of potential internal political consequences, and vulnerability to 

political manipulation by other states, particularly regional antagonists or competitors. The actor’s key question is, “What will happen if 

I do not pursue NWs?” 

Years later, at the terminus of his development program, when 

possession is relatively close at hand, the adversary’s decision calculus 

is likely based more on the benefits of possession, though potential 

costs would most likely be much higher, and his calculus might be 

based more on the probabilities. In this case, his key question will be, 

“What will happen if I continue to pursue?” 

Evaluating a potential adversary’s perceptions in pursuing nuclear 

weapons and formulating an appropriate deterrence strategy that applies all elements of national and international power might present 

several advantages for the United States, its allies, and the international community. 

1. Altering political and regional security conditions that reduce 

the adversary’s fear of attack might be considered a small investment relative to the potential costs and intended consequences of 

going to war later with a nuclear-armed state. Since changing 

conditions to be more favorable to the adversary might take a 

long time to accomplish, the earlier a government assesses this to 

be a viable strategy to deter nuclear weapons pursuit, the higher 

the likelihood of achieving the outcomes sought. 

2. Increased use of positive political and economic power, or soft 

power, might improve the global image of the United States by 

demonstrating a willingness to explore new noncoercive measures, which may ultimately result in making threats to use 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 105

hard power more credible. Further, adversary perceptions of 

US military overstretch might weaken how those adversaries 

view US hard-power deterrent threats. 

3. An effective deterrence strategy can inform, if not guide, US 

strategic communication strategy as we seek to promote and 

strengthen the US position globally. 

4. Employing all instruments of national power, not simply the 

military instrument, can build trust and confidence in the 

United States and perhaps increase the viability of nonproliferation inspection regimes. This also might make partnerships on 

nonproliferation strategies more palatable politically. 

5. The United States can assure allies of regional commitments. 

6. Such a strategy will be more useful in finding coalition members 

previously unable or unwilling to participate in US nonproliferation initiatives because the military is the sole instrument 

being used. 

7. The United States would make regional security dynamics more 

stable. 

8. Most importantly, the specific proliferation problem being considered would be contained, reduced, eliminated, or even prevented because a panoply of instruments and options are in play.

Deterrence failure early (or failing to try) makes deterrence success harder at the terminal end, or near-term end, except with higher 

risks of military force and the potential second- and third-order effects 

and unforeseen consequences in the aftermath. But note that, while 

military threats might be decisive, they probably heighten adversary 

fears and reinforce his belief that he needs nuclear weapons precisely 

to deter US attack.

Scenario 2: Campaign Bargain

A second long-term deterrence scenario can occur during an ongoing 

deterrence campaign, in crisis, or when circumstances have changed 

so much that they might present an opportunity to offer an actor an 

entirely new course of action. Here, we are concerned with presenting 
106 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

the actor with a choice for a different future, not merely the choice to 

act or restrain from a hostile behavior. That is, we would seek to encourage the actor down the path of an entirely new alternative course 

of action that presents a different but acceptable outcome for both 

parties. The actor must envision an alternative future that is sufficiently secure without possessing threatening capabilities or behavior. 

In this scenario, deterrence activities would not be limited simply to 

near-term incentives, such as financial reward or avoiding financial 

loss, but would emphasize a long-term option that sufficiently satisfies the actor’s core security concerns and in a way that satisfies our 

need to reduce or eliminate the hostile threats and capabilities he 

poses to us. The actor initially chooses to restrain from egregious behavior but, more importantly, chooses a value system no longer characterized by the United States as adversarial.

An example of this long-term deterrence scenario would be Libya’s 

decision to reestablish friendly relations with the West and abandon 

its WMD program in 2003–4 rather than simply restrain from advancing it along its technological path (fig. 6.4). This long-term deterrence strategy is likely a very difficult challenge when in crisis or 

when the developmental threat has approached completion, especially since our efforts to deter the actor’s egregious actions at this 

point are likely to be increasingly coercive in nature, with cost-imposition 

military capabilities and activities at the center of our strategy. However, 

as in the Libyan case, a significant regional security event that brought 

a large number of US combat forces to the region as part of the coalition intervention in Iraq can spur the actor to accept the choice of a 

long-term alternative course of action marked by a vision of a secure 

future and friendly relations with the United States.6 

The 2003 attack on Iraq and the ultimate overthrow of Saddam 

Hussein altered Muammar Qadhafi’s perceptions by convincing him 

he, too, faced the possibility of regime change for continuing his 

nuclear weapons program. Environmental change can and does occur 

in the international security environment, resulting in change that 

impacts the decision making of leaders. Such change worked to influence Qadhafi’s decision to consider an alternative course of action in 

the form of a grand bargain to get the result the United States 

wanted—a long-term deterrence outcome of good relations with the 

West and Libya possessing no threatening, destabilizing, or nuclear 

capabilities. US intervention in Iraq triggered the opportunity for the 

bargain to be offered and accepted. Qadhafi would not have accepted 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 107

the bargain until he fully understood the likely costs for continuing to 

pursue his nuclear weapons program.

Desired Actor Decision

Oramp Toward

Friendly Relationship

Scenario 2: Libya Example

Strategy

Actor Core

Decision Factors

Capabilities

. Allied Cooperation?

. Funds Available?

. Verication Regime?

. Intelligence, Surveillance,

 and Reconnaissance? 

. Arab-Israeli Conflict

. Regional Threats

. Economy

. Adversarial Past

 toward West

! Iraq Intervention !

Q: Continue NW Pursuit? . Bargain:

. Help in Removing

 Threating Capabilities

. Relations with US

. Economic/Trade Incentives

. Lifting Sanctions

. End Isolation

. Removal from State-Sponsor

 Terror List

. Direct US Investment

Convince to Abandon Pursuit

(Campaign + Bargain)

Figure 6.4. Campaigning and bargaining

Scenario 3: Bargain

The third long-term deterrence scenario considers an actor’s option 

to change strategic course early, while any potential threat to us is but 

“smoke rising on the horizon.” Since this threat is perceptible, yet still 

on the distant horizon (e.g., an actor’s early decision to pursue a nuclear 

power capability that could transition later to a nuclear weapons 

capability), new opportunities present themselves for shaping the 

actor’s perceived security environment and thereby the calculus for 

choosing among broad alternative courses of action. While the tools 

and ways available to us to influence the decision making remain the 

same, the actor’s choice is not limited to deciding to act or restrain as 

described above.

Rather, the concept of long-term deterrence, while the threat is 

still distant, might involve presenting the actor with multiple alternative choices. However, we are seeking influence toward a choice 

that takes into account what we deem to be threatening capabilities 

or intent, even if those capabilities will take years to mature, along 

with the root security issues driving the actor to value those capabilities (nuclear weapons) in the first place (fig. 6.5). The difference is 

that we are packaging purposefully and actively a bargain early in the 
108 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

process of an actor’s development of a capability that may be a threat to 

the United States in the future. Properly negotiated, this approach will 

encourage a potential adversary to choose a value system and a behavioral 

path that are not adversarial to us. As with scenario 2 above, this requires 

us to understand and address the root motivations in the actor’s decision 

calculus to pursue a capability that positions him as a potential US adversary. Doing so could include taking political and economic measures 

that align or even integrate the actor with the United States and its allies. 

But it would also include removing or reducing the actor’s most threatening and destabilizing military capabilities, such as WMD and related 

means of delivery, however rudimental they may be. Thus, his decision 

goes beyond restraining from pursuit to a strategic choice that involves a 

future in which restraint becomes an imperative. The US goal is for the 

actor to choose an alternative bargain that provides enduring, credible, 

and stabilizing security measures while at the same time reducing or 

eliminating his perceived costs of restraint. By doing so, the perceived 

value of WMD and other threatening military capabilities is reduced 

and ultimately eliminated.

Desired Actor Decision

Friendly Relationship

Scenario 3: Distant Threat

Strategy

Actor Core

Decision Factors

Capabilities

. Human Capital Investment?

. Increase Allied Assurance

. Funds Available?

. Verication Regime?

. Intelligence, Surveillance,

 and Reconnaissance? 

. Economic Weakness

. Regional Military Power

 Imbalance

. Fear of External Attack

. NW Will Provide Needed

 Security

. Pursuing NW =

Adversarial Relationship

with US/Allies

Q: Pursue NW? . Bargain:

. Debt Relief

. Direct US Investment

. Mil-Mil Contacts

. Defense Posture

. Relations with US

. Security Reassurances

. Info-Sharing

Encourage to not Pursue at All

(Bargain + Communicate US Stake)

Figure 6.5. Bargaining early

When we consider this third scenario, it is difficult to identify historical cases that match the concept envisioned here as few cases can 

be cited when the United States acted decisively to influence a distant 

threat precisely in the manner outlined above. However, there are 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 109

cases generally representative of the idea. Egypt, for example, explored the possibility of developing a nuclear weapons program during the 1960s and 1970s in response to various perceived threats 

posed by Israel, including fear of Israel’s possible development of its 

own nuclear weapons. However, an alternative course of action involving 

peaceful relations with the United States and Israel was presented and 

eventually accepted, culminating in Egypt’s 1979 peace settlement 

with Israel, brokered by the United States at Camp David. Additionally, Egypt’s 1980 decision to ratify the Nuclear Non-Proliferation 

Treaty and an influx of significant US aid and other assurances likely 

contributed to Cairo backing away from the nuclear option. The goal 

of influencing Egypt away from continuing its nuclear weapons program was accomplished not merely by influencing its decision to restrain from nuclear weapons pursuit, but by crafting a long-term alternative option that amounted to a bargain that addressed its 

fundamental regional security concerns and other interests. Thus, 

scenario 3 illustrates the prevention of a threat when we can only 

imagine it as potential “smoke rising on the horizon” and when an 

actor is more amenable to US overtures. Actors like Burma (Myanmar) 

or Venezuela might fit into this category.

Actor Core Decision Factors

The second and third long-term deterrence scenarios emphasize 

actions and capabilities not simply to persuade an actor to restrain 

from continuing an egregious course, but to provide him a credible 

and durable alternative course that he perceives to enhance his security more than the course he is pursuing currently. Likewise, longterm deterrence emphasizes actions and capabilities that dispel an 

actor’s fears of potential costs of restraint by mitigating long-term 

motivations pressuring the actor to follow an egregious course of action. Alleviating the actor’s perceived costs of restraint intrinsically 

alters the actor’s decision making. More importantly, it strengthens 

the credibility and the attractiveness of the alternative course of action he is presented.

In General

Long-term deterrence emphasizes consequences of restraint, especially the benefits of changing course, for two important reasons. 
110 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

First, not many costs, especially military ones, can be imposed on an 

actor presenting a distant threat that will influence him to accept a 

positive, long-term alternative course of action. This is mainly because posing significant near-term costs regarding a threat that might 

never emerge will not be credible. Secondly, if one waits to threaten 

heavy cost imposition until the threat posed by an actor is a nearterm one, such an approach will likely influence the actor only in 

terms of his near-term decision to act or restrain. In either case the 

problem is that threatening heavy costs tends to reinforce an actor’s 

enduring security fears and thus may undergird why he values nuclear 

weapons (for example) in the first place.

As the Libya case demonstrated, the prospect of near-term and 

heavy costs upon Libya for development of a nuclear weapons capability in the aftermath of the attack on Iraq only found significant 

meaning in the regime’s decision making when combined with a 

credible, durable, and beneficial alternative course of action that jettisoned nuclear weapons development and a policy of confrontation 

with the West. In this case, Libya’s security concerns were adequately 

addressed, allowing Libya to accept a long-term alternative course of 

action characterized by less confrontational relations with the United 

States.7

 Libya’s strategic “sea change” was, in essence, a decision to 

change its values made possible by political, economic, and security 

relational and environmental changes. This is an example of longterm deterrence succeeding under the circumstances of an ongoing 

deterrence campaign.

It should be noted that emphasizing the cost-imposition or benefitdenial aspects of an actor’s decision making might be effective in influencing his decision to act or restrain, but doing so without addressing his consequences of restraint might not be tenable over time. 

This is because it reinforces the actor’s fears and his policy of challenge to us and, therefore, is unlikely to incentivize the actor to a 

long-term alternative course of action.

In each of these long-term deterrence scenarios, an actor’s decision making will include consideration of both external environmental 

and internal factors. Environmental factors (i.e., political, economic, 

military) comprise his real world of action and interaction. Internal 

factors (i.e., his identity, values, and fears) shape how he will interpret 

his environment and provide motivations for action within and upon 

his environment and likewise determine how environmental change 

might affect him internally. In long-term deterrence scenarios, 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 111

however, the internal-external mix of decision factors differs, with 

salient aspects being how an actor would interpret alternative courses of 

action and, therefore, differences in the long-term deterrence strategy, 

actions, and capabilities we would need to marshal. This also explains 

why unexpected and radical changes to conditions can be destabilizing and dangerous.

In scenario 1 (a continuous campaign), environmental factors 

matter most, since our relationship with an actor is relatively unchanged given the latter’s static identity. Given the ongoing threat he 

poses, our long-term deterrence actions and capabilities, therefore, 

will emphasize his basic calculus to act or restrain. These will also 

require coercive measures, including the prospects of defensive and 

offensive military options. But long-term deterrence strategies, as in 

deterring conflict on the Korean Peninsula, seek to provide stability 

to political, economic, and military conditions.

In scenario 2 (a campaign bargain), there is time for external factors 

to change significantly and perhaps affect the actor’s basic calculus, 

possibly presenting us an opportunity for a “grand bargain” with the 

actor. However, we need insight into the actor’s decision calculus, 

how it might be changing, and a preplanned “bargain” or one that can 

be cobbled together with little time. Here, internal and environmental 

factors work together to “motivate” the actor toward a new course of 

action where he can envision himself securely in a world in which his 

bilateral and regional relations are significantly altered and the value 

he places on WMD or other threatening military capabilities is significantly reduced.

In scenario 3 (a distant threat), the threat is in its earliest stages, 

and the United States might be in a position to decisively influence 

the actor away from further pursuit and toward acceptance of a longterm bargain. The most effective way to achieve this will likely be 

strategies that reduce the actor’s perceptions of external or existential 

threats. Fostering beneficial conditions or assurances will also be 

needed. Reducing an actor’s fears decreases his perceived benefits for 

pursuing nuclear weapons, while assurances will persuade the actor 

to find benefits of restraint attractive. However, these perceptions 

must seem to be enduring if we are to expect any long-term alternative option to be of value and accepted.
112 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

In Relation to US Deterrence Strategies

When an actor first considers a decision to pursue nuclear weapons, 

his decision calculus is likely to be dominated by perceptions of various 

consequences of restraint—that is, what might happen if a nuclear 

weapons program is not pursued. Further, they will not likely respond 

to threats of attack, especially a nuclear threat, as such threats will 

likely be perceived as premature, hence less than credible. They also 

might not respond to other potential costs, such as financial or economic sanctions. The thought about deterrence strategy should 

stretch beyond a capabilities-based approach to “tailor” our deterrence strategies not only to the diverse range of adversaries and diverse deterrence challenges facing the United States today but also 

with means beyond the military instrument. This is true for nearterm and long-term deterrence problems. However, to do so the 

United States must be willing to engage adversaries with a view toward making long-term commitments and policy trade-offs. Providing alternative courses of action, or grand bargains, essentially gives 

the actor a package of benefits that is irresistible.

An alternative long-term deterrence strategy would shape the conditions that inform decisions to seek nuclear weapons. This is a multifaceted strategy, but one that must, of necessity, have two essential 

military features to influence the adversary’s perceptions favorable to 

deterrence outcomes. Both must be addressed for a long-term deterrence strategy to be effective. First, discreet or implied threats of military costs if the adversary continues to pursue a nuclear weapons 

program communicate a US intention to raise the stakes if the adversary jettisons the deal and pursues the full suite of technologies, 

knowledge, and nuclear weapons capabilities later on. Second, the 

adversary’s fears that drive the pursuit of nuclear weapons need to be 

addressed with US allies and partners. Moreover, allies and partners must be reassured about US commitments and enduring stakes 

in the region. Reassurance would strengthen US relationships with 

those states.

A US deterrence strategy aimed at influencing adversary decisions 

to proceed or continue with a nuclear weapons program must guard 

against adversary perceptions that nuclear weapons provide increased 

security and that the benefits of restraint are hollow. This would not 

only raise the specter of renewed interest in WMD in that adversary 

state, but risk nuclear proliferation among US friends and allies who 
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 113

perceived cracks in the US ability to thwart WMD development and 

opted to pursue them on their own. For example, it remains to be seen 

if Libya’s commitment to refrain from pursuing nuclear weapons will 

endure. In recent years Libya has expressed disappointment that political 

and economic benefits promised by the United States and others have 

failed to materialize. Should Arab or Muslim states, such as Iran, 

continue to be denied a nuclear capability by the United States or 

Israel, as with Iraq and Syria, it is not difficult to imagine that Libya, 

coupled with new perceptions of being given a raw deal and feeling 

less secure for it, might decide to pursue nuclear weapons again.

Considerations

Long-term deterrence described herein is highly situation-dependent. 

As history demonstrates, international security circumstances can 

and do change, impacting relationships among actors. Former adversaries, such as Germany and Japan, became close allies of the United 

States as well as formidable economic and military powers. Similarly, 

the aftermath of the Cold War brought about significant changes 

among several former republics of the Soviet Union that have since 

become members of NATO. Moreover, as previously mentioned, Libya’s 

relationship with the United States and Libyan participation in the 

international political system shifted shortly after the attack on Iraq. 

Generally, the point here is not to prescribe a formula for threat reduction, but to acknowledge that conditions, when they change, can 

afford opportunities to address long-term or long-standing threats by 

influencing leaders toward alternative outcomes and nonadversarial 

relationships. Specifically, in relation to nuclear ambitions, whether 

considering scenarios 2 or 3, it is important to recognize that other 

actors have walked away from the pursuit or possession of nuclear 

weapons, albeit for a variety of reasons. However, some of these reasons 

included bargains made possible by external actors and changes in 

external circumstances that were meaningful to the actor in question.8

Being prepared for such opportunities requires careful interagency 

and interallied planning. This planning must, first of all, be rooted in 

an in-depth study and understanding of one’s potential adversaries. 

This planning activity certainly includes an assessment of the actor’s 

existing capabilities, intentions, and willingness to act aggressively 

toward us or our allies. It also means understanding the actor’s moti-
114 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

vations for adversarial behavior. Further, this study must work diligently, some would argue with greater and more focused investment 

than in the past, to understand various actors and their values and 

the cognitive perceptions critical to their decision making. Longterm deterrence strategies would capitalize upon this knowledge and 

plan for opportunities to present these actors alternative courses of 

action to prevent threats from emerging.

The careful planning that is required, but clearly exists today in 

limited capacity, involves the deliberate coordination of several activities in order for long-term deterrence plans and strategies to be 

effective. These activities include sharing information, intelligence, 

and long-term deterrence studies about both state and nonstate 

threats; policy planning that provides more accurate risk assessments 

of various policy options in light of existing, emerging, and distant 

threats; capability assessments germane to long-term deterrence 

needs, including interagency capabilities that address gaps in nonmilitary instruments of deterrence; and impact assessments of possible alternative courses of action to influence actor decision making.

It is a formidable task to organize for long-term deterrence problems, including capabilities to understand and deter various actors in 

order to prevent emerging and distant threats. This is particularly 

true since we are hardly organized to address the myriad of near- and 

mid-term deterrence problems that challenge us with the security 

complexities inherent in a post–Cold War, twenty-first-century 

world. Complex deterrence problems, however, are not impossible 

ones, and consideration for how we can and must organize to address 

long-term deterrence problems will also provide immediate value as 

we confront and deter near-term threats.

Attention to deterrence challenges and consistent calls for deterrencerelated transformation have come from diverse and authoritative 

sources. For example, ADM Michael Mullen, as chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, argued, “We need a new model of deterrence that 

helps us bring our own clock up to speed with the pace and the scope 

of the challenges of this new century. Time hack . . . now.”9

 A new 

capability is needed that authoritatively crafts national deterrence 

plans to

•  provide decision makers comprehensive courses of action for 

day-to-day, crisis, and long-term deterrence challenges;
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 115

•  integrate and synchronize national power and activities for deterrence objectives;

•  coordinate US government deterrence strategies with those of 

US allies and partners, as needed;

• expand deterrence-focused adversary analysis in support of deterrence strategies and other national-security-related plans activities; and

• provide national, interagency, and regional leaderships a common deterrence picture and tool for deterrence-oriented decision making.

A national deterrence or “strategic engagement” center, perhaps 

modeled on the composition and activities of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), especially if combined with other influenceoriented centers (including a NATO Deterrence Center of Excellence), is one way of looking ahead to face these twenty-first-century 

problems. Doing so could provide a new capability in one location 

that would develop, integrate, and orchestrate interagency deterrencefocused planning, activities, and effectiveness assessment for our 

nation’s leadership. A national deterrence center would have the capacity for fully integrating national intelligence information into deterrence-specific adversary assessment. This center could also review 

and update indicators daily for impact assessment of ongoing deterrence actions. Further, if modeled after NCTC, such a center would 

have the capability to be staffed for planning and cuing of courses of 

action for coordination, integration, and synchronization with members 

across the interagency as well as the DOD, the national labs, and expertise from academia and the private sector for research into capabilities, methods, and assessments, as well as allied integration for 

planning activities, information, and intelligence sharing. This is particularly important in today’s security environment where there are 

threats of mutual interest to our allies, such as NATO, but also with 

other partners where there are other opportunities to collaborate on 

combined capabilities, such as integration of missile defenses that 

could be used to deter or cyber capabilities that could be used to deter, 

defend, and defeat, as well as other interagency activities such as financial sanctioning.
116 │ NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Conclusion

There are three basic values for considering and expanding a concept of long-term deterrence as described in this chapter. First, doing 

so provides a time-related context for how we currently model the 

near-term deterrence framework contained in the 2006 DOJOC, 

namely influencing an adversary’s decision to act or restrain and doing 

so usually after the United States is aware of the threat. Continuing to 

do so, despite recognition that actors consider alternative courses of 

action in addition to consequences of a single decision, would be to 

limit future deterrence-planning options and fail to recognize how 

one might effectively develop influence campaigns that span several 

years or decades.10

Second, this concept is intended to illustrate that there might be 

times and conditions in which preferred deterrence strategies emphasize early proactive measures to head off development of threats 

emerging “over the horizon.” This is because it might be much harder 

to deter later when the threatening capabilities are fully developed.

Third, concepts such as long-term deterrence scenarios can assist 

in crafting future experimentation, gaming, and exercises in which 

deterrence capabilities, activities, and situational conditions can 

promote better understanding of potential adversaries, threats, and 

strategies to address them.

Notes

1. Department of Defense, Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DOJOC), 8. 

US vital interests might include maintaining territorial integrity, preserving basic 

political sovereignty and societal integrity within the United States, preventing mass 

casualties among the population, securing critical US and international infrastructure assets (energy, telecommunications, water, essential services, etc.) that support 

economic viability, and supporting the defense of friends and allies.

2. Deterrence can be “tailored” in several ways, including use of instruments of 

power appropriate to the need and operations supporting, complementing, or at least 

being consistent with all other US national security and foreign policy strategies. These 

should be designed to suit one problem at a time; adversaries with specific motivations, intentions, history, culture, values, goals, and capabilities; and threats as they 

are understood on the time horizon (above).

3. A thorough report on smart power was provided by the Center for Strategic 

and International Studies Commission on Smart Power. See Cohen, Nye, and Armitage, 

A Smarter, More Secure America.
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION │ 117

4. One could consider others, such as Sweden, or Ukraine’s decision to return or 

destroy the nuclear weapons stockpile it inherited after the dissolution of the USSR.

5. While not a clear, long-term deterrence case within the concept presented in 

this chapter, South Africa’s abandonment of its nuclear weapons program does illustrate how changing political, economic, and security conditions impact the value of 

nuclear weapons and, consequently, the willingness of leadership to accept an entirely 

different future and alternative course of action without possessing them.

6. For further background on how the coalition intervention influenced Libya’s 

decision making, see Amb. Robert Joseph’s book, Countering WMD. 

7. On Libya’s relations with the United States, see page 122 of Bahgat, “Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.” It should be noted that Bahgat’s position is 

that the Libya case was isolated and will not be repeated.

8. In addition to Libya, some of these include South Africa, Kazakhstan, Argentina, and Taiwan. An overview chart of nuclear proliferation since the 1940s, taken 

from the book The Nuclear Express by Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman, can 

be found in the New York Times online, http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2008/12/09 

/science/20081209_BOMB_GRAPHIC.html.

9. Gurney, “Executive Summary.”

10. See the 2006 DOJOC, 11, 23, 25.

Chapter 7 

Is a New Focus on Nuclear Weapons Research 

and Development Necessary?

Anne Fitzpatrick

In the past several years there has been considerable public discussion over the future of the US nuclear weapons program, a topic that 

raises many large-scope, high-level policy questions ranging from the 

future of nuclear deterrence to the possibility of eliminating nuclear 

devices altogether. Yet lying below these 10,000-foot-high debates are 

important questions about their fundamental epistemological and 

technical underpinnings. Some of these questions include, Is specialized knowledge of nuclear weapons eroding to the point of no return, 

and does this matter? Or is the knowledge instead changing markedly? 

And does this necessitate a new or reinvigorated focus on nuclear 

weapons science, research, development, and fielding? Moreover, 

what is—exactly—a “new” focus on weapons that is markedly different from the design and testing cycles pre-1992? Do these activities 

contribute significantly to deterrence in the post–Cold War environment?

To various degrees and for divergent reasons, the questions posed 

above have been raised and analyzed by two main public communities not affiliated with government: 

1. the nongovernmental special-interest policy organizations 

(NGO) that generally desire to either rid the world of nuclear 

weapons or at least reduce their numbers and 

2. a small slice of the academic community. Here it is important to 

note that the academic literature on the nuclear weapons enterprise as a whole falls all over the place in terms of disciplinary foci. 

The US nuclear weapons enterprise—its history, scientists, technology, 

and culture—has been examined and interpreted by many historians 

as well as sociologists, anthropologists, science and technology studies 

(STS—the branch of academia that studies scientific activity, knowledge, and scientists themselves) experts, and communications studies 

specialists.1

 Some of this scholarship is well regarded in academic 
120 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

circles; in addition, a couple of well-researched and well-written trade 

histories of nuclear weapons have received international recognition.2

Yet within this body of scholarship only a minority of studies, particularly in the sociological and anthropological fields, delve into 

nuclear weapons knowledge and expertise. Sociologists Donald 

MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi’s groundbreaking study, “Tacit 

Knowledge and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons,”3

 is the most 

directly relevant. They challenge the long-standing notion that technology will inevitably march forward once it is invented. Specifically, 

they postulate that if nuclear weapons design ceases and no special, 

tacit knowledge is passed on to the would-be next generation of designers, the technology may be “uninvented.” The value in MacKenzie 

and Spinardi’s piece is the credibility of the research they conducted, 

based largely on interviews with technical staff at Los Alamos and 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories; thus, the authors were 

able to integrate a great deal of firsthand accounts of what it is like to 

work on nuclear weapons, as opposed to approaching the topic 

strictly from a sociological theory perspective. Their conclusions are 

largely speculative about the future and are not a prescription for taking any political course of action. 

In 1998 anthropologist Hugh Gusterson published a full-length 

book, Nuclear Rites, which intriguingly explores Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory as a community and analyzes how activities 

such as nuclear testing helped form scientists’ beliefs, sense of identity, and mission.4

 Also, but to a lesser degree, Gusterson addresses 

knowledge loss from an outsider’s point of view and leaves open the 

question of what roles the national laboratories should play in the 

future. His research, like MacKenzie and Spinardi’s, relies heavily on 

numerous interviews with the Livermore scientific community.

The most recent among this thread of published studies focusing 

on knowledge in the US nuclear weapons program is cultural anthropologist Laura McNamara’s chapter, “TRUTH Is Generated HERE,” 

in a 2007 communications studies edited volume.5

 This is a provocative essay suggesting that the nuclear weapons research and development (R&D) landscape is changing in ways unforeseen by anyone. 

All of the above literature will be discussed more in depth later in this 

chapter. One of the aspects that these studies have in common is that 

they either explicitly raise or brush up against the subject of deterrence in relation to the process of nuclear weapons R&D, the resulting 
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 121

knowledge and quality of that knowledge, and what the term “new” 

entails in nuclear weapons research and development.

Why are there so few academic studies of knowledge generation 

and loss in the nuclear weapons realm that focus on the national laboratories? Part of this gap in the scholarship, of course, is due to lack of 

access to classified materials. The few scholars who have gained these 

privileges, including the author of this chapter, are limited in the 

depth that they can discuss the scientific and technical details of their 

research.6

 Also, there is some evidence that the nuclear deterrent today does not seem to sport the public popularity it once did, and 

arms control as a public debate does not command the attention of 

the average US citizen, even if our current national leadership still 

deems nuclear deterrence an important national policy.7

 Changes in 

military requirements after 1992, where nuclear weapons and their 

delivery systems declined to a lesser priority, have no doubt permanently altered some part of the public view of nuclear weapons and 

their purpose.8

 Partly because of classification barriers, as noted 

above, but also partly due to the antinuclear lobbyist community’s 

unclear definition of “new” when speaking of nuclear weapons, 

largely missing from public discussion are 

1. the nuclear weapons-related knowledge base and its evolution, 

2. the nature of the nuclear weapons enterprise’s evolution since 

the end of the Cold War, and 

3. the whole spectrum of other critical defensive and offensive national 

security science and technology that this enterprise directly 

supports. 

A review of these subjects is necessary for a better-informed public 

debate on the role of nuclear weapons and deterrence in general, especially as a serious reconsideration of current US nuclear policy is 

under way.9

Some new government-sponsored and other openly published 

materials have become available in the past few years to complement 

the small amount of academic literature, which together may begin to 

address the questions posed above. Several of the government-sponsored 

studies address knowledge loss in terms of laboratory staffing and 

workforce succession planning—topics that are useful to consider.10

This material, compared with analysis of the academic portion, raises 

some intriguing insights into the state of the nuclear weapons enterprise, 
122 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

its value to national security, its resident expertise and generation of 

new knowledge, how we might better define a new focus on nuclear 

weapons R&D, and how that may contribute to current thinking on 

deterrence in a meaningful way.

1992 and the Standup of Stockpile Stewardship

When nuclear testing ceased in 1992, no one could predict the future 

for the nuclear weapons laboratories and their staff, or exactly what 

the size, configuration, and technology of the nuclear stockpile would 

look like many years down the road. To mitigate this uncertainty and 

to meet the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) requirements, the Department of Energy (DOE) and the weapons 

laboratory managers proposed the Science Based Stockpile Stewardship Program (SBSS)—now called the Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP).11 The SSP embodied an ambitious plan to maintain confidence in the nuclear stockpile based on predictive capability through 

the construction and employment of brand new computational, experimental, and visualization tools—absent full-scale nuclear testing. 

The program demanded an enormous increase in laboratory capabilities: materials science, computational hardware and software, 

high-energy-density physics, and hydrodynamics.12

Nothing like this had ever been attempted before, anywhere, and 

naturally, a great deal of controversy over and criticism of the program emerged throughout the 1990s. In an interview in 1995, physicist 

Richard Garwin categorized the program as a payoff the laboratories 

received in return for agreeing to stop nuclear testing:

“What could they get?” Garwin said. “Sandia got the microelectronics research center, which had minimal relevance to the 

CTBT. Los Alamos got the Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic 

Test [DARHT] facility. Livermore got the National Ignition Facility 

[NIF]—the white elephant eating us out of house and home. They all 

maintained these were essential to stockpile stewardship, which they 

are not.”13

Indeed, the NIF, the DARHT, and some of the early SSP highperformance computing projects housed under the Accelerated Strategic 

Computing Initiative (ASCI, now renamed, Advanced Simulation 

and Computing Program or ASC) were more often than not over 

budget, behind schedule by several years, and facing some serious 
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 123

technical setbacks, at least until recently.14 By 2009, the NIF and both 

axes of the DARHT were operational (although at the time of this 

writing the NIF had not yet achieved ignition),15 the ASC modeling 

and simulation efforts were maturing, and several lesser-known but 

equally important additional sets of SSP experimental facilities’ results (some examples are noted later in this chapter) had been regularly 

feeding into improving the collective understanding of nuclear weapons 

functioning and providing data for the annual assessment of the performance, safety, and reliability of the US nuclear stockpile.16

Today’s means of certifying the US nuclear weapons stockpile is a 

very different process than that conducted pre-1992. Until the underground test moratorium took effect, the nuclear design laboratories 

engaged in a regular multiphase weapons acquisition cycle: concept 

studies, scientific feasibility, engineering development, production 

engineering, initial production, quantity production, and retirement 

and disassembly.17 McNamara descriptively analyzed the pre-1992 

process, which

produced confidence in the nuclear deterrent through an iterative cycle of 

designing, testing, refining, and stockpiling nuclear explosives. That cycle, 

which structured work practices at the national laboratories for forty-seven 

years, was abruptly truncated in July of 1992, when Congress approved the 

Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell Amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations 

Act. Within a few months, funding for the DOE’s underground nuclear testing 

program evaporated, and the laboratories’ core experimental program was 

quite literally left hanging, with massive assemblies suspended in mid-completion 

over the dry desert floor of the Nevada test site [NTS].18

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the semiautonomous agency that supports nuclear weapons activities within 

DOE, administers this program’s successor, the Phase 6.X process, 

now. In 2001 the Department of Defense (DOD) christened the Phase 

6.X process as procedural guidelines to manage the stockpile Life Extension Program (LEP) refurbishment workflow, which mimics the 

pre-1992 full acquisition process but only applies to life extension 

and refurbishment of legacy weapons.19 Parallel to and supporting 

this was a whole new series of science and engineering efforts, tools, 

capabilities, databases, and other components within the overall SSP 

program. The NIF, DARHT, and ASC were among the larger of 

these—and part of the original proposal for a “troika of computer 

simulation, experiments, and previous nuclear test data that provides 

the complete toolbox for the assessment process,” and as such have 
124 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

perhaps received the most public scrutiny. 20 Yet, the SSP’s physical, 

technical, and scientific landscape today looks somewhat different 

than was described in 1994 by the JASON group, who at that time 

evaluated the program’s viability and prospects for success.21

For one example, the 1994 JASON report on “Science Based Stockpile Stewardship” reported that the Intel Paragon chip held the world’s 

speed record of approximately 140 Gflops.22 Since then, commercial 

computational horsepower has increased exponentially and—partly 

as a result the nuclear weapons modeling capability and its required 

software—has come a long way and is projected to reach the exascale 

level in the next 10 years.23

2010 and After

Today’s key SSP scientific and technical tools, facilities, and capabilities are far more numerous than the NIF, DARHT, and ASC computers and include, for example, subcritical testing performed at the 

Nevada Test Site U1A facility, inertial confinement fusion experiments carried out at the Sandia Z-Pinch facility, the high-explosive 

analysis at Pantex, and many other activities at other sites. The DOE 

NNSA 2011 Congressional Budget Request states,

Over the past 15 years, the nation has made significant investment in stockpile 

stewardship tools and capabilities, which allow the nuclear weapons stockpile 

to be annually assessed and certified as safe, secure, and effective, without 

requiring underground nuclear tests. While challenges remain, the growing 

knowledge and understanding of the stockpile enabled by these tools have 

reached a level of maturity that not only replaces the need to conduct underground tests, but surpasses the benefits originally realized by previous testing. 

The data collected from hundreds of previous nuclear tests, along with continued 

experimental science, remain available to validate predictive simulations of 

weapons performance. Many of the gaps are closing—or are closed—in understanding the key physics processes, and insights into system and component 

aging are being realized. These insights will enable better preventative care for 

the stockpile.24

While somewhat generic, the above description is factual. Stated 

another way, a large portion of the day-to-day nuclear weapons work 

looks little like it did in the testing era. One way to summarize the 

difference is in the overall approach: prior to 1992, nuclear weapons 

experts validated nuclear tests and the loads of data collected from 

them with computer modeling, but now that has been essentially 
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 125

turned on its head. Today they validate computer simulations of 

weapon behavior and other phenomena with a large array of smallscale (small compared to full-scale nuclear tests) experiments. Today 

computational simulations indeed underpin a significant portion of 

nearly all nuclear weapons work, and simulation codes play a large 

part in the nuclear stockpile annual assessment. The result is indeed 

a significant knowledge and understanding gain of how nuclear 

weapons operate with levels of detail that were not possible in the past.

These evolutions are significant to several debates that range from 

the need to return to nuclear testing to how the value of this new 

knowledge compares to that of older, Cold War–era knowledge that 

may be lost as older designers retire.25 Some government-sponsored 

analyses even raise concerns that the United States has let the nucleardeterrence knowledge base erode too far to sustain an adequate national 

nuclear-deterrence capability and urge the reinvigoration of these 

skills.26 According to a 2008 “Report of the Defense Science Board 

Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills,” the average DOE laboratory worker is old—over age 50—relative to the US workforce and 

some prospective employees perceive the nuclear weapons enterprise 

as a declining industry.27 A recent JASON examination of the LEP 

program went even further, warning that US nuclear expertise was 

“threatened by a lack of program stability, perceived lack of mission 

importance, and degradation of the work environment.”28

These are valid concerns that require and will continue to demand 

management and programmatic attention, but from an intellectual 

point of view they beg the question of how we should interpret new

when speaking of a new focus on nuclear weapons research and development. The academic anthropologists, sociologists, and communications scholars have not addressed this particular question, while 

the antinuclear-weapons community remains insistent on using the 

term new within the parameters of the nuclear devices—new physics 

packages in warheads and/or their specific components. Yet, equally 

if not more important than the weapons (products) themselves is 

how the continual generation of new knowledge about the weapons, 

combined with now-established stewardship practices, may force us 

to rethink to some degree what is meant by “new.” As for the weapons 

themselves, Congress has already defined new clearly and simply in 

the FY 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, section 3143: “The 

term ‘new nuclear weapon’ means a nuclear weapon that contains a 

pit or canned subassembly, either of which is neither (A) in the nuclear 
126 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

stockpile on the date of the enactment of the Act; nor (B) in production as of that date.”29

Furthermore, the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) stated that 

“the United States will not develop new nuclear warheads [and] Life 

Extension Programs (LEP) will use only nuclear components based 

on previously tested designs, and will not support new military missions or provide for new military capabilities.”30

Congressional verbiage, like that noted in the NPR, is direct and 

simple, yet various interpretations of this abound apparently because 

much of the special-interest NGO community is strictly pinned on 

the goal of abolishing nuclear weapons based on the argument that 

nuclear weapons today neither play the Cold War deterrent role they 

once did nor support any compelling broad set of missions.31 An even 

more narrowly focused segment of this community is obsessed with 

the idea that the NNSA and the DOD are covertly seeking to design 

and build new weapons, such as the reliable replacement warhead 

(RRW).32 Curiously, this group does not devote much in-depth analysis 

to the problem of knowledge loss and what continuing or “new” nuclear 

weapons work in any form means for workforce replacement and the 

continuity of nuclear weapons-related skills. Hans Kristensen summarizes this simply as:

The training argument depends on a combination of assumptions: 

1. The country will eventually need new nuclear weapons and these 

will need to be sophisticated weapons requiring high levels of 

expertise, 

2. The expertise needed for continuing stockpile maintenance is 

not adequate to maintain the expertise needed to design and 

build new weapons, and

3. The knowledge and skills needed to build new weapons cannot be 

written down and can only be preserved over the next two or three 

decades by keeping it alive in people. The truth of all of these assumptions depends in large part on choices we make about the 

future missions and requirements for nuclear weapons.33

Such analyses do not answer the question of whether or not a new 

focus on nuclear weapons research and development is necessary or 

why.34 It goes without saying that the Cold War nuclear mission of 

deterring a monolithic threat is indeed no longer the same, but it has 
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 127

evolved into a very different set of activities and processes that needs 

to be taken into consideration by all who analyze the current and future 

role of nuclear weapons and modern-day deterrence. Getting rid of 

all nuclear weapons and their supporting knowledge and capabilities 

might indeed be an ideal, peaceful goal, but doing so would also rid 

us of numerous related essential national security missions for which 

the nuclear enterprise acts as technological backbone. LEP activities 

serve as a good example of the far-reaching effects of this technological 

backbone, have cumulatively led to some unexpected results, and 

may help us move beyond the critiques of the nuclear weapons enterprise merely existing to seek new warheads, dream of wild new missions for nuclear weapons, or find work for underemployed weapons 

scientists, as some critics would have readers believe.35

LEPs are not only a means of tinkering with the weapons in a manner 

void of any intellectual content whatsoever. In Nuclear Rites, Gusterson 

remarked, “University physicists often disparage [nuclear] weapons 

physics as more high-tech artisanship than science. One physics professor told me that the intellectual challenges in contemporary weapons 

designs were minimal: “Weapons design now is just like ‘polishing 

turds’.”36 Indeed some academic physicists may liken the weapons 

profession to an engineering practice of refining objects and making 

incremental improvements, but many weapons physicists argue otherwise given the complexity of what they are trying to model, which 

includes laborious hydrodynamics and rapidly changing densities in 

materials as a nuclear device operates.

Producing an improved detonator assembly, for example, may be 

an engineering increment and not scientifically significant, but it is 

the larger picture that needs to be kept in mind. LEPs are not only 

resulting in physical change and evolution in the stockpile over the 

long term, but moreover, in order to certify an LEP as successful, that 

process needs to match well to recorded underground test data, the 

current depth of understanding of how the weapons work and many 

ongoing nonnuclear and subcritical experiments. Doing this opens a 

huge scope of scientific problems that require solving. Even though 

nuclear weapon operation has been well studied over the past several 

decades, it is still not understood completely because of the complexity 

of the weapons, how their parts and physical phenomenon interact, 

and the extreme physical conditions that occur when they are fired. 

Getting to a more thorough understanding of these is a key basis for 
128 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

supporting the continuation of a no-testing regime and maintaining 

confidence in the stockpile.

The issue of stockpile confidence itself and how that relates to current arguments for a need to return to nuclear testing are beyond the 

scope of this chapter. However, the subject of nuclear testing is worth 

mentioning here for the purpose of discussing what testing did—and 

did not—do, since several of the academic scholars cited here spent a 

significant amount of time analyzing the social, political, and technical 

role(s) testing played in the Cold War. It is worth comparing a few of 

their key findings to more recent nuclear weapons enterprise activities.

Gusterson asserts that nuclear tests were “important for their cultural and psychological as well as their technical significance and that 

they have been vital not only in the production of nuclear weapons 

but also in the production of weapons scientists and in the social reproduction of the ideology of nuclear deterrence.”37 And towards his 

conclusion he argues, “The weapons scientists’ sense of mastery over 

nuclear weapons is reinforced by participation in nuclear tests.”38 But 

this raises the question: Assuming this were true prior to 1992, is this 

still the case today? Possibly not because both policymakers’ and scientists’ own philosophical beliefs about nuclear deterrence are going 

through a great deal of reinterpretation currently—based on the immense changes in the way nuclear weapons work is rapidly changing.

Since Nuclear Rites was published, the process of working on nuclear 

weapons has evolved drastically. To his credit, in 2004 Gusterson 

published a collection of articles in a volume titled People of the Bomb, 

where some of the chapters served as an update to Nuclear Rites. In 

one chapter he deconstructs virtual weapons science, “referring to 

the increasing use of simulation and computing as the main activity 

that weaponeers engaged in as a successor to nuclear testing but 

sticks to his earlier argument in Nuclear Rites that nuclear tests were 

traditionally the ultimate means of producing knowledge and power 

among US nuclear weapons scientists.”39 Gusterson supported his 

case through several interviews with scientists who expressed doubt 

about the ability of simulation technologies and the overall viability 

of weapons work without the testing phase.40 Although People of the 

Bomb was published in 2004, this particular chapter was written in 

2001. In that piece Gusterson reported that older designers—those 

who have participated in nuclear testing—worried about younger 

colleagues placing too much confidence in the predictive ability of 

their computer codes and the basic principles of physics.41
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 129

Like Gusterson, but for different reasons, MacKenzie and Spinardi 

concluded in their study that testing was a critical part of nuclear 

weapons work—in their words part of the designers’ “epistemic 

culture”—a way of making visible their judgment. MacKenzie and 

Spinardi’s interviews with the then current (early 1990s) generation 

of designers revealed their fear that in the absence of testing, weapons 

certification would have to rely very heavily on explicit knowledge 

alone in the form of computer simulation.42 Yet both Gusterson’s and 

MacKenzie and Spinardi’s analyses raise a generational argument. 

The younger, up-and-coming generation of nuclear weapons experts—

those working today, about 20 years after MacKenzie and Spinardi 

conducted their interviews—has a great deal of faith in computational abilities and with compelling reasons. Too, anecdotal evidence 

suggests that some older designers are now beginning to place more 

faith in computation.

MacKenzie and Spinardi’s main question, “If there was a sufficiently long hiatus in their [nuclear weapons] design and production 

(say, two generations) that tacit knowledge might indeed vanish,” remains to be proven in the next decades.43 But 20 years after the cessation of testing—and we can comfortably assume that one generation 

has passed the torch by now—other new forms of knowledge in the 

nuclear weapons programs are becoming accepted and institutionalized concurrently as some older tacit knowledge is disappearing.

This is a large and perhaps unexpected paradigm shift for the nuclear 

weapons research, development, test, and evaluation process. Where 

MacKenzie concluded that designers circa early 1990s overwhelmingly relied on the empirical testing—a physical, observable activity—

part of this process as well as theoretical bases to have confidence in 

their work, today the high-quality images and results coming from 

hydrodynamic tests, advanced radiography, subcritical tests, and 

other small-scale experiments are supplying new empirical scientific 

bases that may well alter how we should debate and define nuclear 

deterrence.44

Speaking strictly in terms of the information testing provided, and 

without going into their political and symbolic meanings, McNamara 

argues, “Nuclear testing provided an epistemological basis for nuclear 

confidence but not in a classical statistical sense. Although tests provided a great deal of data about explosive performance, they were far 

too expensive and difficult to perform multiple trials for any weapon 

system, much less isolate and repeatedly measure a single feature of a 
130 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

primary or secondary.”45 Furthermore, McNamara correctly argued, 

“The terrain of weaponeering is simultaneously more stable and more 

contested than MacKenzie and Spinardi imagined,” and “In working 

to establish new ‘ways of knowing’ nuclear weapons, which SSP is doing, 

weapons experts are redefining the very nature of nuclear confidence 

at a time when the role of nuclear weapons in national security is itself undergoing rapid change.”46

Even if older, tacit knowledge is lost over time, as MacKenzie and 

Spinardi predict, the current and future combinations of recorded 

knowledge—massive amounts of nuclear weapons data is maintained 

in archives—and the new knowledge being generated and learned by 

new weaponeers are at least as important to the nuclear deterrence 

calculus as are the presence of the active weapons themselves. This 

raises the question: In the present day and into the future can we have 

a scientific-technical-capability-based deterrent? This may be possible. 

McNamara concluded, “The credibility of the nation’s nuclear deterrent was rooted in the expertise of individuals with the most intimate 

knowledge of nuclear explosives, so that the laboratory’s weaponsrelated judgments were as much the bedrock of nuclear deterrence as 

were the weapons themselves.”47

Even during the Cold War the technical basis of the nuclear deterrent was not derived merely from the act of testing or its empirical results. It was also derived in part from the weaponeers’ deep knowledge. 

What scientists know about nuclear weapons and related programs 

and how well they know these things contribute to credible deterrence 

in the view of US allies and enemies. If adversaries see the scientific and 

technical talent as credible, their products—the devices—will be 

viewed as credible. It is important to emphasize that one cannot simply 

attend graduate school to learn nuclear weapons design and development. It is a years-long, intensive, hands-on process, akin to apprenticeship, performed only within the design laboratories.

The Defense Science Board summarized these kinds of skills very 

well in a 2008 study:

Nuclear deterrence expertise is uniquely demanding. It cannot be acquired 

overnight or on the fly. It resides in a highly classified environment mandated 

by law, it crosses a number of disciplines and skills, and it involves implicit as 

well as requires explicit knowledge. Nuclear weapons expertise is necessary to 

design and build nuclear weapons, to plan and operate nuclear forces, and to 

design defense against nuclear attack. It is also necessary to analyze and understand foreign nuclear weapons programs, devise nuclear policies and strategies, 
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 131

deal with allies who depend on the American nuclear umbrella, prevent and 

counter nuclear proliferation, defeat nuclear terrorism, and—in the event that 

a nuclear detonation takes place by accident or cold, hostile intent—cope with 

the catastrophic consequences.48

Similarly, the 1994 JASON Stockpile Stewardship study enumerated several nuclear-weapons-activity spin-off benefits that support 

arms control and nonproliferation efforts: “Another major laboratory 

activity that supports stockpile stewardship both directly and indirectly is the collection of activities involving Nonproliferation, Intelligence, and Arms Control (NIAC). . . . The groups now doing this 

work are likely to be the only ones at either laboratory who will continue to study new weapons designs in order to understand both 

what is happening elsewhere and as part of the study of how to counter 

such weapons in the hands of others.”49

Most of this work is, not surprisingly, highly classified and cannot 

be elaborated on in detail publicly, but its importance is paramount 

especially given its unique knowledge base that is continually accumulating. Other equally very important—and classified—fields that 

support nonproliferation, noted generally in the 2008 DOD study, are 

highly specialized nuclear forensics and nuclear device intelligence 

analysis and evaluation. These sets of activities rely deeply on those 

people in the weapons laboratories with experience in US nuclear 

design to evaluate the technology sophistication, rate of advancement, specific design, materials used, and other factors a foreign 

country might exhibit. New and fundamental scientific activities in 

the weapons programs are becoming applicable in these fields, and if 

our computational models are becoming viable and accepted by the 

nuclear weapons community, then we should be able to model what 

other nations and nonstate actors are doing if we have good intelligence.

Older methods of empirical observation of phenomena in weapons 

work and estimation in the weapons design and development processes are being replaced by new scientific means: For example, the 

Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty (QMU) methodology, an 

entirely new—and controversial—nuclear weapons science tool is 

currently coming into significant usage. QMU, based on statistical 

methods and high-level computational capability, calculates uncertainty when it comes to judging the active stockpile’s reliability and 

safety.50 Exactly how well it does that and the risk one should assign 

to the uncertainty factor remain to be determined, but the value and 

utility of computation in general, while still understandably criticized 
132 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

by some skeptics, is providing visual and statistical-like results on 

stockpile safety and reliability that has not been possible until now. 

Computational horsepower has improved exponentially over that 

available in the early 1990s, and simulations are less costly and timeconsuming than testing. Computer simulation allows researchers to 

study anomalies in a weapon over and over, as many times as they 

want. This cannot be accomplished using explosive testing, and the 

ability to do these things directly translates into real benefits to national 

security endeavors in the areas noted above. That is a genuinely new 

focus coming out of nuclear weapons research and development that 

needs to be encouraged and maintained. And not only computing, 

but all of the activities described in the paragraphs above feed into a 

strong nuclear attribution capability—which itself is a deterrent.

Conclusion

Critics argue that we do not need a highly developed scientific and 

technical capability to support the stockpile because we do not need 

a sophisticated, advanced stockpile in the post–Cold War world, and 

that there are no new physics needs to understand nuclear weapons 

adequately. For example, Ivan Oelrich has argued “there is little to no 

technical challenge left for American and other advanced nuclear 

weapon states in just getting a bomb to explode and we could design 

bombs that do not require a complex supporting infrastructure.” His 

argument is that the stated need to maintain scientific and technical 

expertise in the national laboratories rests solely on a blind desire to continue maintaining a Cold War–era mission for our current stockpile.51

This kind of reasoning is exactly why we must redefine what we 

mean by “new” with clarity and careful thought, move beyond wrangling over the semantic differences between terms such as “life extension” and “modernization,” and draw into any discussions about the 

future of deterrence the significant paradigm shift that is occurring at 

our laboratories, moving us from testing-based knowledge to simulation-based knowledge dependent on validation methods. Ongoing 

deepening understanding of these processes does have a significant 

impact on national security and enriches discussion about what kind 

of deterrent we may want for the twenty-first century.

While few people would argue that better arms control measures 

and nuclear-weapons-related policies are good things, nuclear deter-
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 133

rence in some form is likely to remain a part of America’s national 

security policy for the foreseeable future. Calls for an end to all 

nuclear weapons activities and zero nuclear weapons are good goals 

for an ideal world, but until we live in such a world, with no proliferators, we still need to maintain as much knowledge as we can while 

generating new understanding and thinking about scientific and 

technical means of bolstering national security and formulating what 

nuclear deterrence truly means in the twenty-first century.

Notes

1. For a solid, albeit dated, review of historical studies of nuclear weapons published up through 1990, see Seidel, “Books on the Bomb.” Other, more recent historical 

studies may be found in the history of science literature. Sociological, anthropological, 

science and technology studies, and communications studies treatments of the nuclear 

weapons laboratories and their activities and people are discussed later in this chapter.

2. See Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb; and his, Dark Sun: The Making of 

the Hydrogen Bomb.

3. MacKenzie with Spinardi, “Tacit Knowledge and the Uninvention of Nuclear 

Weapons.”

4. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites.

5. McNamara, “TRUTH Is Generated HERE.”

6. For insight on conducting academic research inside the classified environment, see 

McNamara, “Ways of Knowing about Weapons”; and Fitzpatrick, “From Behind the Fence.”

7. Kelly, “Arms Control: Where Now?”

8. Air Force Nuclear Task Force, Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise.

9. Sanger and Shanker, “White House Is Rethinking Nuclear Policy.”

10. For example, see Murdock, The Department of Defense and the Nuclear Mission in the 21st Century.

11. For more on the SSP program’s founding, see Fitzpatrick and Oelrich, “The 

Stockpile Stewardship Program.”

12. Ibid. Confidence in this context means that weapons would perform as required for military operations.

13. Hodge and Weinberger, “A Nuclear Family Vacation.” Garwin was referring 

to the Sandia Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Application Facility (MESA).

14. Post, “Lessons Learned from ASCI [Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative],” 

an abridged version of LA-UR-04-0388; Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Inspector 

General, “Introductory Letter,” in Audit Report DOE-IG-0699; DOE, Secretary of Energy 

Advisory Board, Interim Report of the National Ignition Facility Laser System Task Force; 

and Government Accountability Office (GAO), Report to the Subcommittee on Military 

Procurement, Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives.

15. DOE, “Weapons Activities: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High 

Yield Campaign.” For more technical analysis of NIF (National Ignition Facility), see 

Hammer et al., NIF Ignition.
134 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

16. The annual assessment process is a many-months-long effort in which the 

nuclear weapons community examines various technical issues affecting the safety, 

reliability, performance, and military effectiveness of the active stockpile. Their work 

ultimately results in the Nuclear Weapons Council report on the assessments, accompanied by a joint letter signed by the secretaries of energy and defense and 

reports from the nuclear weapons laboratory directors and the US Strategic Command commander.

17. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites, 132–39. Gusterson provides some lengthy and informative discussion of several of these individual phases. For details on the phases see 

“An Agreement between the AEC and the DOD for the Development, Production, and 

Standardization of Atomic Weapons.”

18. McNamara, “TRUTH Is Generated HERE.”

19. GAO, Nuclear Weapons; and Nuclear Weapons Council, “Procedural Guidelines for the Phase 6.X Process.”

20. Senate, The Safety and Reliability of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent, 267.

21. Drell et al., Science Based Stockpile Stewardship. JASON is an independent 

group of scientists, established in 1960, which advises the US government on matters 

of science and technology. The group was first created to get a younger generation of 

scientists—that is, not the older Los Alamos and MIT Radiation Laboratory alumni—

involved in advising the government. It has somewhere between 30 and 60 members.

22. Ibid., 92. Gflops is giga flotation-point operations per second, a measure of 

computer performance.

23. DOE, FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request, National Nuclear Security Administration, “Weapons Activities: Advanced Simulation and Computing Campaign,” 125–26.

24. Ibid., “Weapons Activities: Overview,” 49.

25. The DOE has made significant investment into preserving documentation and recording individuals’ knowledge of all aspects of nuclear weapons research. Many DOE sites 

have participated; one example is the Preserving Nuclear Weapons Information. Lawrence 

Livermore Nuclear Weapons Information Project. https://www.llnl.gov/str/Lowns.html.

26. DOD, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and 

Logistics, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence Skills.

27. Ibid., 61, 25.

28. Lifetime Extension Program (LEP) Executive Summary, 4.

29. US House, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, 772.

30. DOD, Nuclear Posture Review Report, xiv. 

31. See Oelrich, Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War.

32. For a recent analysis of the apparent remaining keen interest in pursuing a 

reliable replacement warhead (RRW), see Kristensen and Oelrich, “JASON and Replacement Warheads.” In this piece, Kristensen asserts that “the quest for new weapons 

is not dead yet.” For more on the debate over what “new” might mean in terms of 

weapons, see Kristensen, “Testing the No-New-Nuclear-Weapons Pledge”; and Collina, 

“News Analysis.”

33. Kristensen and Oelrich, “JASON and Replacement Warheads.”

34. It is possible that the terminology used in the LEP programs may lead observers 

to suspect that the door is being left open for brand new warhead development in violation of what Congress has stipulated. LEPs are complex in that they are multiyear, multifaceted, large-scale, managed programs intended to extend the “life,” or time, that a 
IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY? │ 135

weapon can remain safely and reliably in the stockpile without having to be replaced or 

removed. The NNSA does provide a public description of how LEPs are intended to 

function: “Not all weapons and types are the same. NNSA must develop individual life 

extension programs, sometimes referred to as LEPs, for each weapon type and develop 

specific solutions to extend the lifetime of each particular warhead or bomb. This includes identifying and correcting potential technical issues with each weapon, and then 

refurbishing and replacing certain components as necessary. Life extension efforts are 

intended to extend the lifetime of a warhead or warhead component for an additional 20 

to 30 years.” The paths on which LEPs are carried out are specified. NNSA defines the 

implementation of an LEP as one of three approaches: 

1. Refurbishment (current implementation of LEP)—Very generally, individual 

warhead components are replaced before they degrade with components of 

(nearly) identical design or that meet the same ‘form, fit, and function.’ ” 

2. Warhead Component Reuse—Refers to the use of existing surplus pit and 

secondary components from other warhead types. Approach may permit limited 

warhead surety improvements and some increased margins. 

3. Warhead Replacement—Some or all of the components of a warhead are replaced with modern designs that are more easily manufacturable; provide increased warhead margins; forego no-longer-available or hazardous materials; 

improve safety, security, and use control; and offer that potential for further 

overall stockpile reductions. 

Normally, changes in components that result in changes to operational characteristics, safety or control features, or technical procedures are designated with a modification, or “Mod,” number, which the Nuclear Weapons Council also assigns sequentially. For example, Los Alamos repackaged existing B61 Mod 7 gravity bombs into 

an earth-penetrating steel case designed by Sandia, resulting in the designation Mark 

B61 Mod 11. The first component set of a new mark is designated Mod 0, although 

the Mod 0 designation is usually omitted to avoid confusion if no other modifications exist. 

If changes in components do not result in changes to operational characteristics 

and the differences are transparent to military units and other users, the changes, or 

alterations, are designated as an “ALT.” For example, the development of new spin 

rocket motors for the B61 results in ALTs numbered 356, 358, and 359. Lewis, “After 

the Reliable Replacement Warhead.”

35. The Federation of American Scientists labeled nuclear weapons activities, particularly in the context of the RRW program, as “nuclear social welfare.” See Oelrich, “A 

Response to Congresswoman Tauscher’s Article on Nonproliferation Review.”

36. Gusterson, Nuclear Rites, 48.

37. Ibid., 132.

38. Ibid., 220.

39. See Gusterson, People of the Bomb, 147–64, passim, and 178.

40. Ibid., 174–75.

41. Ibid., 156.

42. MacKenzie and Spinardi, “Tacit Knowledge and the Uninvention of Nuclear 

Weapons,” 218. Also like Gusterson, MacKenzie and Spinardi published their 1998 
136 │ IS A NEW FOCUS ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESEARCH NECESSARY?

piece based on interviews they conducted in the early 1990s. Notably, in this chapter 

the authors neither prescribe any specific length of time for a design and testing hiatus 

nor make any moral judgments about doing so. Likewise, although the article’s title is 

provocative, the overall piece is not a call for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

43. Ibid., 217.

44. Ibid.

45. McNamara, “TRUTH Is Generated HERE,” 176.

46. Ibid., 169.

47. Ibid., 176.

48. DOD, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics, Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Deterrence 

Skills, v.

49. Drell et al., Science Based Stockpile Stewardship, 25.

50. For more detail on Quantification of Margins and Uncertainty (QMU), see 

National Research Council, Evaluation of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties 

Methodology for Assessing and Certifying the Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile; and 

Helton, Sandia Report: Conceptual and Computational Basis for the Quantification of 

Margins and Uncertainties.

51. Oelrich, “Congressional Commission and Nuclear ‘Requirements.’ ” 
Chapter 8 

Mathematical Foundations 

of Strategic Deterrence

Edward H. Robbins,Hunter Hustus, and James A. Blackwell

Past approaches to understanding strategic deterrence are anachronistic and, for the twenty-first century, probably dangerous. As the 

United States attempts to lead the way to create a world without nuclear 

weapons, there is a critical need to understand the phenomena that 

comprise the central dynamics of deterrence in the twenty-first century.

During much of the latter half of the twentieth century, strategic 

deterrence thought was dominated by a relatively simple theory, in 

which the massive nuclear forces of the United States and the Soviet 

Union so threatened each other’s destruction as to prevent either side 

from initiating nuclear war. Since that time the world’s complexities 

have multiplied many times over and Russian and US strategic nuclear 

arsenals have shrunk, partly through unilateral actions by each side 

and partly through bilateral treaty obligations. Nuclear planners must 

now be prepared to ask, “How low can we go?” in future reductions 

of arsenals and how to guarantee that smaller arsenals will nevertheless preserve strategic deterrence. Simultaneously, several other nuclear 

nations have increased the size of, and defenses provided to, their 

arsenals; nuclear weapons technology has flowed to rogue states; and 

terrorist groups have sought to purchase and employ nuclear weapons.1

Older methodologies and doctrines proposing defeat, deterrence, 

dissuasion, and assurance need no longer be valid.

This paper seeks to advance theoretical developments in strategic 

deterrence by laying out new mathematical foundations. We extend a 

1960s model of crisis stability to establish a game-theoretic paradigm 

for studying a broad range of modern strategic deterrence issues. The

result is a simple set of rules—though differing from past theories—

through which strategic deterrence is achievable and applicable to 

some practical issues in modern strategic deterrence.

The authors thank our many colleagues who have stimulated and encouraged us 

in this work. Special thanks go to Steve Turnbull, University of Tsukuba, Japan, who 

contributed greatly to many of the technical details regarding equilibrium concepts and 

formulations that appear throughout the chapter.
138 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Many individuals see nuclear deterrence as out of step with the 

exigencies of contemporary conflicts, a relic of the Cold War. They 

contend that those who advocate for, or practice, nuclear deterrence 

are impeding progress toward a world of few or no nuclear weapons. 

In this paper, we accept some risk of encouraging that characterization and resultant dismissive attitudes by reanalyzing classic concepts 

and restructuring an early Cold War game theory model.

Our views:

• Some things old are new again. Concepts created to understand 

Cold War deterrence dynamics are not irrelevant to twenty-first 

century challenges. While insufficient to provide modern understanding, they help guide us.

• Some things known are wrong. As we delve into the past to reinvestigate basics, we discover that conventional wisdom and 

analysis that formed the bases for understanding nuclear deterrence during the Cold War were flawed. These models and associated assumptions seemed adequate only because powerful 

conditions overwhelmed the necessity of additional requirements that failed to be recognized. Reassessment of legacy analysis 

will help correct perceptions that decision makers bring to future 

nuclear crises.

• Game theoretic/rational economic man approaches still provide 

valuable insight and a useful, clean-lined framework for analysis. 

In the 1960s, game theory was debated as a foundation for 

thought on strategic deterrence.2

 For today, we believe that assuming rationality among opponents and determining consequently optimal behavior should form at least the first order of 

decision making.

The Ellsberg Model

The foundations of nuclear weapons technology arose during the 

same era that saw the early development of game theory.3

 As American and Russian nuclear arsenals grew from the 1950s through the 

1970s, parallel developments in game theory extended the intellectual basis for thinking about possible employment of nuclear weapons 

in warfare to defeat an enemy or to deter nuclear warfare between 
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 139

rational opponents.4 One of the simplest descriptions of nuclear conflict decision making between the great powers was presented as an 

incomplete normal-form game by Ellsberg (1961),5

 in which each 

side has only two possibilities available to it, namely, to wait or to 

strike. He presents the payoff matrix for this incomplete game as in 

table 8.1, where the values represent social utility payoffs to Americans and Soviets, respectively.

Table 8.1. Ellsberg’s nuclear warfare incomplete game payoff matrix

United States Soviet Union

Wait Strike (p)

Wait U11, V11 U12, V21

Strike (q) U21, V12 --

Crucially, the game is incomplete in that the fourth cell contains no 

values. The first cell represents attained social utilities under the conditions of no nuclear war. To its right is a cell in which America waits 

but receives a Soviet first strike and, therefore, responds with a second 

strike. Symmetrically, beneath the original cell is a cell where America 

attacks (first strikes) while the Russians wait; thereafter, the Soviets 

retaliate in a second strike. To many people, this formulation is quite 

natural, for the missing fourth cell would represent the possibility of 

joint attacks—simultaneous strikes—and it is hard to envision what 

that would mean.6

Completing the fourth cell in this matrix and analyzing the consequences are precisely what we shall seek to accomplish in this paper. 

Clearly, in the face of such deep-seated objections, it will be necessary 

for us to justify our action.

Our choice reflects simple mathematics. Under the mixed-strategy 

Nash equilibrium concept upon which our investigations will primarily rely, the two players select actions based upon identical information sets without observation of their opponent’s choice. Therefore, the stochastic selections occur independently of one another. By 

definition the probability of both players opting for attack is then the 

product of the probabilities of each choosing to do so. Consequently, 

should each player set a nonzero probability on attack, the probability 

of joint attack is nonzero. The fourth cell must be considered. Likewise, 

in our alternative of a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium, we grant 

each nation the choice of wait or attack. Were we not to consider the 
140 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

possibility that both nations choose to attack, we would inherently 

have to assume coordination between them—clearly, an unreasonable assumption.

But there is a more subtle rationale for considering this fourth cell. 

The very possibility of simultaneous strikes compels us to examine 

the actual behavior of the two parties, in a way that is not obvious for 

the other three cells. Here, each side must ponder whether it is 

launching an attack against an entity that is also doing so. If that is the 

case, then an attack on strategic nuclear forces is largely futile: ICBMs 

are already out of their silos, mobile ICBMs have departed their garrisons, bombers have flown from their bases, and submarines have 

put out to sea. Although incoming weapons have not yet wreaked 

their havoc, there is no point to targeting the enemy’s forces. Targeting value assets, as should logically occur in a retaliatory second 

strike, is much more the appropriate strategy.7

 The conundrum faced 

by the potential attacker is which attack scheme to follow: that of a 

first striker, that of a second striker, or, since he really doesn’t know 

which comparable path he is pursuing, some elements of either. Extending to the full matrix shows us that the game was previously ill 

formed, at least within that fourth cell. Expected social utilities that 

serve as payoffs are themselves components of the play of the game 

since the best method of attack would depend entirely upon the attacker’s information set and perception of the probability of simultaneous attack.

Why do we pursue this exercise? Since the end of the Cold War 

there has remained the chance of a nuclear confrontation between 

the United States and the Russian Federation. Is it worthwhile to investigate clearer conditions under which those nations would resort 

to nuclear war? For many reasons, the answer is yes. 

1. The conflicts of interests between the United States and Russia 

are not finished. 

2. With this still evolving strategic relationship, it is important to 

understand implications of unilateral and bilateral arms control to the respective strategic defenses, concepts, and operational plans. 

3. Given continuing nuclear proliferation, the model should also 

be applicable to any pair of nuclear-armed adversaries and to 
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 141

certain cases of extended deterrence where a nuclear-armed 

state provides assurances to allies and partners. 

4. To whatever extent the model fails with regard to irrational 

players such as rogue states or violent extremist organizations, 

it might suggest further lines of research. 

5. The decreasing size of US and Russian arsenals and nuclear 

proliferation have led to the possibility of nuclear warfare being 

fought by coalitions of states—our model might contribute to 

understanding strategic deterrence in possibilities involving 

more than two nuclear-armed states.

Section 2 contains our conceptualization of how to fill Ellsberg’s 

empty fourth cell. Because we consider strategic behavior within each 

of the possible sets of actions, our normal-form payoff matrix involves each element depending on the information known to each 

player. Since we assume social utility, we can also assume that decision making is governed by expectations. This affords wider analytical boundaries. As so frequently happens with simple 2x2 matrix 

games, we are able to conclude linearity, so that optima can only be 

attained at endpoints—that is, when the probability of a party attacking is either zero or one. Thus, our model finally devolves to a true 

matrix game.

Sections 3 and 4 are investigations into possible equilibria in pure 

or mixed strategies. Because of the simplicity of the game formulation, decision makers’ optimal choices are dictated by comparatively 

straightforward inequality conditions. While the mathematics is simple, the implications prove to be profound. The mathematical conditions derived in Section 4 must be met through force-structure and 

policy decisions that can be achieved in the real world. Section 5 

demonstrates—in the context of our model—why Cold War requirements for strategic deterrence proved adequate even though they 

were conceptually incorrect. But it also shows that treaties, declines 

in nuclear arsenals, and nuclear weapons proliferation probably have 

already brought about the collapse of the Cold War form of misspecified equilibrium. Our model identifies conditions needed to 

prevent nuclear war. Section 6 addresses force-structure and policy 

issues. We propose survivability guaranteeing efficacy of a second 

strike as a principle to guide force-structure decisions. However, we 

do not investigate methods to achieve survivability. We do examine 
142 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

targeting concepts for both a first strike and second strike that might 

reinforce stability. And we explore a stabilizing role for ballistic missile defense. We close the paper by providing a summary in Section 7.

Revision of the Ellsberg Model

Because we seek a firm foundation for strategic deterrence research 

into modern problems, we chose to depart from the Soviet Union 

versus United States focus of the Ellsberg research. We continued the 

tradition of two states in potential conflict, although we believe that 

some of the methods are extendible to multiplayer games.8

 Thus, our 

two states of interest are “Q” and “X,” which might be Israel and Iran, 

China and India, North Korea and Japan (assuming Japan might begin a nuclear weapons program—assurances of the US nuclear umbrella not withstanding), or a host of other combinations. How to extend this two-player game to multiple players is not directly 

addressed—but is being examined in subsequent research.

The preceding section’s limitations of literal application of the Ellsberg 

model led us to alter the depiction of the game and propose the twoby-two matrix game presented in table 8.2.

Table 8.2. Altered model (payoff matrix) of two-player nuclear war

X Waits (1 – pX) X first strikes (pX)

Q Waits (1 – pQ) UN

Q, UNX U2Q, U1X

Q first strikes (pQ) U1

Q, U2X USQ, USX

Labeling within the matrix should be relatively clear. The superscript represents which nation’s social utility is being calculated. In 

every cell of the payoff matrix, we first report nation Q’s expected 

social utility. The subscript represents the cell, together with the corresponding conditions: “N” stands for “no nuclear war” and is symmetric 

between the two nations, “S” stands for “simultaneous attack” and is 

also symmetric, although in the opposite way, and “1” represents 

“first strike,” inevitably paired with “2” representing “second strike.” 

This game formulation repairs several problems identified above with 

the Ellsberg model. 
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 143

Possible Modern Pairings of Nations Pursuing Nuclear War

No longer does our focus lie solely on the United States and Russia. 

While those could prove to be the adversaries, other pairings are just 

as valid: Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, or India and China.

Filling in the Fourth Cell of the Matrix

The lower right quadrant of the matrix in table 8.2 presents the 

missing fourth event of simultaneous strikes. Does simultaneous 

strike mean launch on warning? No, it does not. Launch on warning

is one variant of a second strike.9

Alternative versions of a second strike are likely to involve absorbing the first strike from the opponent and—after some form of 

delay—carrying out a full-bore retaliatory strike against that opponent. 

Ellsberg has separately dealt with second strike social utility payoffs 

in his analysis, and we shall follow his lead. That is where to look for 

expected payoffs through carrying out a “launch on warning” or other 

forms of second strike.

What then is simultaneous strike from our perspective? From a 

mathematician’s eye, it is a needed element, in order to make the payoff 

matrix symmetric and coherent. Suppose only that each possibility of 

first strike constitutes an event that could occur with positive probability.

pX > 0 and pQ > 0 2.1.

This seems a natural possibility given Ellsberg’s model. Then,

pX and Q = pX × pQ > 0 2.2.

Conclusion 2.2 is inevitable provided the decisions reflected in inequalities 2.1 are selected independently. And this is precisely the 

condition that we require to justify creation of the fourth cell in the 

matrix. If it is a possibility, it is necessary to account for it. Ellsberg 

does not do so in his matrix (table 8.3).

Table 8.3. Ellsberg’s incomplete game restated in our context and notation

Nation Q’s Decision

Nation X’s Decision

Wait (w.p. 1- pX) Attack (w.p. pX)

Wait (w.p. 1- pQ) UN

Q, UNX U2Q, U1X

Attack (w.p. pQ) U1

Q, U2X --
144 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

However, he then carries out calculations for wait versus attack 

decisions such as the following:

2.3.

One way of interpreting this calculation is that Ellsberg is stating 

that, in deciding whether to carry out a first strike, each player can 

ignore whether the opponent is also planning a first strike. In a second interpretation, what he is doing is treating the missing cell as if 

the actual matrix took the form of table 8.4.

Table 8.4. Tacit formulation of Ellsberg’s game in our context/notation

 Nation Q’s Decision

Nation X’s Decision

Wait (w.p. 1- pX) Attack (w.p. pX)

Wait (w.p. 1- pQ) UN

Q, UNX U2Q, U1X

Attack (w.p. pQ) U1

Q, U2X U1Q, U1X

Since the previous computation is reconstituted as:

(1-pQ ) UN

X + pQ U2X > (1-pQ ) U1X + pQ U1X

= U1

X 2.4.

Note that this second matrix constitutes a restriction on our more 

general matrix in table 8.2, in which we allow for general values to the 

simultaneous strike payoffs. Ellsberg’s more restrictive form demands

US

Q U1Q USX U1X and 2.5.

There are many reasons to reject the restrictive form. To whatever 

extent each side is targeting strategic nuclear forces in their intended 

first strike, the most critical idea is that they will miss the opponent’s 

simultaneously launched assets. Ex ante rationality dictates that the 

simultaneous striker must devote some of his attacking assets to the 

value assets of his opponent.10 Thus, the combined attacks

• miss the opponent’s nuclear forces, and

• hit the opponent’s value assets.
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 145

It is hard to guess whether the stated equalities in 2.5 should be replaced by inequalities in one direction or the other.

Put simply and bluntly, our form of the matrix—i.e., one including 

simultaneous strike social utilities that may differ from first strike social 

utilities—is more general and unquestionably more reasonable.

But there is another lesson from this approach. A player carrying 

out a first strike cannot know in advance whether he will turn out to 

be a true first striker or, instead, a simultaneous striker. His targeting 

must be the same. That is, his ex post realized social utility must depend 

upon how he has altered his attack/defense plans. 

We are not done here. For the player who chooses to wait, social utility 

will be influenced by his choices for establishing defense—even down 

to the level of local-time decisions regarding civil defense.11 All of these 

conditionalities are assumed built into the elements presented in our 

payoff matrix in table 8.2; that is, each potential payoff represents the 

result of much analysis of optimal attack, optimal defense, exceptional 

planning for economic and social recovery, etc.

Implicit Computation of Social Utilities

As with Ellsberg, we do not offer further indications for the computation of social utilities.12 Our analysis will focus upon inequalities in attained values of expected social utility. Therefore, relative magnitudes of 

social utilities will come to the fore in our interpretive analysis, rather 

than exact values. Practical methods to attain strategic deterrence will 

seek solutions interior to regions. We actively reject exact boundary solutions because of their inherent “knife-edge” nature with strategic nuclear 

war occurring with only infinitesimal changes to any proposed equilibrium solution or to minor errors in conducting assessments.

In furtherance of this concept of avoidance of the details of computing 

social utilities, let us add the following commentary. It is highly likely, 

whatever the selected functional form, that form will to exhibit much 

smoothness because calculating expectations, which requires RiemannStieltjes integration with respect to probability distributions, typically 

smoothes overall solutions. Therefore, absent nuclear war in previous 

periods of analysis, moderate changes in the underlying state of the world 

should generate, for each type of social utility ■ = N, 1, 2, S:

2.6.

U■

Q (new) ≈ U■Q (old) + ∑ j = 1

J ∂U■

Q (old)

∂ j
146 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

That is, we can approximate the new social utility as the previously 

calculated social utility plus the first total derivative with respect to 

various changes in the components of that derived social utility. Later 

in the paper, we shall impose our deep interiority criterion. We seek to 

achieve strategic deterrence. When we establish conditions under 

which no nuclear war proves to be the optimal bilateral solution to 

the game, we demand that the players jointly find themselves nowhere near any boundary at which they might optimally switch to 

some alternative solution. Our goal is to establish strategic deterrence 

as the unambiguous mutual choice of both parties and to avoid the 

possibility that war occurs, for example, through misspecification of 

the incentives of one nation or the other. Under this restriction, approximate equality 2.6 can be employed to argue that—without significant changes to underlying values of factors determining social 

utility—we should remain deeply interior to the region in which not 

carrying out a first strike is optimal.

Implications of the New Model—

Nash Equilibrium in Pure Strategies

Direct comparisons within the payoff matrix presented in table 8.2 

allow us to specify four different Nash equilibria in pure strategies that 

correspond to the four cells in that matrix. To examine how these work, 

let us emphasize the cell that generates greatest social desirability—that 

in which no nuclear war breaks out and mutual strategic deterrence 

holds. That is the upper left-hand cell.

For Nash equilibrium in pure strategies, we maintain that (1) holding nation X’s behavior fixed, nation Q has no incentive to move to a 

first strike; and (2) holding nation Q’s behavior fixed, X likewise has no 

incentive to move to a first strike. Under the conditional for (1), we lie 

in the first action/payoff column of the matrix (i.e., nation X waits). 

And for Q to remain in the upper left-hand cell, that nation prefers the 

social utility of that cell to what it they would obtain if it they were to 

move to the lower left-hand cell in a first strike. That requirement is 

simple, namely, UN

Q ≥ U1Q. Because of the symmetry of the problem, X 

is playing in the first action/payoff row of the matrix and must simply 

prefer not to move from the upper left-hand cell to the upper righthand cell. The requirement is entirely analogous to what was required 
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 147

for nation Q, namely, UN

X ≥ U1X. In short, we can describe the first 

possible equilibrium in pure strategies as

Pure Strategy Equilibrium (PSE) 1—mutual strategic deterrence 

where neither side carries out a first strike:

(pQ, pX) = (0, 0), 3.1a,

characterized by the conditions:

UN Q ≥ U1

Q and UNX ≥ U1X 3.2a.

Among the various equilibria available for consideration, PSE 1 

will be of greatest natural interest to us, for it corresponds to the condition in which strategic deterrence mutually occurs; neither side is 

motivated to carry out a first strike. The characterization conditions 

are symmetric. For each player, if the opponent has no intent of attacking, it is also better not to attack.

Three other equilibria in pure strategies arise through analogous 

argument:

PSE 2—nation Q carries out first strike while nation X chooses to wait:

(pQ, pX) = (1, 0) 3.1b,

characterized by the conditions:

UN Q < U1

Q and U2X ≥ USX 3.2b.

PSE 3—nation X carries out first strike, while nation Q chooses to 

wait:

(pQ, pX) = (0, 1) 3.1c,

characterized by:

U2

Q ≥ USQ and UNX < U1X 3.2c,

and PSE 4–both sides simultaneously carry out first strikes:

(pQ, pX) = (1, 1) 3.1d,

characterized by the conditions:
148 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

U2

Q < USQ and U2X < USX 3.2d.

Possibility PSE 2 also piques our interest. It tells us something crucial to understanding strategic deterrence—the strategic deterrence of 

nation X is no guarantee of nation Q’s strategic deterrence. Despite its 

own good intentions, nation Q is not deterred by the mere fact that nation 

X does not intend to attack. Stronger conditions are required, and it is 

possible that nation X might seek to avoid nuclear war, while nation Q 

initiates it. The model would be incomplete to assume that, if nation X 

wants no nuclear war, nation Q will agree. Later, we shall take up the 

task of interpreting the criteria presented in expression 3.2a and how 

they relate to traditional thinking concerning strategic deterrence.

Putting equilibrium PSE 3 into practical terms, it corresponds to 

the greatest traditional concern among US strategists, namely, that 

the Russians, nation X, will wish to carry out a first strike and that 

American, nation Q, forces will choose only to retaliate with a second 

strike.13 It is, perhaps, more than a bit odd that it technically dualizes 

equilibrium PSE 2, seemingly easily dismissed in traditional American thinking about strategic deterrence. They are two sides of the 

same coin. Conditions for seeking/avoiding first-strike attacks are 

merely flipped from one nation to the other.14

In contrast, PSE 4 serves as the dual of our mutual strategic deterrence equilibrium. Here, both players are motivated to carry out a first 

strike and do so simultaneously. Note, however, that these decisions are 

taken because each nation finds that choice optimal from the perspective of societal payoffs, not from observation of the opponent’s launch. 

Retaliation for a first strike—that might be associated with “launch on 

warning”—falls into the categories PSE2 and PSE 3.

Summarizing our conclusions to this point, all four explicit equilibria in pure strategies seem possible when specific conditions justify 

them, but obviously all of those conditions cannot be valid at the 

same time. One nation can choose to attack or to wait, while its opponent can choose to attack or to wait. Simultaneous first strikes are 

not inevitable. Rather, the governing principles deriving from differing Nash equilibria in pure strategies are the conditions 3.2a–d.
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 149

Implications of the New Model—Nash Equilibrium in 

Mixed Strategies

To generalize these considerations to mixed strategy equilibria we 

must lay out a pair of decision criteria for the Q and X players. Each 

seeks to maximize his or her expected payoff given a probability distribution assessment for the other. The optimization criteria can thus 

be expressed as computed expected social utilities with the opponent’s distributional choice assumed to be established while one’s 

own choice is optimized. 

First, Q optimization—for a set value15 pX Є (0,1), choose pQ so 

as to maximize:

E{Payo to Q| px}

= Pr{Q Waits| px

} E {Payo to Q|Q Waits, px}

+ Pr{Q Attacks| px

} E {Payo to Q|Q Attacks, px}

There is nothing surprising going on to this point in the analysis. We 

are merely expanding conditionally upon whether player Q chooses 

to wait or to carry out an attack.

= (1 − pQ) {(1 − pX) UN

Q + pX U2Q}

+ pQ {(1 − pX) U1

Q + pX USQ }

At the next stage, some surprises occur. The conditional expectation collapses. Why? Quantity pX is “in the mind’s eye” of player Q, 

rather than being an absolute quantity. That is, it is a probability assessment made by player Q. So we have simplified. He will choose a 

probability contingent upon that set so as to optimize his expected 

social utility.
150 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

= {(1 − pX) UN

Q + pX U2Q}

+ pQ {(1 − pX) (U1

Q − UNQ) + pX (USQ − U2Q)} 4.1a.

Note, of course, that the first expression in the final result for 4.1a is 

constant—given the assumption of fixed behavior for the opponent. 

Therefore, we find that optimization depends only on the second 

component. Furthermore, the overall expression is purely linear in 

the choice of optimal probability choice pQ, where the slope is the 

multiplier term inside curly brackets.

The situation is as depicted in figure 8.1, where we find either a 

rising line (attack, i.e., carry out first strike) or falling line (wait). The 

third possibility is perfect indifference among choices for the probability for nation Q’s attack; therefore, only two realistic possibilities 

discussed above arise. Given the choice of nation X for their probability 

of carrying out a first strike, Q will necessarily respond with either 

pQ = 0 or pQ = 1. That is, they will turn to a pure strategy, with certainty 

either to carry out a first strike or to wait.

p 0 1 US

(1-p

RF

) UN

US

+ p

RF

U2

US

(1-p

RF

) U1

US

+ p

RF

US

US

∆ = (1-p

RF

) (U1

US

– UN

US

)

+ p

RF

(US

US

- U2

US

) > 0

(1-p

RF

) U1

US

+ p

RF

US

US

∆ = (1-p

RF

) (U1

US

– UN

US

)

+ p

RF

(US

US

- U2

US

) < 0

Attack

Wait

Figure 8.1. Depiction of optimization of the linear function for first strike

Second, Nation X optimization—or fixed16 pQ∈(0,1), nation X 

must be expected to choose pX so as to maximize:
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 151

E{Payo to X| pQ}

= Pr{X Waits| pQ} E {Payo to X|X Waits, pQ}

 + Pr{X Attacks| pQ} E {Payo to X|X Attacks, pQ}

= (1 − pX) {(1 − pQ) UN

X + pQ U2X}

 + pX {(1 − pQ) U1

X + pQ USX }

= {(1 − pQ) UN

X + pQ U2X}

+ pX {(1 − pQ) (U1

X − UNX) + pQ (USX − U2X)} 4.1b.

Analysis of this expression is entirely analogous to that of 4.1a. The 

expression is linear in the choice of the probability of conducting a 

first-strike attack. The solution must lie at pX = 0 or at pX= 1, depending upon the sign of the slope multiplier. 

We can now use the inevitability of pure strategy equilibrium to 

extend the characterization of the equilibria identified in the preceding section. We have the following result.

Theorem 4.1. Strong Characterization of Mixed Equilibria (i.e., 

Sufficient Conditions) 

(0, 0) if U1

Q ≤ UN Q and USQ ≤ U2Q

and U1

X ≤ UNX and USX ≤ U2X

(1, 1) if U1

Q > UN Q and USQ > U2Q

and U1

X > UNX and USX > U2X

(1, 0) if U1

Q > UN Q and USQ > U2Q

and U1

X ≤ UNX and USX ≤ U2X

(0, 1) if U1

Q ≤ UN Q and USQ ≤ U2Q

and U1

X > UNX and USX > U2X

(pQ, pX) =

 

 4.2.
152 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

On the right-hand side of equation 4.2, each possible conclusion is 

associated with two pairs of conditions. The first pair guarantees the 

sign of the slope in the decision making 4.1a for nation Q, and the 

second pair guarantees the sign of the slope for nation X’s decision 

making 4.1b—QED.

We have called Theorem 4.1 a “strong characterization” because 

the conditions compel the sign of the slope. Clearly, these conditions 

can prove to be overkill requirements, since each slope’s sign being 

positive or negative can be fulfilled if only one element from each 

pair holds. The strong characterization is sufficient but need not be 

necessary. We can establish it through the following alternative.

Theorem 4.2. Weak Characterization of Mixed Equilibria (i.e., 

Necessary Conditions)

(0, 0) only if [U1

Q ≤ UN Q or USQ ≤ U2Q ]

and [U1

X ≤ UN X or USX ≤ U2X ]

(1, 1) only if [U1

Q > UN Q or USQ > U2Q ]

and [U1

X > UN X or USX > U2X ]

(1, 0) only if [U1

Q > UN Q or USQ > U2Q ]

and [U1

X ≤ UN X or USX ≤ U2X ]

(0, 1) only if [U1

Q ≤ UN Q or USQ ≤ U2Q ]

and [U1

X > UN X or USX > U2X ]

(pQ, pX) =

4.3.

Of course, it is possible that—if one condition from a pair holds but 

the other does not—the slope parameter could take the sign opposite 

to that desired for a particular outcome of probability pair. Then, the 

desired conclusion would not follow. That is, the conditions stated in 

equation 4.3 are necessary but not sufficient to guide us to a solution.

Another interpretation of Theorem 4.1 comes in terms of war or 

peace—in terms of the success or failure of strategic deterrence. Peace 

and strategic deterrence are characterized by (pQ, pX) = (0, 0). So we 

can pull out those results from the theorem:
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 153

Corollary 4.3. Characterizations of Peace/Strategic Deterrence

1. Sufficient conditions for nation Q not to carry out a first strike are:

 4.4a.

2. A necessary condition for nation Q not to carry out a first strike 

is that either the left-hand side or right-hand side inequality in 

4.4a hold.

3. Sufficient conditions for nation X not to carry out a first strike 

are:

UN

X − U1X ≥ 0 ≥ USX 

− U2

X 4.4b.

4. A necessary condition for nation X not to carry out a first strike 

is that either the left-hand side or right-hand side inequality in 

4.4b hold.

5. Sufficient conditions for no strategic nuclear war to break out 

are 4.4a and 4.4b.

6. Necessary conditions for no strategic nuclear war to break out 

are that at least one inequality from each of 4.4a and 4.4b hold.

Extending, we can use Corollary 4.3 to define sufficient or necessary 

conditions to determine the behavior of each nation in going to war.

Corollary 4.4. Characterizations of War/Failure of Strategic 

Deterrence

1. Sufficient conditions for nation Q to carry out a first strike are 

the violation of both inequalities from 4.4a.

2. A necessary condition for nation Q to carry out a first strike is 

the violation of least one of the inequalities in 4.4a.

3. Sufficient conditions for nation X to carry out a first strike are 

the violation of both inequalities from 4.4b.

4. A necessary condition for nation X to carry out a first strike is 

the violation of at least one of the inequalities in 4.4b.

5. Sufficient conditions for a strategic nuclear war are 1 or 3 from 

this corollary.

UN Q − U1

Q ≥ 0 ≥ USQ 

− U2

Q
154 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

6. Necessary conditions for a strategic nuclear war are 2 or 4 from 

this corollary.

It is also possible to take Corollary 4.3 in a different direction by 

interweaving it with pure strategy equilibrium results that we investigated in the previous section. Once we have conditions strong enough 

to guarantee that one side will wait rather than pursue a first strike, it 

suffices for the other side to use that information in its own decision 

making via 3.2a. 

Corollary 4.5. “Slightly Weaker Characterization of Peace/

Strategic Deterrence”

1. Sufficient conditions for no strategic nuclear war to break out 

are 4.4a and UN

X ≥ U1 X 4.5a.

2. Alternative sufficient conditions for no strategic nuclear war to 

break out are 4.4b and UN Q ≥ U1

Q 4.5b.

Analysis of Relationships to Traditional Concepts of Strategic 

Deterrence

Up to this point we have

• noted comparable modeling in the existing research literature, 

criticized certain details of that modeling, and altered it;

• investigated implications of the new model for Nash equilibrium 

in pure strategies (for each party to carry out first strike or wait); 

• investigated implications of the new model for Nash equilibrium in mixed strategies with probabilities stated over choice to 

first strike or to wait; 

• and concluded that the most critical derived inequalities constitute sufficient conditions or necessary conditions to eliminate 

the possibility of nuclear war.

We now wish to relate these conclusions to some of the fundamental/

traditional concepts of strategic deterrence: mutually assured destruction (MAD), second-strike capability (SSC), and crisis stability/

first-strike stability (CS/FSS).

To achieve these goals requires us to specify the older concepts in 

terms of the elements of our model. On one hand, that is difficult and 
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 155

might lead to some argument. On the other, we are thereby “operationalizing” these alternative concepts in terms of our own variables. We 

leave open to others who might disagree the opportunity to conduct 

alternative operationalizations and to investigate the consequences.

MAD contends that, no matter what other outcomes are examined,17

payoffs to each party are far, far worse than from no war at all.

In the context of our model, for player Q, this renders three constraints:

UN

Q » U1Q 5.1a.

The social utility incurred for nation Q when neither side launches 

a first strike is far greater than (expressed by the symbol “»”) the social 

utility the nation attains when only nation Q (but not nation X) 

launches a first strike:

UN

Q » U2Q 5.1b

and

UN

Q » USQ 5.1c.

For nation X, MAD requires that the very best results are obtainable 

when no nuclear war occurs. Thus, we have the symmetric requirements:

UN

X » U1X 5.2a,

UN

X » U2X 5.2b,

and

UN

X » USX 5.2c.

SSC is a more modern concept that seems more commonly advocated 

by many of our colleagues as wholly sufficient to sustain strategic nuclear 

deterrence.18 Here, the focus concentrates on the ability to retaliate, to 

respond to an initial attack. In terms of the elements of our model, this 

merely requires a strict subset of the requirements stated above for MAD, 

namely, 5.1a, nation Q is far worse off as a first-striker than under no 

nuclear war, and 5.2a, likewise for nation X.19

Thus, there is much overlap in our operationalization of the two 

concepts. In fact, as we see it, MAD is a strict subset of SSC—in having 

requirements that are more restrictive. Put otherwise, MAD is a sufficient condition for SSC, and SSC is a necessary condition for MAD as 

well. However, because MAD requires the additional conditions 5.1b, 

5.1c, 5.2b, and 5.2c beyond those required for SSC, MAD is typically 

much more demanding a condition than is SSC. Clearly, the concepts 
156 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

are not equivalent, and the conditions under which SSC holds are typically more general than are the conditions that generate MAD.

None of the conditions 5.1b, 5.1c, 5.2b, or 5.2c ever appeared among 

any of our necessary or sufficient conditions to prevent or to induce a 

nuclear war. We must regard them as irrelevant to our investigation.

In contrast, it is where MAD and SSC coincide, namely in the conditions specific to SSC, that we relate to our earlier results. In fact, 

5.1a and 5.2a stand as strong forms of the joint inequalities 3.2a that 

served as necessary and sufficient conditions for PSE 1 in which no 

nuclear war occurred. Likewise, they serve as strong forms of some of 

the alternative inequalities appearing in 4.3 that governed the behavior 

of the counterparties to no first strike in theorem 4.2.

But why should we bother with inequalities that are hugely satisfied, 

when even weak inequality would prove satisfactory? To understand 

this problem, it is undoubtedly best to return to expressions 4.1a and 

4.1b, which served as the genesis of all of our necessary or sufficient 

conditions to prevent a nuclear war from breaking out. By enforcing 

5.1a and 5.2a, we are likely to enforce that the signs of the slopes in 

4.1a and 4.1b are both negative—unless, of course, pX ≈ 1 or pQ ≈ 1.

Let us here speculate that this conclusion held between America 

(A) and the Soviet Union/the Russian Federation (RF) for the many 

decades of the Cold War and in its aftermath. That is, we speculate 

that, even when positive, the quantities US

A – U2A and USRF – U2RF

were both of a comparatively tiny magnitude when compared to UN

A

– U1

A and UNRF – U1RF. Consequently, the 4.1a and 4.1b precursors to 

our sufficient conditions presented in Theorem 4.1 would have been 

fulfilled, and no nuclear war would have broken out (consistent with 

institutional evidence).

However, conditions have changed motivated by considerations 

not directly related to maintaining nuclear stability such as

• reducing the total number of nuclear weapons,

• limiting flexibility in force-structure decisions,

• eliminating certain classes of weapons,

• dropping inventories of back-up warheads and weapons,

• choosing not to test or to modernize nuclear weapons systems, 

and

• reducing capabilities of defense against nuclear weaponry.
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 157

We may no longer be able to guarantee that

UN Q − U1

Q » USQ − U2Q

5.3a.

and

UN

X − U1X » USX − U2X

5.3b.

This may erode optimality of the mutual decisions not to initiate a 

nuclear war in mutual assurance of the ability to carry out a first strike. 

Less is not just less; less is different—between the two peer adversaries, shrinking the number of warheads in parallel does not retain 

the inherent nature of strategic deterrence. In fact, it alters the environment and the decision calculus each side will apply within that 

environment. Thus, one effect of smaller strategic nuclear arsenals is 

crucial—strategic deterrence may fail. We need to exert significant 

intellectual efforts to assure that with smaller arsenals, especially, this 

conclusion is not met so nuclear war will never occur. The second effect 

is quite a bit subtler. As we perform these analyses, we must be prepared to do so in a sophisticated manner because the essential nature 

of the problem is likely to have changed.

With this possible weakening of a previously self-enforcing peace, 

it is necessary, instead, to ask how to enforce strict negativity of the 

slope parameters in 4.1a and 4.1b into the future, irrespective of the 

selections of pQ and pX. That is how the conditions provided in theorems 

4.1 and 4.2 and their Corollaries 4.3 and 4.4 enlighten us. Earlier, we 

declared that conditions 5.1a–c and 5.2a–c define MAD and conditions 5.1a and 6.2a define SSC. All of those conditions were embedded within the basic data of the model. None relied upon assessments 

of probabilities over behavior by the counterparties.

In making an assessment of what FSS means in the context of our 

model, we shall rely upon the same sort of restriction. Therefore, we 

define FSS, respectively, for nation Q and for nation X, to be inequalities 4.4a and 4.4b. Each pair is sufficient to guarantee that the specific 

nation governed by those inequalities will find it to be a dominant 

strategy not to carry out a first strike. According to Corollary 4.5, it is 

easy to see that mutual FSS is somewhat more than is needed to fulfill 

either of the sufficient conditions found in Corollary 4.3. That is, mutual 

FSS is amply sufficient for no nuclear war.
158 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Nevertheless, it might be difficult to enforce this standard without 

turning to the “overkill” requirements imposed in traditional analyses—

only when we have strong solutions, as in the following extensions to 

4.3a–b, will we feel comfort that strategic deterrence is actually in 

place:

UN

Q – U1Q » 0 » USQ – U2Q 5.4a

and

UN

X – U1X » 0 » USX – U2X, 5.4b.

These we can refer to as strong mutual FSS.

In our modern world of success in reducing arsenal sizes, strong 

mutual FSS becomes our analytical standard of choice to achieve 

strategic nuclear deterrence. Modern strategic deterrence requires us 

to turn toward more stringent standards that induce nations not to 

carry out a first strike rather than merely to be fearful of the consequences of retaliation. In order to attain this higher standard, it is 

necessary to examine explicit policy options that will save us from 

nuclear war.

Practical Methods for Achieving Strategic Deterrence

Cold War methods run counter to modern purposes. In the earlier 

era we could rely upon the adequacy of 5.1a and 5.2a. Nuclear powers 

now need to achieve 5.4a and 5.4b. To this point in the paper, we have 

demonstrated “Why?” The remaining question is “How?” In this section we suggest a number of propositions for further refinement and 

analysis through hypothesis testing and empirical solution. We do 

not propose any particular insight below as strategic policy or practice until the proper analyses can be conducted.

The left-hand-side inequalities in 5.4a and 5.4b merely reiterate 

SSC and, by extension, stand as components of MAD. Therefore, we 

need to ask, “what were the underpinnings of those conditions?” And 

how can we reinforce them in contemporary and future situations—

as arsenals decline through continuing treaty obligations and through 

unilateral actions? The essence of our answer is that the first striker 

must be made much worse off carrying out a first strike and receiving 

a retaliatory second strike than if no nuclear attacks occurred. A sequence of conditions is necessary for this conclusion.
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 159

1. The attacked nation possesses forces that display “survivability.” 

A sufficient portion of the attacked nation’s total force will live 

beyond the initial onslaught as to be able to threaten the assets 

of the first striker.

2. The attacked nation possesses weaponry among its survivable 

forces that can influence an attacker’s calculation of social utility.

3. The attacked nation possesses an effective plan for retaliation. 

Targeting empty silos is undoubtedly inadequate; SSC must focus 

on punishing the first striker to be able to deter. 

4. The attacked nation possesses a perceived willingness to retaliate across a spectrum of attacks.

All of those statements must be credible to achieve modern strategic 

nuclear deterrence.

How do we guarantee the fulfillment of right-hand side inequalities in 5.4a and 5.4b? That is none too easy. We seek to establish heuristic conditions under which a nation is far better off retaliating in a 

second strike rather than carrying out a simultaneous first strike. Perhaps we could invoke some sort of social or legal justification—“we 

believe that we are justified in retaliating to an attack, rather than 

carrying out a first strike or a simultaneous strike with our opponent.” It is doubtful whether such “feelings based” analysis would justify choices to attack or to seek to avoid war.

Let us consider the conditions of responding to an unprovoked 

attack, targeting in first and second strikes, and defense against first 

and second strikes.

Effective Response to Unprovoked Attack

For “waiting” to be optimal, when the other side might attack, each 

side must possess the ability to respond to such an attack. Therefore, 

each side must continue to maintain its strategic assets—unilateral 

strategic disarmament is unacceptable—and those assets must display survivability. This need not be a property of individual systems 

but rather the portfolio of strategic weapons systems put into place.

• As an example of system-wide survivability, think of two critical 

components of the traditional US triad: intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM) and submarine launched ballistic missiles 

(SSBN). Many analysts contend that the latter are survivable, 
160 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

while the former are not. However, SSBN survivability is actually ensured by the missile fields serving as a sink for the massive numbers of nuclear weapons that a comparably nucleararmed opponent would need to employ in an attack on ICBMs. 

The opponent’s weapons therefore do not remain available to 

hunt for submarines at sea. In short, survivability of the response force arises through interaction capabilities provided 

through joint forces.

• Additional examples of generating survivability include deploying mobile ICBMs, hardening ICBM silos, and dispersing aircraft. Typically, survivability is enhanced simply by diversifying 

strategic nuclear forces among asset classes so as to complicate 

the attacker’s problem.

Differential Targeting in First and Second Strikes 

A nation that chooses to pursue a first strike is likely to try to destroy the strategic nuclear forces of its opponent––to conduct primarily a force-on-force strike. That is a rational position, for it tries to 

minimize the adversary’s response capability. Nevertheless, it exposes 

the initial attacker to devastating retaliation by surviving assets. Because the first striker has used his nuclear warfare assets,20 a retaliatory attack will naturally target the value assets of the first striker 

rather than empty silos, mobile ICBM garrisons, bomber bases, and 

submarine bases. This interpretation greatly helps to reinforce the 

no-nuclear-war equilibrium. Any societal gain from the first striker’s 

destroying much of the strategic nuclear warfare capabilities of the 

opponent will be far outweighed by societal losses from a counterattack on the first striker’s cities, their populations, and economically 

productive assets, even with arsenal sizes smaller than needed for assured destruction.

Differential Defense against First and Second Strikes

It is reasonable for each nation to establish conditions inducing 

and supporting differential targeting by its opponent (i.e., first strike 

force-on-force; second strike force-on-value).21

• Provide knowledge regarding some of the nuclear forces—but 

not enough to aid targeting of the intended survivable elements 

of the force.
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 161

• Provide protection aimed at guarding the security of second strike 

assets. Limit ballistic missile defenses (BMD) to value assets such 

as cities. Provide interceptors to deter bomber strikes on cities.

• Do not use BMD or interceptors to protect general strategic 

nuclear forces—other than those intended to fall into the survivable category.22

The preceding thoughts suggest that the following alternatives offer 

methods to control the problem of the second set of inequalities.

• Target military facilities with any first strike. Try to make it clear 

to the opponent that this is the intent and practice. Try to negotiate arms control treaties that reinforce this form of targeting.

• Allow military facilities to be targetable for a first strike. Make 

known the locations of ICBM silos, bomber bases, and SSBN bases. 

Do not strongly defend those facilities from nuclear attacks.

• To whatever extent possible, protect nonnuclear forces from 

strategic strikes. Provide interceptors to eliminate bomber 

strikes on cities. Keep their bases primarily coastal or along major 

rivers where the greatest cities are located. Introduce ballistic 

missile defense to protect nonmilitary assets such as cities.

• Retain survivable strategic nuclear forces that can retaliate during 

a second strike. This requirement might be quite problematic. 

Some nations seem to have no truly survivable strategic nuclear 

assets. This situation is exceptionally volatile, as such states must 

remain constantly ready to “use or lose” their nuclear deterrent.

• Finally, it is important to develop credible mechanisms for implementation of this policy, so that it cannot be quickly undone 

during the course of wartime.

Many of these methods will be seen as ugly components of strategic 

nuclear war, and they are precisely intended to be. When a player is 

forced to move to a second strike scenario, she or he should be willing 

to do so and prepared to make that strike as painful as possible for the 

initial attacker. Doing so reinforces the no-nuclear-war equilibrium.
162 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Summary

It is perhaps peculiar that this document seems to have produced 

fairly clean-lined mathematical foundations in an area of theory that 

has been held in dispute for three generations. Undoubtedly, part of 

this clarity derives from the simplicity of Ellsberg’s model and our 

extension of it. We encourage researchers to investigate more elaborate models to determine the extent to which these conclusions remain or collapse in more complex modern settings. We can summarize the most important of these results as guaranteeing no first strike 

provided that

• each side would prefer no nuclear war to being the unique initiator of such a war, and

• each side would prefer to carry out a second strike in retaliation for 

a first strike against it than to be the joint initiator of such a war.

These conditions can be encouraged, if not determined, through 

appropriate choices of forces, military policies, and societal organization. That is, it is often possible to deter strategic nuclear war between 

nations.

As we move to the modern era of post–Cold War nuclear war 

threats, we find that crisis stability/first-strike stability moves to the 

forefront as the concept for strategic deterrence. CS/FSS is codified in 

the two conditions identified in the preceding paragraph.

Our interpretation of mutually assured destruction and second 

strike capability might have proven adequate to deter nuclear war in 

the era of huge nuclear stockpiles and massive investment in weapons 

delivery systems. That is because they strongly fulfill our first requirement, namely, preference for no nuclear war over being a first striker. 

Limitations arising from ongoing and future strategic arms reduction 

treaties make those conditions insufficient to achieve strategic deterrence in the twenty-first century, which has brought the crisis stability/first-strike stability requirements to the fore.

Notes

1. Compare Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report.

2. See, for instance, Wohlstetter, “Sin and Games in America.”

3. Neumann and Morgenstern, Theory of Games and Economic Behavior.
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 163

4. See, for example, Kahn, On Thermonuclear War; Schelling, Strategy of Conflict; 

and Schelling, Arms and Influence. For an exceptional history of theories of strategic 

deterrence, see Delpech, Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century.

5. Ellsberg, “The Crude Analysis of Strategy Choices.”

6. A narrower application, and indicative of approaches when arsenal sizes were 

high, is the formulation by Kent, Thaler, and their colleagues, who focus on an equivalent single-shot game whose payoffs are replaced by “costs,” presumably to the strategic forces that are targeted in an attack. Compare Kent, DeValt, and Thaler, Calculus of First-Strike Stability; Kent and Thaler, First-Strike Stability; and Kent and Thaler, 

First-Strike Stability and Strategic Defenses. Because our analysis agrees with Ellsberg 

in identifying social utility as the appropriate payoff and in using a normal form 

matrix to structure those payoffs, we do not further investigate these alternatives and 

similar work.

7. Brodie, The Anatomy of Deterrence, 20 and following. However, Brodie recognized that this policy, while being ex ante optimal in deterring “nuclear total war,” 

might not be ex post rational. For example, a second strike against cities and other 

value assets would be likely to incur a third strike against comparable assets of the 

second striker. Thus, such a response might be forgone. In fact, Delpech, Nuclear 

Deterrence, 40, notes that Secretary of Defense McNamara tried unsuccessfully to get 

the Soviets to agree to a mutual policy of “city avoidance.”

8. Likewise, some readers might find themselves put off by the fact that we limit 

attention to completion of Ellsberg’s single-shot game, rather than to show how behavior evolves with time. In an unpublished appendix, the authors demonstrate that 

the values appearing in table 8.2 are consistent as a single-shot roll-up for an otherwise infinite-period game.

9. Frankly, for many paired states, it may be regarded as a dangerous variant. 

False interpretations of signals could lead to the conclusion that a nation is under 

attack and should launch its weaponry in a “use it or lose it” scenario. Because of the 

danger of false positive measurements, the United States has sought to forbid launch 

on warning. The Russians, possessing less sophisticated detection and interpretation 

systems, have nonetheless accepted the possibility of launch on warning. Nevertheless, there have been several historical examples in which the Russians faced the 

possibility of incoming weaponry but chose not to counterlaunch. For other nations 

whose nuclear-armed adversaries lie on or near their borders, the idea of “launch on 

warning” is not within the realm of physical capability.

10. Each side may target the opponent’s nuclear forces that create unintended 

destruction of value assets. Alternatively, a target considered by an attacker to be a 

component of the nuclear forces might be considered by the attacked as a value asset. 

Likewise, opponents may have different perceptions as to whether nuclear employments to create a high-altitude electromagnetic pulse are nuclear attacks.

11. Compare the discussions of civil defense and its consequences for anticipated 

deaths in the population and for destruction of economically productive assets in 

Kahn, lecture 1, “The Nature and Feasibility of Thermonuclear War”; and chapter 2, 

“Will the Survivors Envy the Dead?” in his On Thermonuclear War.

12. Defining and analyzing how actors would determine social utility is external 

to the analysis within this paper.
164 │ MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

13. Indeed, there is evidence that for quite some time into the Cold War, Soviet 

doctrine called for a nuclear-war-winning approach. See, for example, Wohlstetter, 

The Delicate Balance of Terror; or Battilega, “Soviet Views of Nuclear Warfare.”

14. Keep in mind that the payoffs will not be mirror-image because they are 

wholly dependent on the social utility calculation by each state.

15. Note that the calculations are valid across the open interval px Є (0,1). At the 

boundaries of that interval, we return to conditions of pure strategy equilibrium 

(PSE) for the X player, which were tacitly investigated in the preceding section. To 

make the examination complete, in this footnote we consider the pure strategies for 

the X player, while allowing player Q to indulge in mixed strategy equilibrium. For 

pX = 0, choose pQ so as to maximize:

4.1a1.

Because of linearity in pQ, this expression is necessarily maximized at either pQ = 0 

(and we have player Q’s payoff for pure strategy equilibrium PSE 1, or at pQ = 1 (and 

we have his payoff for PSE 2). Similarly, for pX = 1, choose pQ so as to maximize:

4.1a2.

Once again, we encounter linearity in pQ, so that this expression is necessarily 

maximized at either pQ = 0 and we have player Q’s payoff for pure PSE 3 or at pQ = 1 

and we have his payoff for PSE 4.

16. Analogously to the earlier footnote, the problem simplifies if we lie at either 

boundary of the valid region for probability assessments. The solutions will prove, 

once again, to be linear in the assignment of pX. And the payoffs to the X player will 

correspond to those of PSEs 1 through 4, respectively.

17. Although mutually assured destruction appears to hold a prominent position 

in contemporaneous thinking about Cold War strategic deterrence, Delpech, Nuclear 

Deterrence, 35, contends to the contrary that it only came into vogue about 1964 and 
MATHEMATICAL FOUNDATIONS OF STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 165

even then was rejected as an acronym by Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, 

who thought it to be insane as a concept, and rejected as a policy by Albert Wohlstetter, 

who found it a feeble justification for mass murder. Wohlstetter, “How Much Is 

Enough?”

18. Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission, Modernizing U.S. Nuclear 

Strategy, 7–8. 

19. While conditions 4.5a and 4.5b are necessary, we are distrustful of such conditions as they may be ambiguously implemented. The deep interiority we seek 

comes by satisfying conditions 5.1a and 5.1b.

20. Our extension of the Ellsberg model continues the assumption of a singlestrike capability for each opponent. Thus, there is no opportunity to shoot first at 

some assets while holding back part of the force. This simplicity induces our ability 

to generate clean-lined policy implications.

21. We even anticipate that this might occur jointly. Conditions can be established through treaty negotiations and reinforced through observation provided in 

the treaty and compelled through treaty penalties.

22. This may be one of the first arguments to contend that ballistic missile defense and other strategic defenses can be stabilizing rather than destabilizing. These 

recommendations provide for differential usage of strategic defenses that lie outside 

of contemporary policy and are novel.

SECTION 3

New Approaches To

Conventional Deterrence

Chapter 9

Deterring Rogues 

Modeling the Intent of Revolutionary State Actors

Gary Schaub Jr.

How should policy makers approach divining the intentions of 

revolutionary adversaries who may take actions that the United States 

wishes to deter? Revolutionary states are those that “consider the international order or the manner of legitimizing it oppressive. . . . The 

distinguishing feature of a revolutionary power is not that it feels 

threatened . . . but that nothing can reassure it.”1

 Such states aim to 

revise substantially the status quo, challenging those they perceive to 

threaten or oppress them, perhaps to the point of trying to overthrow 

the international order and reconstitute it along principles other than 

that of the sovereign state system.2

 Many have considered the Soviet 

Union and Iran as revolutionary states. How have their intentions 

been gauged? What policies have been proposed to deter them from 

their messianic missions?

The United States has addressed both states with a policy of deterrence in the service of containment. Although deterrence formed the 

core mission of the US military throughout the Cold War,3

 a great 

deal of deterrence theory and planning took place in a strategic and 

political vacuum based upon presumptions about the motives of Soviet and other adversaries. Capabilities analysis married to worstcase scenarios of what they could accomplish indicated adversary 

intent. Most believed that the success of deterrence in general or in 

any particular case was a function of American capabilities and willingness to use them in the event that deterrence failed. Whether 

something other than a reset of the relationship would happen if deterrence succeeded and the adversary’s intent was frustrated was 

rarely considered.

From a theoretical standpoint, deterrence links a demand that the 

adversary refrain from undertaking a particular action to a threat to 

use force if it does not comply. Deterrence places the adversary in a 

situation in which it has a choice of complying inaction or risking the 
170 │ DETERRING ROGUES

implementation of the deterrer’s threatened sanction. How the adversary generates expectations about the consequences of its alternatives—

the relative importance of these considerations and how they are 

combined to yield an estimate of consequences—has been the subject 

of wide and varied speculation.4

 These expectations are distilled into 

expected value calculations. Expected value calculations require that 

the costs and benefits of an outcome be discounted by the probability 

of its occurrence ([benefits – costs] x probability) and that the expected value of possible outcomes stemming from a single course of 

action be summed. In deterrence, the adversary compares the expected value of compliance and defiance. For a deterrence attempt to 

be successful, the deterrer’s threatened sanction must reduce the expected value of defiance to the degree that it is less than the expected 

value of compliance. The deterrer can do that by threatening to reduce the benefits of defiance or increase its costs. The former would 

constitute a denial threat while the latter would be a threat of punishment. And because the adversary will discount these threats by its 

assessment of the likelihood that the deterrer will implement them, 

the deterrer must convey these threats credibly.5

The Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DOJOC), a 

product of US Strategic Command and US Joint Forces Command, 

adopts this framework and, doing so, has improved the official conception of deterrence markedly.6

 It defines “deterrence operations [as 

those that] convince adversaries not to take actions that threaten US 

vital interests by means of decisive influence over their decision making. 

Decisive influence is achieved by credibly threatening to deny benefits and/or impose costs [if the undesirable action is taken], while 

encouraging restraint by convincing the actor that restraint will result 

in an acceptable outcome.”7

 The DOJOC thus takes an active view of 

deterrence operations: Achieving decisive influence over an adversary’s decision making requires deliberate action on the part of a joint 

force commander or other American policy makers. Such deterrence 

operations can include force projection, the deployment of active and 

passive defenses, global strike (nuclear, conventional, and nonkinetic), and strategic communication.8

The key to knowing when to practice deterrence is determining an 

actor’s intent. Patrick Morgan notes, “The intentions of opponents are 

notoriously difficult to fathom.”9

 This seems to be especially the case 

for revolutionary-oriented state actors. How do joint force commanders, those who populate the staffs of the US government, and 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 171

the elites upon whom they rely for subject-matter expertise determine adversary intent? Is there doctrinal guidance that military staffs 

rely upon to perform this key task? Are certain patterns of thought or 

interpretive lenses commonly employed by officers, civilian policy 

makers, or scholars? How have adversary intentions been discerned 

in key episodes in the past? Finally, how can the process of intent 

determination be improved?

There is little doctrinal guidance for determining adversary intent. 

What exists is contained in Joint Publication (JP) 2-0, Joint Intelligence.

10 This doctrine manual contains superficially useful sections, 

such as “Intelligence and the Levels of War,” “Intelligence and the 

Range of Military Operations,” “Prediction—(Accept the Risk of Predicting Adversary Intentions),” and “Intelligence Support during the 

Deterrence Phase.” Unfortunately, most of these sections are not 

helpful. Beyond exhorting “intelligence professionals” to “go beyond 

the identification of capabilities” and take the risk of predicting adversary intent and basing such forecasts on “solid analysis,” JP 2-0 is 

not particularly helpful in guiding such analysis.11 Indeed, by indicating that such “an intelligence product . . . usually reflects enemy capabilities and vulnerabilities,” the authors of this doctrine indirectly 

encourage substitution of capability analysis for intent analysis.12

While capabilities do suggest some general directions of intent—why 

invest in a particular capability if you are not going to use it?—they 

utterly fail to answer questions of the conditions under which such 

capabilities would be used. The military intelligence process, at the tactical or operational level of war, does not address these political issues.

Interpreting Intent: Two Frameworks

If joint military doctrine is not a helpful guide in determining adversary intent, how can operators structure this problem to solve it? 

Intelligence analysts operate in a complex environment and they, like 

human beings more generally, are unable to process all of the innumerable stimuli that they encounter. In this context, Roberta 

Wohlstetter usefully distinguished “between signals and noise. By the 

signal of an action is meant a sign, a clue, a piece of evidence that 

points to the action or to an adversary’s intention to undertake it, and 

by noise is meant the background of irrelevant or inconsistent signals, 

signs pointing in the wrong directions, that tend always to obscure 
172 │ DETERRING ROGUES

the signs pointing in the right way.”13 What Wohlstetter left unsaid 

was that noise and signals do not come clearly marked for the analysts as they sift through mountains of information. Rather, the analyst 

determines what is signal and what is noise.

This is a difficult task. Analysts suffer the same cognitive limits as 

everyone else, and therefore necessarily deal with “a dramatically 

simplified model of the buzzing, blooming confusion that constitutes 

the real world.”14 These simplified models of reality focus attention 

toward certain pieces of information and away from most others, and 

generally represent the “most significant chains of causes and consequences” as “short and simple.”15 These models allow analysts to discriminate between signals and noise. However, many models may 

adequately fit the data, and it is up to the analyst to determine which 

best explains the adversary’s intent.16

American scholars and policy makers have been apt to apply one 

of two models to comprehend the intentions of other international 

actors, be they regular states or revolutionary states. The first is the 

strategic intent model and the second is the internal logic model.

Each model posits that the actor is purposive: that it seeks to 

achieve a particular goal with each action. When working retrospectively, this presumption risks making either framework tautological, 

as “an imaginative analyst can construct an account of value-maximizing 

choice for any action or set of actions.”17 Tautology can be escaped, 

however, with the presumption that the preferences against which alternatives are considered are relatively stable. This allows an analyst 

to erect a set of principles that appear to guide the actor’s choices over 

time and across domains. These principles provide generic preferences for particular actors and allow some degree of operationalization of the model. They can be derived from “(1) propensities or personality traits or psychological tendencies of the nation or government, 

(2) values shared by the nation or government [or organization], or 

(3) special principles of action [that] change the ‘goals’ or narrow the 

‘alternatives’ and ‘consequences’ considered.”18

The strategic intent and internal logic models differ with regard to 

the problems that they believe an actor is attempting to solve by taking 

actions in the interstate arena. The strategic intent model presumes 

that the actor is solving an external problem while the internal logic 

model presumes that it is solving an internal one.
DETERRING ROGUES │ 173

The Strategic Intent Model

The strategic intent model presumes that state actors direct their 

behavior toward achieving political goals vis-à-vis external actors. It 

presumes that they desire to influence the decisions, behavior, and/or 

attitudes of these other actors and that they have chosen the most effective means available to them, as delimited by their capabilities and 

tendencies, to achieve this end. Whether they do so via coercion, inducement, or persuasion,19 using whatever power resources they have 

available, matters not. What does matter is that the impact on the 

external actor is of paramount concern to the adversary.

Thus the key variables determining the adversary’s intent to act are 

the costs of undertaking the action, the benefits that would accrue 

from successful action, and the costs and benefits of not acting. The 

strategic intent model is vague with regard to what factors determine 

costs and benefits of these two courses of action. Lawrence Freedman 

has argued that the costs of undertaking the action can be bifurcated 

into those costs associated with implementing the choice and those 

associated with enforcing it after the fact.20 The benefits of undertaking the action have not been given as much attention as the costs but 

would be composed of material benefits accrued, intangible benefits—

including prestige and reputation, among others—and the new opportunities made possible by successful conclusion of the action. The 

costs of inaction, or “restraint” in the parlance of the DOJOC, can be 

broken down into the international and domestic costs of foregoing 

action, including suffering the unwanted reactions of opponents in 

the near and far term, and the negative reactions of domestic audiences. The benefits of inaction or restraint have not been well considered in the literature either, but would include desirable international and domestic reactions—such as praise for being reasonable 

or a deescalation of tensions, or tangible benefits provided by those 

who did not favor action. Despite the obvious utility that considering 

domestic reactions to the choice made by the adversary’s leadership, 

the strategic intent model generally focuses upon externally generated costs and benefits.21

The Internal Logic Model

The internal logic model, on the other hand, presumes that actors 

are directing their activities inward, enhancing their support or the 

cohesion of the group, and that actions directed toward other actors—
174 │ DETERRING ROGUES

be they states or otherwise—are judged primarily by their internal 

effects rather than their external effects. Hence international political 

behavior is primarily a consequence of domestic (or internal) politics 

and may be more incidental than intended. “The idea that political 

elites often embark on adventurous foreign policies or even resort to 

war in order to distract popular attention away from internal social 

or economic problems and consolidate their own domestic political 

support is an old theme in the literature on international politics,” 

notes Jack Levy.22 Ned Lebow argues that states with weakening 

political systems, weakening political leaders, or elites engaged in a 

competition for power may “resort to the time-honored technique of 

attempting to offset discontent at home by diplomatic success 

abroad.”23 While success vis-à-vis external actors would certainly be 

welcomed, the cohesion within the group and support for the leadership generated by conflict abroad is the primary purpose of such actions.

The key variables within this framework are the internal or domestic 

groups whose support is required to allow the leadership to continue 

in office. After these have been identified, the relative ability of these 

groups to influence the leadership by providing benefits such as continued support or imposing costs such as removing leaders from 

power, how these audiences view the merits of the action to be undertaken (or not), and the relative ability of the leadership to substitute 

the support of one group for another must be assessed.24 Thus the 

internal logic framework requires substantial knowledge of the adversary beyond the leadership and its preferences, especially the leaders’ 

domestic political situation. A great deal of work has addressed the 

propensities of certain types of regimes to engage in external behavior 

to ameliorate internal dissension or promote internal cohesion in 

democratic states particularly.25 The manner of interpretation and 

use of deterrent threats with internal needs-driven external behavior 

has received attention from scholars such as Ned Lebow and Janice 

Stein, but their insights were not incorporated into the corpus of deterrence theory—to the detriment of our knowledge.26

This has been reflected in how analysts have inferred adversary 

intent. American policy makers, scholars, and analysts have relied 

upon these two frameworks of rational action to infer the intent of 

adversaries. They clearly direct attention toward different aspects of 

the adversary’s makeup, its capabilities, and particularly the hierarchy 

of its goals. Unsurprisingly, they often provide contradictory prescriptions with regard to how to approach an adversary and what to 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 175

do to influence its behavior. Two short examples of each model in 

action should make their differences clear.

Sources of Soviet Conduct

During the Cold War there was a grand debate between those who 

used the strategic intent model and those who used the internal logic 

model to infer Soviet behavior. Those who utilized the strategic intent 

model can be divided into those who saw Soviet motivations as an attempt to obtain security in an insecure environment and those who saw 

the Soviet Union (USSR) as an opportunistic yet traditional great power.

Strategic Intent

The first group saw the USSR operating in an environment in 

which it had real enemies and “a compulsion to overinsure against 

potential threats.”27 Soviet leaders inherited traditional Russian insecurities deriving from the lack of geographic barriers to invasions 

and a history of many such invasions married to “a politically xenophobic Communist ideology that interpreted the external world as 

implacable to the Socialist state.”28 In this conception, the Soviets 

were seen as overreacting to the influences of their environment and 

the behavior of external actors. George Kennan put it thusly: “What 

is called ‘Soviet behavior’ is, in far higher degree than seems to be 

realized in Washington, a reaction by the leaders of that country to 

the manner in which we ourselves treat them.”29 These analysts therefore argued that American actions should bear in mind Soviet sensitivities and that Washington should pursue policies that avoided unnecessary provocation. Indeed, they saw in this room for cooperation 

between the superpowers on the basis of overcoming common threats 

to their security, particularly those caused by the existence of nuclear 

weapons. Hence they advocated arms control to enhance strategic 

stability, nonproliferation efforts to halt the further spread of nuclear 

weapons, and greater transparency in the form of cooperative security arrangements—all designed to reassure the Soviets that their environment was less dangerous than they perceived and therefore influence its behavior.30

A related strategic view accepted that the Soviet Union received an 

inheritance from Tsarist Russia, particularly its self-image as a great 

power. According to Henry Kissinger, “Soviet policy is also, of course, 
176 │ DETERRING ROGUES

the inheritor of an ancient tradition of Russian nationalism. Over 

centuries the strange Russian empire has seeped outward . . . across 

endless plains where no geographical obstacle except distance set[s] a 

limit to human ambition, inundating what resisted, absorbing what 

yielded.”31 Its continued outward drive manifested itself in the Cold 

War era in traditional great-power fashion as continued consolidation of the empire, the control over the buffer states of Eastern Europe, 

preventing encirclement by hostile states, and reshaping the rules of 

the international system to its liking.32 In essence, those who held this 

view saw the mellowing of Bolshevik ideological fervor and decreasingly reluctant acceptance of the Soviet Union’s role in the established international system. But they did not infer that Soviet intentions were benign.

This conception emphasized the opportunistic nature of Soviet 

forays abroad. In his famous article, “The Sources of Soviet Conduct,” 

Kennan argued that Soviet “political action is a fluid stream which 

moves constantly, wherever it is permitted to move, toward a given 

goal. Its main concern is to make sure that it has filled every nook and 

cranny available to it in the basin of world power.”33 Kissinger agreed 

that “Soviet strategy [is] essentially one of ruthless opportunism.”34

In both variants of the strategic intent conception of Soviet motive, 

the Soviet leadership was composed of clearheaded and rational people 

operating in an environment where their behavior was determined 

by the expected value of available courses of action. They were therefore viewed as amenable to influence from external actors—amenable 

in the sense that they were not implacable or insensitive to the consequences of their actions deriving from the reactions of others. For 

this reason Kennan prescribed, “That the main element of any US 

policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term, patient 

but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”35

Kissinger likewise counseled, “To foreclose Soviet opportunities is 

thus the essence of the West’s responsibility. It is up to us to define the 

limits of Soviet aims.”36

This view became the basis for deterrence theory as it developed in 

the Cold War. The Soviet leaders might desire to take advantage of 

every opportunity to increase their security, material power, and/or 

political influence, but American strategists believed that they would 

not risk war with the United States to obtain these goals. They held 

this belief for two reasons. First, they knew that Soviet leaders—Stalin 

in particular—could count, and America’s military and economic 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 177

preponderance was obvious to all. Therefore, the Soviets would ultimately content themselves with consolidating that which they already 

had to avoid overt conflict with the United States. Second, communist ideology would reinforce this tendency. “The Kremlin is under 

no ideological compulsion to accomplish its purposes in a hurry,” 

argued Kennan. “It can be patient. It has no right to risk the existing 

achievements of the revolution for the sake of vain baubles of the 

future.”37 The Soviets believed that time was on their side and that 

tactical withdrawals were not indicative of a strategic retreat. Indeed, 

Kennan continued, “The Kremlin has no compunction about retreating in the face of superior force. . . . If it finds unassailable barriers in 

its path, it accepts these philosophically and accommodates itself to 

them.”38 Successful deterrence would depend upon this peculiar Soviet 

trait. As Bernard Brodie put it, “The saving grace of the Soviet philosophy so far as international relations are concerned is that, unlike 

the Nazi ideology, it incorporates within itself no time schedule. . . . The 

Soviet attitude appears to be much more opportunistic. The Soviets 

may be unshakably convinced that ultimately there must be war. . . . What 

we can do, however, is to persuade them each time the question arises 

that ‘The time is not yet!’ ”39

Internal Logic

Those who saw Soviet behavior through the prism of the internal 

logic model also began their analyses with George Kennan, but discounted the ability of external influences to affect Soviet calculations. 

In this view, dealing with internal solidarity was 

one of the most basic of the compulsions which came to act upon the Soviet 

regime: since capitalism no longer existed in Russia and since it could not be 

admitted that there could be serious or widespread opposition to the Kremlin 

springing spontaneously from the liberated masses under its authority, it became necessary to justify the retention of the dictatorship by stressing the 

menace of capitalism abroad. 

. . . [T]he stress laid in Moscow on the menace confronting Soviet society from 

the world outside its borders is founded not in the realities of foreign antagonism but in the necessity of explaining away the maintenance of dictatorial 

authority at home.40

Analysts such as Richard Pipes, Colin Gray, and William Odom 

continued this line of argument in the late 1970s and early 1980s.41

Their analyses suggested a characterization of “endemic militarism” 
178 │ DETERRING ROGUES

in the Soviet system of governance and that it was “as central to Soviet 

communism as the pursuit of profit is to societies with market-oriented 

economies.”42 Thus they saw the use of force abroad as a good in itself, 

one that enhanced the identity of the Soviet state. “According to this 

view,” wrote Douglas Seay, “the Soviet iteration of an implacable foreign 

threat results not from paranoia or from fear of invasion but rather 

from the regime’s self-interest, a foreign threat being an indispensable element in the regimentation of Soviet society.”43 Indeed, this 

posture had “the additional benefit of helping to legitimize an otherwise illegitimate regime.”44

The internal logic view of Soviet conduct implied that there was a 

fundamental impediment to changing their behavior. They could not 

be influenced on a case-by-case basis through coercive strategies, 

such as deterrence, or induced through acts of goodwill, or persuaded 

through diplomacy. Given that the sources of Soviet conduct were 

internal and endemic, only physical barriers to Soviet action would 

affect them. Only if they became physically unable to achieve their 

goals would they refrain from acting. Analysts who held this view 

argued strenuously for national missile defense as an alternative to an 

inherently unreliable deterrent,45 against strategic nuclear arms control, and were opposed to détente.

These analysts did believe that it was possible for the United States 

to achieve its objectives vis-à-vis the Soviet Union—once it collapsed. 

Kennan had argued that the internal contradictions of the Soviet system 

and the unbearable strain that it would place on its population could 

result in a collapse of the Soviet system. “Soviet Russia might be 

changed overnight from one of the strongest to one of the most pitiable of national societies,” he argued.46 But those who emphasized the 

internal logic of the Soviet system as the motivator behind its policies 

saw such a collapse as perhaps the only way to affect Soviet behavior. 

Pipes, for instance, argued, “The Soviet Union will be a partner in 

peace only when it makes peace with its own people. Only then will 

the danger of nuclear war recede.”47

Clearly, there were substantial differences in the views and prescriptions of analysts who utilized the strategic intent model to infer 

Soviet intentions and those who used the internal logic model. These 

views helped shape the debates of US foreign policy, particularly after 

the Vietnam War, and continue to have echoes today. Some of these 

are evident in the debate about the intentions of Iran’s leaders.
DETERRING ROGUES │ 179

The Islamic Republic of Iran

There has been a similar debate between those who use the strategic 

intent model and those who use the internal logic model to infer Iranian behavior. Most analysts who use the strategic intent model locate 

the drivers of Iran’s foreign policy in a sense of insecurity among its 

leaders, a sense of national and cultural pride, and a sense of mission. 

In this view Iran is an opportunistic heir to the ancient Persian Empire, 

surrounded by unfriendly neighbors, and motivated by an ideological 

zeal to achieve regional hegemony if not export its revolution.

Strategic Intent

Many analysts that use the strategic intent model recognize that 

Iran is located in a region in which it is in many ways an outsider. “A 

Persian, Shiite nation struggling in an Arab, Sunni Middle East, Iran 

has always lived with the fear of being surrounded by foes.”48 Its recent history has seen the intervention of external powers in its internal 

affairs, from the British and American support of the coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq and installed Reza 

Pahlavi as shah in 1953 to the diplomatic and economic sanctions 

leveled against it in the aftermath of the 1979 revolution. The US military presence in the region, from its continuous naval presence in the 

Persian Gulf to its forces in the Arab monarchies after Operation 

Desert Storm and in Afghanistan and Iraq after the invasions of 2001 

and 2003, has further isolated and contained Iran. And, of course, 

Saddam Hussein’s Iraq attacked Iran in 1980.

Analysts with this view see Iran’s foreign policy as primarily driven 

by the insecurities of its situation but do not see its policies as benign; 

rather they have the flavor of a revolutionary power that desires to 

make its environs more congenial. Early in its history, at least through 

the tenure of Ayatollah Khomeini, “[t]he Islamic Republic of Iran 

[was] a self-professed revolutionary state . . . [that] rejected the status 

quo and deliberately incited regional instability. . . . Its revisionism 

was related to status, not land.”49 It combined a pride in its cultural 

heritage with a sense of aggrievement to form a positive international 

“manifest destiny” for itself.50 “To this sense of nationalism and historical grievances, the mullahs added an Islamist dimension. Ayatollah 

Khomeini bequeathed his country an ideology that divided the world 

between the oppressed and the oppressors. The Islamic Republic was 
180 │ DETERRING ROGUES

to be a vanguard state leading the subjugated masses toward freedom 

and justice. . . . The old balance between ideology and pragmatism 

has yielded to one defined by power politics and religious fervor.”51

Along these lines Barry Posen argued, “It is reasonable to expect that 

revolutionary Iran, like Iran under the shah, has pretensions to regional 

hegemony.”52 Michael Eisenstadt contended, “Iran is not pursuing nuclear 

weapons just to enhance its ability to deal with perceived threats. There 

are other powerful motives at work here, including the regime’s drive for 

self-reliance and its desire to transform Iran into a regional power.”53

Others see this balance a bit differently, with Kenneth Timmerman arguing that a “nuclear-ready Iran will not stop at violently suppressing 

domestic dissent, but will actively seek ways of lashing out at what it sees 

as the sources of that dissent: the United States and Israel.”54 Michael Ledeen 

goes further, arguing that “the mullahs do not share our dreams; they 

dream of our destruction. . . . Western civilization will be consigned to 

the garbage heap of history by the twelfth Imam. . . . These are dreams of 

global conquest and domination.”55 Thus these analysts see a wide prism 

of possible Iranian behavior that can be pragmatic, opportunistic, or 

aggressive—but all expect it to be expansionist and motivated by the 

value of the stakes sought.

This strategic narrative sees the Iranian leadership as rational, acting upon their estimates of the costs and benefits of various courses 

of action, be they strategic or tactical. These leaders can therefore be 

influenced by the actions of external actors such as the United States. 

As Kenneth Pollack puts it, “Our goal should be to present the Iranians 

with two different paths. If they choose to go down the path of 

confrontation—stubbornly clinging to their nuclear program, their 

support for terrorism, and their violent opposition to a Middle East 

Peace—then at each step they will be hit with progressively more 

painful consequences. If they choose the path of cooperation—by 

giving up those same patterns of behavior—then at each step they 

will be rewarded with progressively more advantageous benefits.”56

Where analysts using the strategic intent model differ is their assessment of the risk attitudes among Iranian leaders. Some see Iranian leaders as risk-neutral or even risk-averse. Pollack argues, 

Iran’s behavior over the past fifteen years suggests that it can probably be deterred from taking the most harmful offensive actions even after it has acquired nuclear weapons. . . . In fact, all of the reporting . . . indicates that they 

want nuclear weapons to deter an American—or, to a lesser extent, Israeli or 

Iraqi—attack. Nor does the current Iranian leadership have a history of reck-
DETERRING ROGUES │ 181

less behavior. . . . None of this makes it certain that Iran could be deterred 

once it acquired nuclear weapons, but all of it indicates that there is a strong 

basis for believing it could be.57

Posen agrees, arguing, “The strategy of deterrence and containment has worked for the United States before; there is no reason why 

it cannot work again. . . . In a confrontation with the United States, 

Iran could run risks of complete destruction, and it cannot threaten the 

United States with comparable damage.”58 And Eisenstadt emphasizes, 

Because Shi’i religious doctrine exalts the suffering and martyrdom of the 

faithful, and because religion plays a central role in the official ideology of the 

Islamic Republic, Iran is sometimes portrayed as an ‘undeterrable’ state driven 

by the absolute imperatives of religion, rather than by the pragmatic concerns 

of statecraft. . . . However, the perception of Iran as an irrational, undeterrable 

state with a high pain threshold is wrong. Iranian decision-makers are generally 

not inclined to rash action. Within the context of a relatively activist foreign and 

defence policy, they have generally sought to minimize risk.59

On the other hand, some see Iran’s leaders as risk-acceptant or 

even reckless. Barry Rubin argues, “Tehran may not be suicidal, but it 

is prone to risk taking, and as a highly ideological regime that profoundly misunderstands the West, it is likely to miscalculate in ways 

that could lead to war. . . . Iran’s regime is the farthest thing from a 

rational state that the United States has confronted since Nazi Germany.”60 Analysts from the Heritage Foundation concur: 

The United States’ unrivalled military power would be a powerful deterrent 

against an Iranian direct nuclear attack, but relying on the threat of massive 

retaliation could be risky. The Iranian hard-liners could miscalculate and 

misperceive; they are profoundly ignorant about the outside world and have 

shown a tendency to gamble recklessly. They frequently proclaim their conviction that the United States would not or could not attack them. In addition, 

there are legitimate questions about whether Ahmadinejad, who reportedly 

harbors apocalyptic religious beliefs regarding the return of the Mahdi, or 

others in the Iranian regime like him[,] would have the same cost-benefit 

calculus about a nuclear war that other leaders would have.61

Internal Logic

Although the complex and factional nature of Iranian decision 

making is widely noted, those who offer an internal logic analysis of 

Iranian motives are few. In general, those of this view hold that the 

Iranian government uses foreign conflict to enhance domestic unity 

and support for the regime and their policies. “The empirical record 
182 │ DETERRING ROGUES

seems to suggest that public dissatisfaction has led to the regime exacerbating tensions with the U.S. to distract the population’s attentions 

from domestic political problems and demonstrate [Ahmadinejad’s] 

revolutionary credentials,” argues Graeme Davies.62 Shahram Chubin 

writes,

For self-proclaimed revolutionary regimes like Iran, foreign policy is an expression of its values and a validation of its struggle. Hence, there is an intimate connection between domestic legitimization and foreign policy conduct. Foreign 

policy and foreign threats are routinely invoked to control domestic politics. . . . 

Foreign policy, therefore, is at once an extension of domestic politics, an expression of the regime’s identity, and a barometer of its intentions. . . . Regime survival, 

equated with [the hard-liner’s] primacy, depends upon embattlement.63

The authors of a recent RAND study agree, albeit within an elitecentric frame of reference, arguing, “Leadership factions frequently 

wield foreign policy issues as tools to outmaneuver their rivals and 

form tactical alliances that will aid their domestic standing. . . . The 

actual issues debated are secondary to the larger prizes of patronage, 

power, and privilege.”64

The internal logic view of Iranian conduct leads to the conclusion 

that its leaders are not particularly amenable to external influence. 

They are difficult to coerce, induce, or persuade to change their behavior—

be it with regard to their nuclear program, their sponsorship of terrorist organizations throughout the region, or their conflict with Israel. 

The legitimacy of the regime—founded on “a transnational mission 

of redeeming the Middle East for the forces of righteousness” and being “a vanguard state leasing the subjugated masses toward freedom 

and justice”—deprives their leaders of the political space necessary to 

comply with Western, especially American, demands.65 “The influence of powerful hard-line minorities in each country [Iran and the 

United States] and a number of outstanding disputes that push domestic political buttons have held back efforts at conciliation.”66 Indeed, as Pollack put it, “The backing of the United States has generally 

proven to be the kiss of death for Iranian leaders. Khatami himself is 

the best proof of this: his effort to reach out to the United States early 

in his presidency was a serious mistake that convinced the hardliners 

that he opposed the fundamental principles of the revolution upon 

which their legitimacy was based.”67

Surprisingly, however, few of these analysts offer prescriptions that 

derive from the internal logic framework. Pollack, for instance, treats 

Iran as a unitary actor when proposing a three-tiered approach of 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 183

offering a grand bargain, then using carrots and sticks if that fails, 

and finally preparing to contain Iran indefinitely.68 So does Ray 

Takeyh in offering his strategy of engagement.69 Eisenstadt, on the 

other hand, argued for a deterrence-by-denial strategy that “depriv[es] 

Iran of the resources it could have otherwise used for a military 

buildup” because “regime factionalism . . . could make it difficult to 

establish a stable deterrent relationship with a nuclear Iran.”70 And 

the RAND team of Wehrey et al. proposes “essentially reversing the 

traditional good cop/bad cop roles” of the United States and its allies, 

and letting the Russians and Chinese lead multilateral coercive efforts, 

so as to deprive Iranian factions the unifying force of a continuous 

American or European threat. Unlike prescriptions based upon the 

domestic needs of Soviet leaders, this literature eschews regime 

change, externally assisted, or not, as the best way of dealing with 

leaders preoccupied by their own domestic travails.71

Prescriptive Problems

The strategic intent model and the internal logic model of adversary intent produce very different pictures of what motivates adversaries. Do they desire to influence external actors to achieve a political outcome vis-à-vis that actor? Or do they desire to bolster their 

domestic solidarity in the face of centrifugal forces? Is the outcome of 

the action that we wish to deter of primary or secondary importance 

to the adversary? Making this determination is important when deciding whether to attempt to deter the adversary’s actions or to take 

another approach, such as preemptive brute force or actions to increase or decrease the adversary’s feelings of insecurity.

Deterrence is a strategy to pursue when one judges that the primary motivation of the adversary’s intended action is strategic goals. 

Given direction toward external actors in such situations, identification of the adversary’s goal is a matter of routine. Focusing deterrent 

demands toward that objective—“don’t do that”—places the adversary in a decision situation in which it can either comply with what 

has been demanded of it or defy those demands and risk the implementation of the deterrer’s threatened sanction. As the Deterrence 

Operations Joint Operating Concept rightly suggests, denying the adversary’s leadership the potential benefits of the actions that it intends 

to take or imposing costs that reduce the net utility of the action are 
184 │ DETERRING ROGUES

the two ideal ways of reducing the likelihood that the adversary will 

choose to act.72 The objective of this deterrent threat is to reduce the 

expected value of “doing that” to a point that the consequences of 

compliance are of greater value. The DOJOC explains, “Adversaries 

weigh the perceived benefits and costs of a given course of action in 

the context of their perceived consequences of restraint or inaction. 

Thus deterrence can fail even when the adversary perceives the costs 

of acting as outweighing the benefits of acting if he believes the costs 

of inaction are even higher still.”73 (emphasis in the original) When 

the adversary is basing his choice upon these considerations, the correctly targeted deterrence has a chance of success.

Deterrence may not be the strategy to pursue if the adversary’s 

external behavior is for enhancing internal cohesion or the power of 

the leadership. Providing overt signs of an external threat is precisely 

the outcome desired by the adversary’s leadership. A threat from an 

external actor allows them to take actions to increase their support, 

silence moderates or critics, mobilize resources that might otherwise 

be unavailable, and provides the opportunity to forge or reinforce 

common in-group identities. The achievement of these goals requires 

the deterrer to provide the missing ingredient: its hostile reaction. If 

the deterrer falls into the trap, then the adversary has the means it 

needs to achieve its goal of increased cohesion. If the deterrer refrains 

from reacting, then the adversary may still capitalize on the lack of a 

reaction to motivate support for strong leadership. Yet this is less 

likely than action-provoking hostility as people are less motivated to 

act to seize opportunities than they are to avoid potential losses.74

Deterring Adversaries Motivated by Internal Logic

If the adversary’s motivation is internal logic, is it really a no-win 

situation for the deterrer? Is deterrence a nonstarter? Are there alternatives to issuing an immediate deterrent threat directed against their 

intended external action or doing nothing and letting the adversary’s 

provocation pass unanswered? There are a number of options.

First, one can still attempt to deter the adversary directly through 

passive measures that deny it the opportunity to carry out its intended action and also deny it the visible indicators of hostility that it 

seeks to engender. There are a number of means to do this. One denial 

measure is to harden soft targets—for example, police stations—

through passive point defenses. This makes it less likely that spectacular 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 185

successes can be had against these targets, and given their passivity—

barriers, reinforced concrete, or even ballistic missile defenses (provided 

that they are well beyond the ability of the adversary to observe)—they 

deprive the deterrer of the ability to overreact and justify the adversary’s actions.75 Passive area defenses can also be used to deny the adversary the interaction that it needs with the deterrer to achieve its 

internal goals. Possibilities in this realm include measures such as the 

fence that Israel has erected around Palestinian areas, which has 

decreased suicide attacks substantially since its completion,76 or 

diplomatic isolation such as that imposed upon the People’s Republic 

of China, Cuba, or Iran after their revolutions. A potential drawback 

to passive area defenses is that they themselves might become symbols 

of implacable and unyielding hostility that the adversary can use 

repeatedly to rally its domestic constituents.77

Second, one can attempt to deter the adversary indirectly—by directing the deterrent threat toward the members of the group the 

leadership is attempting to bolster or recruit. The adversary’s external 

challenge is designed to attract these followers, and a deterrent threat 

directed toward the group’s members and potential members may 

cleave them away by highlighting personal over group interests.78 All 

groups engaged in conflict that are attempting to recruit or retain 

members ask these people to put aside their personal interests for the 

benefit of the group cause, even though their individual contributions will be marginal (in most cases, suicide terrorism is designed to 

overcome this recruitment challenge). As LichBach notes “Thus rebels 

confront the possibility of disastrous private costs and uncertain public 

benefits. . . . Unless the collective action problem is somehow overcome, rational people will never rebel—rebellions, that is, require irrationality.”79 Israel has pursued a policy of deterring group members 

by threatening to destroy the family homes of young Palestinians 

who were involved in attacks.80 Aerial surveillance capabilities, such 

as that of the Predator remotely piloted vehicle, have been key to operationalizing this strategy. Such an option would be an attempt to deny 

the adversary leadership the domestic benefits of its intended action 

by threatening to punish individual members of the group.

Third, one can pursue a similar goal but through inducements to 

members of the adversary’s constituency rather than through coercion. 

Counterinsurgency (COIN) strategies, such as those discussed in FM 

3-24, Counterinsurgency, work on this principle: “The real battle is for 

civilian support for, or acquiescence to, the counterinsurgents and host 
186 │ DETERRING ROGUES

nation government. The population waits to be convinced. Who will 

help them more, hurt them less, stay the longest, [and] earn their 

trust?”81 Indeed, the “Anbar Awakening” in Iraq is quite a vivid example 

of using inducements to cleave potential supporters away from an 

adversary—in this case, al-Qaeda in Iraq.82

Fourth, one can attempt to “encourage adversary restraint,” as the 

DOJOC puts it, by “try[ing] to communicate . . . benign intentions . . . 

to reduce the fear, misunderstanding, and insecurity that are often 

responsible for unintended escalation to war.”83 Engaging in such 

persuasion is an alternative to influence through coercion or inducement. It involves altering the considerations for evaluating compliance and defiance. The persuader does not promise or threaten 

action, but convinces the adversary to see the situation in such a way 

that he realizes it is in his own interests to act a certain way. This can 

be done by highlighting—without altering—costs or benefits related 

to complying with or defying the persuader’s demands or by offering 

new alternatives that allow the adversary to achieve his goals in ways 

that do not harm the persuader’s interests. These persuasion strategies 

treat the definition of the problem facing the adversary—in this case 

increasing cohesion, recruitment, or retention of members—as given 

or settled. Another avenue of persuasion requires understanding the 

basis upon which the target frames the issue and shifting it.84 Persuasion is generally seen as a fruitless option, particularly when dealing 

with an adversary with internally generated primary concerns or has 

revolutionary orientations.

Fifth, one can forego influence altogether and use brute force 

against the adversary to prevent it from undertaking action.85 This can 

take the form of disarming the adversary to deny it the capability to 

pursue the action that it intends or decapitating the adversary to disrupt its ability to act. Either action risks increasing the cohesion of 

adversaries by justifying their hostility toward the deterrer and/or creating a martyr of the leadership. Decapitation of the leadership could 

also disrupt the internal cohesion of the adversary to some degree.86

The Internal Constituencies

Overall, if it is determined that an adversary decision maker is 

motivated by the internal logic of his group’s situation, deterrence 

may work—but not in the manner prescribed in the DOJOC. Rather, 

deterrent demands and other influence attempts should be directed 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 187

at the primary objectives of the adversary in these situations: the 

internal constituencies whose support the leadership hopes to rally 

by its external actions. Clearly, actions should also be taken to mitigate the impact of those actions as well, since nothing fails like failure. 

But it should be borne in mind that mere signals of hostility directed 

toward the group (or nation) as a whole in an attempt to deter the 

unwanted action could provide the adversary leader precisely what 

he or she wants: an external enemy that his or her people can oppose 

in unity.

Conclusion

How should policy makers approach divining the intentions of 

revolutionary rogues who may take actions that the United States 

wishes to deter? Although deterrence formed the core mission of the 

US military throughout the Cold War, adversary intent was based 

upon capabilities analysis married to worst-case scenarios of what 

they could accomplish. Whether deterrence would succeed in general 

or in any particular case was likewise inferred to be a function of 

American capabilities and willingness to use them in the event that 

deterrence failed. The consequences that would befall the adversary if 

deterrence succeeded in frustrating its objectives were rarely considered.

The DOJOC rectified a basic problem in previous deterrence 

thinking by recognizing that an adversary has a choice between complying with a demand to refrain from action and defying that demand—

and that the adversary will consider the expected value of each of 

these options. No longer is “restraint” considered an option that is 

outside the deterrence calculus for the adversary or the deterrer. This 

has opened significant doors to making the deterrence planning and 

assessment processes used by the US military, from Strategic Command to the regional combatant commands, much more sophisticated and, hopefully, effective.

Getting the basic framework correct has led to the next issue: determining how much the adversary desires to undertake particular actions, 

those that the United States would prefer that it not undertake, and 

others that might provide less offensive alternatives. This requires assessing adversary intent. Regrettably, there is no set process or framework for undertaking this necessary analysis. The United States 

merely exhorts intelligence analysts to “take risks” to “predict” adversary 
188 │ DETERRING ROGUES

intent. Intelligence officers, uniformed and civilian, view the production of such analyses as more of an art than a science without specific 

methodology—leaving intelligence analysts to develop their own 

methods to produce their analytic products.87 Hoping that particular 

analysts in key positions are da Vincis or Michelangelos is simply unacceptable. Military staffs excel at planning and use set processes to 

yield acceptable and improvable products. There is a need to establish 

methodologies for inferring adversary intent on a continuous basis so 

that a usable product is available to assist in routine planning or in 

the event of a crisis.

Such a process should begin with a skeleton framework that focuses 

on producing at least two narratives of adversary behavior: a strategic 

intent model and an internal logic model. The strategic intent narrative would build a case that the adversary was intending to act to 

achieve external goals. It should begin with an overview of the adversary’s grand strategy: the goals that its leadership has traditionally 

sought, the goals sought by its current leadership, the environment in 

which it finds itself and how it facilitates or hinders pursuit of those 

goals, and the capabilities in its possession to overcome these obstacles 

and take advantage of situations as they arise. The narrative should 

also locate the adversary’s potential actions in its strategic culture and 

operational procedures to identify indicators and warnings providing 

information about intent as events unfold.

The internal logic narrative would build a similar case to explain 

what the adversary might intend to do, but its focus would be on the 

internal or domestic imperatives and constraints facing the adversary’s leadership. Such a narrative would begin by identifying the 

structure of the leadership, those who hold those positions, and their 

relations to one another. It would also identify various internal constituencies upon whom the leadership is dependent or responsible, in 

particular those who are in a position to sanction or reward those 

leaders given their behavior. Finally, it would attempt to identify the 

internal problem that the adversary leaders would attempt to solve by 

acting externally. As with the strategic intent model, there is need for 

indicator and warning systems keyed to the reactions of these domestic 

constituencies to provide information that can confirm or invalidate 

hypotheses about the adversary’s intent as events unfold.

As discussed in the preceding sections, these two frameworks have 

provided the bases for rival interpretations of adversary behavior 

from that of the Soviet Union during the Cold War to Iran today. 
DETERRING ROGUES │ 189

They have also provided alternative prescriptions for American behavior. 

Their explicit use would allow debate and discussion in the intent assessment process that could inform a commander or political leader 

about the issues, foreign and domestic, that are pressing on the adversary’s leadership and thereby provide his planning staff the basis for 

recommending whether deterrence or some other strategy is wise in 

the present circumstances, and also provide a basis upon which to 

assess the likelihood of success. Prescribing at least two frameworks, 

rather than a single consolidated one, would highlight the biases inherent in each framework and those introduced by the analysts themselves, mitigating the dangers of groupthink.88 This would greatly 

enhance the ability of commanders to determine when deterrence is 

wise and necessary and how best to implement it.

Notes

1. Kissinger, A World Restored, 2.

2. See Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy, 316–24; Morgenthau, Politics 

among Nations, 57–67; Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics; Schweller, “Bandwagoning for Profit”; Schweller, “Neorealism’s Status Quo Bias”; and Snyder, “The 

U.S. and Third World Revolutionary States.”

3. Indeed, as Bernard Brodie famously put it, “Thus far the chief purpose of our 

military establishment has been to win wars. From now on its chief purpose must be 

to avert them. It can have almost no other useful purpose.” Brodie, “Implications for 

Military Policy,” 76.

4. See, for example, Kaufmann, “The Requirements of Deterrence”; George and 

Smoke, Deterrence in American Foreign Policy; and Huth and Russett, “What Makes 

Deterrence Work?”

5. See Press, Calculating Credibility, for a discussion of the constituents of credibility.

6. Previous official conceptions of deterrence have been underdeveloped. Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, defines 

deterrence as “the prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state 

of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counter action.” 

This definition does not specify the relationship between “fear” and reasoned consideration 

of consequences, the nature of the “credible threat of unacceptable counter action,” nor its 

origin. It also reflects and encourages considering deterrence only in the nuclear context. As 

late as January 2007, the US Air Force, for example, subsumed deterrence under nuclear 

operations. Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 1-2, Air Force Glossary, 11 January 

2007, 58, only mentions deterrence in its definition of “mutual assured destruction.”

7. Department of Defense (DOD), Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept, 

3 (hereafter cited as DOJOC).

8. DOJOC, 6.

9. Morgan, Deterrence Now, 39. 

10. JP 2-0, Joint Intelligence.
190 │ DETERRING ROGUES

11. JP 2-0, Joint Intelligence, 22 June 2007, IV-13.

12. Ibid., II-9–II-10.

13. Wohlstetter, “Cuba and Pearl Harbor,” 691.

14. Simon, Administrative Behavior, xxix.

15. Ibid., xxx.

16. Any framework that simplifies reality will not be neutral. It will bias the decision maker’s observations and inferences. It will therefore result in at least some misperceptions. See Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Although 

Jervis and others make the case that misperceptions inherently undermine the quality 

of decision making, this is not necessarily the case, as argued by Levy, “Misperception 

and the Causes of War”; Grigerenzer and Goldstein, “Reasoning the Fast and Frugal 

Way”; and Goldgeier and Tetlock, “Psychology and International Relations Theory,” 4.

17. Allison, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 35.

18. Ibid., 36–37.

19. For the relations between these forms of influence, see DOD, Strategic Communication Joint Integrating Concept, 101–3.

20. Freedman, “Strategic Coercion,” xx.

21. The lack of domestic-level independent variables is considered in Schaub, 

“Deterrence, Compellence, and Rational Decision Making.”

22. Levy, “The Diversionary Theory of War,” 259.

23. Lebow, Between Peace and War, 66–69.

24. For an overly abstract discussion of these variables, see Bueno de Mesquita, 

Smith, Siverson, and Morrow, The Logic of Political Survival.

25. For a recent study, see Bulé, “Congress, Presidential Approval, and U.S. Dispute Initiation.”

26. Rather, their work is seen as providing an alternative to deterrence theory. See 

Lebow and Stein, “Beyond Deterrence”; Lebow and Stein, “Rational Deterrence Theory”; 

Huth and Russett, “Testing Deterrence Theory”; and Lebow and Stein, “Deterrence.”

27. Seay, “What are the Soviets’ Objectives in their Foreign, Military, and Arms 

Control Policies?” 71.

28. Ibid., 72.

29. Kennan, “Toward Peace on Two Fronts,” 378.

30. Warnke, “Apes on a Treadmill”; and Seay, “What Are the Soviets’ Objectives?” 76–87.

31. Kissinger, White House Years, 118. “The result is a foreign policy free to fill 

every vacuum, to exploit every opportunity, to act out the implications of its doctrine. 

Policy is constrained principally by calculations of objective conditions.” Ibid., 117.

32. Simes, “Assessing Soviet National Security Strategy.”

33. Kennan, “Sources of Soviet Conduct,” 861.

34. Kissinger, White House Years, 119.

35. Kennan, “Sources of Soviet Conduct,” 861.

36. Kissinger, White House Years, 119.

37. Kennan, “Sources of Soviet Conduct,” 860–61.

38. Ibid., 861. Here Kennan was elaborating on Lenin’s dictum: If one encounters 

steel, withdraw; but if one finds mush, push on (paraphrased).

39. Brodie, “The Atom Bomb as Policy Maker,” 23. Also see Garthoff, Soviet Military Doctrine, 11; and Kaufmann, “Limited Warfare,” 103.
DETERRING ROGUES │ 191

40. Kennan, “Sources of Soviet Conduct,” 856–57.

41. See Pipes, “Militarism and the Soviet State”; Pipes, Survival is Not Enough; 

Gray, “SALT II”; Gray, Missiles against War; and Odom, “Whither the Soviet Union?”

42. Seay, “What Are the Soviets’ Objectives?” 54; and Pipes, “Militarism and the 

Soviet State,” 1.

43. Seay, “What Are the Soviets’ Objectives?” 55.

44. Ibid.

45. “Both Nitze and Gray have in mind using the perceived advantages of the Strategic Defense Initiative to push the Soviet Union toward a reformulation of deterrence, 

from an offense-based mutually assured destruction to a deterrence based upon defensive systems.” Seay, “What Are the Soviets’ Objectives?” 69–70.

46. Kennan, “Sources of Soviet Conduct,” 868, 866.

47. Pipes, Survival Is not Enough, 278.

48. Takeyh, Guardians of the Revolution, 1–2. Also see Posen, A Nuclear-Armed 

Iran, 9; and Giles, “The Crucible of Radical Islam,” 146.

49. Byman, Chubin, Ehteshami, and Green, Iran’s Security Policy in the Post-Revolutionary 

Era, 8. Also see Eisenstadt, “Living with a Nuclear Iran?” 125.

50. Giles, “Crucible of Radical Islam,” 146.

51. Takeyh, Guardians of the Revolution, 2, 6. Also see Wehrey et al., Dangerous 

but Not Omnipotent, 9.

52. Posen, Nuclear-Armed Iran, 8.

53. Eisenstadt, “Living with a Nuclear Iran?” 129.

54. Timmerman, “The Day after Iran Gets the Bomb,” 121.

55. Ledeen, The Iranian Time Bomb, 24–25. 

56. Pollack, The Persian Puzzle, 406.

57. Ibid., 384–85.

58. Posen, Nuclear-Armed Iran, 24.

59. Eisenstadt, “Living with a Nuclear Iran?” 134–35. Also see Eisenstadt, “Deter 

and Contain.”

60. Rubin, “The Containment Conundrum,” 164.

61. Berman et al., “Iran’s Nuclear Threat,” 2.

62. Davies, “Inside Out or Outside In,” 213. It should be noted that Davies’ analysis 

of dyadic event data from 1990–2004 “suggests that the Iranians tend not to engage in 

diversionary hostility; rather they encapsulate their problems and avoid confrontation 

with the United States. The model indicates that the greater the level of domestic conflict within Iran the more cooperative the Iranians become toward the United States.” 

Ibid., 220, 221–22.

63. Chubin, “The Iranian Nuclear Riddle after June 12,” 165.

64. Wehrey et al., Dangerous but not Omnipotent, 22. Also see Eisenstadt, “Living 

with a Nuclear Iran?” 131.

65. Takeyh, Guardians of the Revolution, 2.

66. Amuzegar, “Iran’s Crumbling Revolution,” 45.

67. Pollack, Persian Puzzle, 388.

68. Ibid., 400–416. “If the Iranians can ever get over their psychological and political hurdles regarding the United States, the Grand Bargain would be the best way to 

handle our mutual problems,” he begins.

69. Takeyh, Guardians of the Revolution, 261–65.
192 │ DETERRING ROGUES

70. Eisenstadt, “Living with a Nuclear Iran?” 142, 136.

71. Those who do advocate regime change, such as Timmerman and Ledeen, 

base their analyses upon the strategic intent model and posit extreme goals for Iran.

72. DOJOC, 26–27.

73. Ibid., 21.

74. On the differential weighting of gains and losses generally, see Kahneman, 

Knetsch, and Thaler, “Anomalies.” For an application to the domestic costs of conflict, see Nincic, “Loss Aversion and the Domestic Context of Military Intervention.”

75. This is an application of Schelling’s art of the commitment. See Schelling, The 

Strategy of Conflict.

76. Byman, “Do Targeted Killings Work?” 96, 105–6.

77. Kalman, “Israeli Fence Puts ‘Cage’ on Villagers.”

78. See Tolbert, Crony Attack: Strategic Attack’s Silver Bullet?; and Lichbach, Rebel’s Dilemma. On the other hand, Jerrold Post argues that “Once in the group, 

though, the power of group dynamics is immense, continually confirming the power 

of the group’s organizing ideology and reinforcing the member’s dedication to the 

cause.” Post, “Deterrence in an Age of Asymmetric Rivals,” 171.

79. Lichbach, Rebel’s Dilemma, 7.

80. “Israeli officials said that the destruction of an Arab home with dynamite or 

bulldozers was a rare, deliberate, and highly publicized event, designed to serve as an 

effective deterrent to adults who might permit or encourage illegal acts by younger 

members of their families.” Carter, Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid, 123. Israel 

stopped this policy in February 2005 after it was challenged domestically by human 

rights groups. “Israel to Destroy Attacker’s Home,” BBC News.

81. Sewall, “Introduction to the University of Chicago Press Edition,” xxv.

82. A nice account can be found in Ricks, The Gamble, 61–72. For an analysis see 

Koloski and Kolasheski, “Thickening the Lines.”

83. Lebow and Stein, “Beyond Deterrence,” 40.

84. There are generally three such bases: consequentialism, authority, or principles. 

Consequentialism is the easiest basis within which to operate as the adversary is considering outcomes, and these are all potential as opposed to actual. They can therefore be 

altered by shifting the type of problem to be solved, and hence the solution set from 

which it is appropriate to consider options. Authority-based frames are more difficult 

to affect because they are given to the adversary by another party, one to which the 

adversary has previously ceded decision authority. Thus a better target for the influence 

attempt is that entity. But another approach here is to provide the adversary with another authority to which it has previously ceded the decision, one that conflicts with 

the current authority frame, and make the case that it should switch. Finally, frames 

based upon principle are likewise difficult to affect, although the mechanism is similar: 

find a principle to which the adversary adheres and make the case that it applies more 

than the principle that provided the basis for defiance.

85. Jones and Libicki find that only 7 percent of terrorist groups that “ended” in their 

sample of 268 such groups were defeated by military force. “Militaries tended to be most 

effective when used against terrorist groups engaged in an insurgency in which the 

groups were large, well armed, and well organized. Insurgent groups have been among 

the most capable and lethal terrorist groups, and military force has usually been a neces-
DETERRING ROGUES │ 193

sary component in such cases. Against most terrorist groups, however, military force is 

usually too blunt an instrument.” Jones and Libicki, How Terrorist Groups End, xiii–xiv.

86. Langdon, Sarapu, and Wells, “Targeting the Leadership of Terrorist and Insurgent Movements,” found that killing the leader of a nonstate movement led to the disbanding or moderation of the movement in 61 percent of the cases that they examined.

87. Personal interviews with author.

88. For more on motivated and unmotivated biases see Jervis, Perception and Misperception in International Politics. On groupthink see Janis, Groupthink; and Turner and 

Pratkanis, “Theoretical Perspectives on Groupthink.” Alexander L. George prescribes 

multiple assessments and other process fixes to this dilemma in “The Case for Multiple 

Advocacy in Making Foreign Policy,” as does Hart in “Preventing Groupthink Revisited.”

Chapter 10

Deterring Nonstate Actors

Adam Lowther

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States took center 

stage in an international system dramatically different from the one 

that existed a decade earlier. As the Cold War took shape in the late 

1940s, the United States played the protagonist to a Soviet Union 

seeking to export communism around the world. One school of 

thought regarding US foreign policy holds that Americans traditionally prefer to remain aloof from international politics.1

 In the 

twentieth century US policy makers repeatedly departed from this 

perspective—in both world wars, the Korean War, and in taking the 

lead to form the United Nations and the North Atlantic Treaty 

Organization—to pursue and protect the country’s interests. As the 

expansionist ideology of the Soviet Union threatened to overwhelm 

the free world during the Cold War, American policy makers—armed 

with the atom bomb—developed a grand strategy for containing the 

Soviet Union that ultimately succeeded.2

Among the most important of these early strategies was deterrence. In the early years of the Cold War, the Eisenhower administration’s New Look policy focused on deterring the Soviet Union by 

threatening to launch a massive nuclear strike in response to conventional or nuclear aggression.3

 Although deterrence and nuclear weapons 

need not be coupled, they became inextricably linked for more than 

a half century.

As the Cold War came to an end after nearly a half century, deterrence fell by the wayside as the United States sought to take advantage 

of the peace dividend that was the fruit of victory.4

 In the 1990s a 

strategy of globalization and a policy of engagement with the world 

supplemented deterrence. No longer did the United States simply 

seek to prevent the spread of communism. It also sought to assist the 

former Eastern Bloc countries as they attempted to develop market 

economies and democratic institutions. This approach to the world 

saw the United States take on policing the world, as it made the world 

safe for democracy by addressing threats to international order.5
196 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

Lasting less than a decade, the relative tranquility of America’s “hegemonic moment” was shattered by the attacks of 11 September 2001. 

Although the United States was well aware of al-Qaeda’s desire to 

strike a painful blow, as the amorphous organization attempted on at 

least five previous occasions, the use of commercial aircraft as missiles to strike the US homeland caught the nation off guard.6

 Where 

America’s previous responses to al-Qaeda attacks were largely ineffective, a new president and an enraged public would bring the full 

might of the American military to bear in Afghanistan and anywhere 

else al-Qaeda and its affiliates might seek refuge. The “global war on 

terror” had begun.7

Within the United States, this new approach to terrorism signaled 

a dramatic shift in the balance of power within the international relations liberalism school of thought. Throughout the 1990s a war of 

words filled the pages of Beltway publications as the two factions—

economic globalists and neoconservatives—fought for supremacy.8

Advocates of economic globalization came to dominate public policy 

and succeeded in keeping their ideological competitors from ascending to power in the federal bureaucracy. This changed with the 2000 

election and the victory of neoconservatism. Where economic globalists sought to remake world order through the largely peaceful development of social-market democracy and international institutions, 

neoconservatives believed in the utility of force to achieve similar 

objectives.9

 Preemption and a concerted effort to impose democracy 

in strategic regions became the underlying initiatives of the post–9/11 

Bush administration.10 Conspicuously absent from any position of 

prominence in the debate were the realists, who had dominated foreign 

policy decision making throughout the Cold War, but this, too, would 

eventually change.

On 7 October 2001, the United States invaded Afghanistan. Early 

success has been followed by a persistent and growing Taliban insurgency. Thus, few were surprised when former NATO commander in 

Afghanistan Gen Stanley McChrystal wrote of the urgent need for 

more troops to secure victory. US operations in Iraq turned out very 

differently and appeared to indicate the emergence of a stable government. Some analysts are concerned, however, that opponents of the 

regime are biding their time as the Americans withdraw forces from 

the country.11 Only time will tell if Iraq was a victory.

Whatever the outcome of these two conflicts may eventually be, 

they had a profound effect on the 2008 US presidential election. After 
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 197

eight years of conflict, war fatigue was apparent during the campaign—

Americans wanted change. That change came in the form of Senator 

Barack Obama (D-IL) and a Democrat majority in both houses of 

Congress. With his election as president, it became clear that US foreign 

policy would take a new approach. It was from that milieu that an 

emphasis on deterrence reemerged. It did so, however, in a much different world from the one in which it once held sway. Rather than 

facing a peer competitor in a bipolar international system, the primary security challenges the United States appears to confront in a 

post–9/11 security environment come in the form of nonstate actors.

Although post–World War II deterrence strategy was designed to 

deter a Soviet nuclear attack, today’s scholars and policy makers are 

asking if deterrence can be applied against the nation’s current adversaries.12 This chapter seeks to examine that possibility by addressing 

five central questions:

1. What is deterrence?

2. What is a nonstate actor?

3. Do nonstate actors pose a threat to the United States?

4. Is it possible to deter a nonstate actor?

5. How do you deter nonstate actors?

What Is Deterrence?

According to Joint Publication 1-02, Department of Defense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, deterrence is “the prevention from action by fear of the consequences. Deterrence is a state of 

mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction.” By design, deterrence aims to achieve a specific 

psychological effect, which causes an adversary to alter potential behavior. Since deterrence is comprised of two components—capability 

and credibility—its success or failure is based on the ability of A to 

convince B that altering the status quo presents risks that outweigh 

potential benefits.

Although deterrence and nuclear weapons have been closely 

linked for a half century, the concept of deterrence is far older than its 

modern understanding. Human history is replete with examples of 
198 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

individuals, tribes, empires, and states using deterrence to dissuade 

adversaries from taking an undesired action.13 One familiar example 

is worth noting. After the Congress of Vienna (1814–15), Great Britain 

served as the balancer in Europe by ensuring that neither a Franco–

Russian alliance nor the German states and Austria–Hungary were 

able to dominate the continent. By siding with the weaker alliance, 

Britain sought to deter the stronger.14 This is only one of many examples 

of deterrence at work. As historians will certainly note, the Concert of 

Europe ultimately failed with the outbreak of World War I—after nearly 

a century of relative stability on the continent. Like all approaches to 

foreign policy, deterrence does not guarantee permanent peace. The 

relevant point is that deterrence may be applied against actors at any 

level of analysis (individual, domestic, or international).

One recent effort to revitalize deterrence is the US Strategic Command’s 

(STRATCOM) Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DOJOC), 

which clearly illustrates that the US military is not “stuck in a Cold 

War mind-set.”15 The DOJOC is a clear sign that STRATCOM and the 

DOD understand the changing nature of the strategic environment 

and the need to evolve deterrence strategy. The document exemplifies 

the collaboration taking place between academia and the military as 

the two work together to develop a broader approach to nuclear and 

conventional deterrence in a world that is no longer dominated by 

the bipolar competition of the United States and the Soviet Union. In 

attempting to develop an approach to deterrence that incorporates 

the range of conventional and nuclear threats, the authors of the DOJOC 

have undertaken a very difficult task.

The Deterrence Spectrum

While somewhat different than the approach used in the DOJOC, 

one way of conceptualizing deterrence is to think of it as a continuous 

spectrum with three components (fig. 10.1). At one end is deterrence 

by dissuasion.16 At the other end is deterrence by threat.17 In the middle 

is deterrence by denial.18 Moving from left to right increases the level 

of action by the state seeking to deter an ally or adversary. The specific design of a deterrence strategy will depend on the value of the 

interest at stake and the capabilities of both A and B. Because the 

target of deterrence may be either an ally or adversary, a hostile relationship is not required.
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 199

Dissuasion

Denial

Level of Force

Threat

COMPELLENCE

Figure 10.1. Deterrence model

Deterrence by Dissuasion

The most passive component of deterrence, deterrence by dissuasion can take a number of forms, such as efforts to influence targetnation public opinion, public diplomacy, or propaganda, or the offer 

of a benefit for maintaining the status quo. Dissuasive efforts are 

notably different from deterrence by threat because they do incorporate the threat of violence or punitive action.19

Deterrence by Denial 

Deterrence by denial seeks to deny the target a desired objective 

through largely defensive measures. By increasing the risks a target 

must accept to achieve an objective while also reducing the probability 

of success, it may be possible to deter a target effectively. Denial can 

take a number of forms as well. Effective policing, passenger and 

cargo screening, intelligence gathering, and “no fly” and watch lists 

are all among the means of deterrence by denial.20

Deterrence by Threat 

The overt use of a specific threat can range from the low (targeted 

strike) to the high (invasion) end of conflict.21 Threats can also incorporate punitive measures, including diplomatic and economic sanctions. 

For the threat to be effective, it must pose greater costs on the target than 

the reward for altering the status quo. Credibility is the key if deterrence 

by threat is to work.22 Empty threats only serve to undermine deterrence. 

Once a threat is issued, its issuer must be prepared to carry it out.
200 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

Any or all three components of deterrence can be combined at any 

time. There is no requirement that a deterrence strategy begin with 

dissuasion and progress to a threat. The interests at stake, the actor’s 

objectives—seeking to deter—and the available means for deterrence 

play vital roles in determining the design of a strategy. The greater the 

interest at stake, the more likely deterrence by threat will play a role 

in a deterrence strategy.

In the event that deterrence fails, reversing the new status quo may 

require applying punitive measures against the target. Compellence, 

as this strategy is called, attempts to force a return to the previous 

status quo. If effective, the credibility of future deterrence may increase. Thus, deterrence and compellence can work as a feedback 

loop where the effectiveness of one increases or decreases the need 

and effectiveness of the other.

What Is a Nonstate Actor?

When major European powers agreed to the Peace of Westphalia 

(1648) ending the Thirty Years’ War, the modern nation-state was 

born.23 In the years since the nation-state came to dominate the international system, states have never been its only actors. Super-empowered 

individuals, private organizations, religious movements, transnational 

ethnic groups, and economic interests have long exerted influence in 

international relations. While the term nonstate actor is generally 

associated with the likes of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups, the 

term is not limited to these groups. The International Committee of 

the Red Cross, established in 1863, is one example of a nonstate actor 

founded to provide medical aid to wounded soldiers—very different 

from the negative stereotype. Modern violent Islamic fundamentalists 

are not even unique in their role as a negative example of a nonstate 

actor.24 In the half-century between 1881 and 1914 left-wing revolutionary anarchists assassinated a number of world leaders and prominent citizens in their efforts to spark social revolution.25 They, too, 

were nonstate actors.

Modern nonstate actors fall into two categories—peaceful and violent.26

Peaceful nonstate actors are the most numerous. They include international nongovernmental organizations, international religious organizations, multinational corporations, super-empowered individuals, 

and transnational diaspora groups. Violent nonstate actors include 
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 201

international criminal organizations, terrorist networks, and insurgent groups.27 Because the former operate within the bounds of national 

and international law, they need not be deterred. The latter, however, 

flaunt national and international laws and are a focus of deterrence. Violent nonstate actors are divided into the three groups mentioned above 

because the composition, objectives, and tactics of each often differ.

International Criminal Organizations

International criminal organizations include a variety of groups.28

The Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, for example, grow, process, and export illegal drugs. The majority of cartel members are 

young men who view the drug trade as their best opportunity for 

material success. When governments interfere with their enterprise, 

violence frequently results. Currently, Mexican cartels present a real 

challenge to Mexico’s government in its border states.29

The Italian, Japanese, and Russian mafias engage in the distribution of drugs, arms trafficking, prostitution, human trafficking, and 

other illegal activities. They, too, are composed largely of young men 

who desire greater economic success through criminal enterprise. 

With few exceptions, the various criminal organizations have shown 

a reluctance to challenge national governments directly. However, 

their methods and their products weaken societies at both the production and distribution ends of the supply chain.

Terrorist Groups

In How Terrorist Groups End, Seth Jones and Martin Libicki suggest that terrorist groups can be divided into four types: left-wing 

(Marxist-Leninist, animal rights, environmental, anarchical, and 

anti-globalization), right-wing (neo-Nazi and neo-fascist), nationalist 

(Hamas, Hezbollah, Irish Republican Army, Kurdistan Workers 

Party, and Tamil Tigers, etc.), and religious (al-Qaeda and Jemaah 

Islamiyah, etc.).30 While each focuses on violence against civilians to 

achieve political objectives, each group’s motivation and desired end 

state vary. As Jones and Libicki note, the end state sought by a group 

largely determines its probability of success. The more limited the 

objectives, the higher the likelihood of achieving them. For example, 

the Irish Republican Army (IRA), a nationalist group, was able to 

negotiate a political settlement with the British government through 

Sin Fein because IRA objectives were finite and both parties were 
202 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

willing to negotiate. On the other hand, al-Qaeda seeks to topple the 

governments of the Middle East to restore the Islamic Caliphate.31

Neither al-Qaeda nor the governments of the region are willing to 

negotiate. Thus, reaching some sort of accommodation is unlikely.

Modern history suggests that types of terrorism often wax and 

wane.32 As mentioned earlier, the first episode of terrorism in the modern 

era began late in the nineteenth century with assassinations by leftwing anarchists. By espousing an ideology in opposition to ordered 

society, anarchists proved difficult to organize. Thus, their efforts to 

destroy society ultimately ended with the onset of World War I.

The dramatic change in the international system brought about 

by World War II led to a second episode of terrorism. As European 

colonialism collapsed in the postwar years, nationalist groups turned 

to terrorism to garner independence for their nation or ethnic group. 

Some achieved their objectives in a few years; others did not and they 

continue to exist. By the 1960s, left-wing terrorism was on the rise 

again as Marxist-Leninist groups used terrorist tactics to spur revolution around the globe, often with the support of the Soviet Union. 

The Red Brigades (Italy), the Red Army Faction (Germany), and the 

Weather Underground (USA) all struck domestic targets between 

1960 and 1990. Like their left-wing predecessors, they too failed.33

Today, religious terrorism directly challenges international order. Led 

by imams preaching a violent interpretation of Salafism, al-Qaeda 

and its affiliates are responsible for the deadliest period of terrorism 

in history.34 While they are unlikely to achieve victory, these groups 

are proving to be resilient.

Insurgent Groups

Separating insurgents and terrorists into distinct categories is a 

common practice, but it is a somewhat arbitrary distinction.35 Both 

terrorists and insurgents seek to alter the status quo, but terrorists, by 

virtue of their weakness, are defined by the tactic they employ. Insurgents, on the other hand, are defined by their objectives. As David 

Galula wrote, perceived grievances drive insurgents into “challenging 

a local ruling power controlling the existing administration, police, 

and armed forces.” Galula adds, “An insurgency is a protracted struggle

conducted methodically, step by step, in order to attain specific intermediate objectives leading finally to the overthrow of the existing order.”36

Insurgents engage in revolutionary warfare, but their violence focuses 
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 203

primarily on the military, police, and government supporters. While 

insurgents may use terrorism on specific occasions, as Mao Zedong 

recognized, the people are the center of gravity for insurgents and 

counterinsurgents alike, and their support is the key to victory.37

Perhaps because insurgents actively engage in attempts to seize and 

hold territory and to replace an existing regime, they are accorded a 

status above terrorists, but they often vary only in their capabilities. 

Both terrorists and insurgents are fundamentally dissatisfied with the 

existing order and are willing to use violence to alter it.38

Do Nonstate Actors Pose a Threat to the United States?

To understand the threat nonstate actors pose to the United States, 

it is helpful to have first a firm grasp of the United States’ national 

interest. Figure 10.2 shows one way to view the nation’s interests.39

Sea Access

Economic

Interests

Secure

Energy

Supply

Cyber

Security

Promotion of Liberal Economic

and Political Systems

Regional

Stability

WMD Counter-/

Nonproliferation

Japanese

Alliance

Taiwanese

Autonomy

Major

Order of Interest

Vital Peripheral

STATESOVEREIGNTY

Space Access

Deterrence

Air Access Counterterrorism

Korean

Security

NATO

International

Drug Trade

Figure 10.2. National interests

Moving from left to right, interests move from vital to peripheral—

declining in importance. Vital interests are most important to the nation and are of sufficient importance that the United States will go to 

war to protect them.40 Major interests will not precipitate the largescale use of military force, but a threat to them can lead to limited use 

of military force. Diplomatic coercion and economic sanctions are, 
204 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

however, much more common. Peripheral interests do not directly 

affect state sovereignty (survival) or economic interests. In many instances they are associated with the cultural and moral preferences and 

norms of the nation and its citizenry but are not of significant importance to the United States to solicit more than a negligible response to 

their violation.

Historically, violent nonstate actors have not presented existential 

threats to the United States. This is to say they can only pose limited 

risks to the vital interests of the nation and have yet to threaten its survival.41 As figure 10.3 illustrates, nonstate actors are likely the most 

numerous threat, but also the least dangerous of any potential adversaries.

Nuclear

Weapons

Major Combat

Operations

Lesser Combat

Operations

Insurgency

Terrorism

Nuclear

Weapons

Major Combat

Operations

Lesser Combat

Operations

Insurgency

Terrorism

Non-State Actors

Figure 10.3. Conflict pyramid

Violent nonstate actors are capable of posing threats to the major 

and peripheral interests of the United States and they may one day 

prove much more formidable. But the current state of technology 

(even with cyberterrorism) and the structure of the international system 

do not provide nonstate actors with the means to challenge the United 

States’ sovereignty or vital interests directly.42

As the attacks of 9/11 illustrate, the United States is susceptible to 

terrorist attack. On that day, almost 3,000 civilians were killed and 

over $1 trillion worth of damage was inflicted.43 Since the invasion of 

Afghanistan, more than 900 Americans have given their lives in Operation Enduring Freedom. In Iraq more than 4,000 Americans have 

died fighting an insurgency that, until 2011, proved difficult to defeat.44
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 205

The fiscal cost of both wars exceeds $1 trillion and continues to rise.45

While the ultimate outcome in Afghanistan and Iraq is yet to be determined, it is clear that the cost of defeating nonstate actors in both 

countries is significant. Thus, nonstate actors clearly pose a risk to the 

United States, but fortunately, that risk is limited.

Can Violent Nonstate Actors Be Deterred?

Providing an answer to this question is as complex and varied as 

the actors the United States seeks to deter. According to terrorism 

experts Paul Davis and Brian Michael Jenkins:

Although causing a member of al-Qaeda to change his stripes may be out of 

the question, deterring individuals from attacking individual targets is not. To 

the contrary, the empirical record shows that even hardened terrorists dislike 

operational risks and may be deterred by uncertainty and risk. A foot soldier 

may willingly give his life in a suicide mission, and organizations may be quite 

willing to sacrifice such pawns, but mission success is very important and 

leaders are in some ways risk-averse.46

With three distinct types of violent nonstate actors (international 

criminal organizations, terrorist groups, and insurgents), the motivations, objectives, and grievances of each make it difficult to develop a 

standard approach to deterrence. Thinking about deterrence in terms 

that were appropriate during the Cold War offers limited utility for 

today. Three examples illustrate the differences in deterring a nonstate actor and a Cold War–era nation-state. First, unlike states, nonstate actors do not exercise sovereignty over a given territory—in 

fact, they often seek to undermine state credibility by attacking the 

state’s ability to exercise sovereign control over its territory.47 Because 

the sovereign territory of a nation-state is more easily held at risk, it 

is possible to threaten that control and deter a nation. This is a key 

difficulty in the relationship between states and nonstate actors; often 

nonstate actors can deter states more effectively than states can deter 

their nonstate adversaries. Second, nonstate actors lack clearly identifiable 

centers of gravity that can be readily targeted.48 For a nation-state, the 

capital, military forces, or political leadership usually function as the 

centers of gravity. Third, nonstate actors exist to change the status 

quo, unlike nation-states.49 States have an inherent desire to protect 

that which they already possess, which makes them susceptible to 

coercion should they desire a change in the status quo. These and 
206 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

other differences between nonstate actors and nation-states make 

deterrence of violent nonstate actors a far more complex and difficult 

task today.

If deterrence is understood as operating along the spectrum 

proposed—with deterrence by dissuasion, denial, and threat available 

for application—it may be possible to devise a deterrence strategy 

that is effective in deterring some, if not all, violent nonstate actors. 

As in economics, there is a diminishing marginal utility for deterrence efforts.50 Although it may be possible to deter every threat by 

putting a border patrol agent along every inch of the US border, turning every American home into a fortress, or conducting a complete 

background investigation of every person entering the United States, 

such efforts would be cost prohibitive. Absolute certainty is not possible when attempting to deter nonstate actors. Thus, it is imperative 

that any deterrence strategy provide the greatest level of deterrence at 

the lowest possible cost.

Some nonstate actors, such as al-Qaeda, are less likely to be deterred permanently.51 With objectives that offer little room for negotiation or addressing specific grievances, there are virtually no options 

but destruction of the group.

Developing a detailed understanding of each nonstate actor’s motivations, objectives, and desired end state is necessary to determine 

the efficacy of a deterrence strategy.52 Simply dismissing a terrorist 

group as a gang of bloodthirsty killers—and therefore not susceptible 

to deterrence—may play well with an angry public, but it ignores 

what may be legitimate grievances that can be redressed with varying 

degrees of effort. Nonstate actors should not be dismissed because of 

the tactics (terrorism, assassination, ambush) they use. This is neither 

helpful in determining the most effective ways of deterring them nor 

in designing a strategy for their defeat.

How Do You Deter Violent Nonstate Actors?

Developing an effective deterrence strategy presents no easy task 

with a readily apparent solution. The simple application of force is 

insufficient to coerce deterrence targets into maintaining the status 

quo. Success requires far more than in decades past, but it is possible 

in some if not every instance.
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 207

Know Your Enemy

As previously mentioned, before an effective deterrence strategy 

can be developed, it is necessary to understand the conditions that 

gave rise to the criminal organization, terrorist group, or insurgency. 

Understanding the cultural, economic, historical, and political conditions of the nation in which a nonstate actor develops provides a 

clear sense of the potential appeal, strength, and longevity of the 

group or organization. It also enables the strategist to design a set of 

policies that effectively apply dissuasion, denial, and threat at each of 

the three levels of analysis (individual, domestic, and international). 

As figure 10.4 shows, a multipronged approach to deterrence may be 

most appropriate. But in order to develop such an approach, a thorough knowledge of an adversary and his environment is an essential 

criterion for success.

Individual Domestic International

Dissuasion Denial Threat

Level of Force

COMPELLENCE

Figure 10.4. Nonstate actor deterrence model

While suggesting “know thy enemy” may appear so fundamental 

to any deterrence effort that it need not be said, the United States 

does not have a history of developing an in-depth understanding of 

its adversaries—Iraq and Afghanistan are cases in point. Instead, 

American leaders have long relied on the nation’s economic and military power to overwhelm any potential adversary. When engaging 

with nonstate actors, this approach is less successful because this is 

the very strength that they are actively seeking to challenge.

Violent nonstate actors, particularly those that pose a threat over 

an extended period of time, are most often found in states with non-
208 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

democratic regimes, low levels of economic development, constrained upward mobility, and restrictions on human rights.53 Rarely 

do they arise in states with the most oppressive regimes—North Korea, 

for instance. Instead, they develop and thrive in countries where the 

citizenry often have legitimate grievances against the government 

and where bright and well-educated young people experience what 

Ted Robert Gurr calls “relative deprivation.”54 According to Gurr, 

citizens rebel because they perceive that their absolute condition 

should be better than it is, not because it is unacceptable. This state of 

affairs can give rise to all three types of violent nonstate actors.

For a deterrence strategy to work, specific policies must be developed 

that target the individual group member, the nation, and society giving 

rise to a group, and the international system in which nonstate actors 

operate. A multilayered approach to deterrence offers the greatest 

chance for success.

Recommendations at the Individual Level

The design of a deterrence-by-dissuasion approach can take a 

number of forms. First, the United States could wage an active propaganda campaign targeting those most likely to join criminal organizations, insurgencies, or terrorist groups.55 In most instances the 

United States is not directly responsible for the deprivation facing 

many around the globe, but it does a poor job of selling American 

ideals and efforts to improve lives around the world, leaving millions 

with an incorrect impression of the United States. Second, the US 

could actively support and assist those individuals and groups actively challenging the ideologies espoused by many nonstate actors.56

The imams, for example, who do not support a violent global jihad, 

are, in many cases, an effective tool in preventing potential members 

from joining a terrorist group. Third, the United States could sponsor 

alternative organizations that provide an outlet for disaffected individuals to express their concerns, turn to for support, and find alternatives to violence. As Marc Sageman notes, those who join the jihad 

tend to be new to a foreign country, lonely, unhappy in their current 

circumstances, and susceptible to influence.57 Providing alternative 

organizations to radical mosques can prevent the conversion of many 

to the terrorists’ cause.

Deterrence by denial can also take a number of forms. First, effective security measures at airports, border crossings, and seaports act 
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 209

as an active defense that may deter some seeking to carry out terrorist 

attacks.58 As the probability of a successful attack decreases, the probability of successful deterrence increases. For terrorists, a failed attack is worse than no attack at all. Second, potential targets should be 

hardened. A passive defense may be sufficient to convince an attacker 

that success is unlikely. Third, effective intelligence gathering, policing, 

and forensic investigation may be successful in convincing individual 

group members that they will be denied the anonymity they seek.

Deterrence by threat is undoubtedly what Americans are most 

familiar with, but current efforts have not proven as effective as desired. As Audrey Kurth Cronin notes, targeted assassination and related approaches to addressing terrorism may have some deterrent 

value, but they are difficult for democratic leaders and societies to 

accept as a legitimate means of deterring violent nonstate actors.59

However, the threat of violence can have a positive effect, but only if 

backed by a credible ability to target that which a violent nonstate actor values most and seeks to prevent its harm. While violent nonstate 

actors use what Moises Naim calls “the five wars of globalization”—

illegal trade in drugs, arms, intellectual property, people, and 

money—to further their causes, current government efforts to control these adversaries are having only limited effect.60 Although a 

number of cases exist where governments used massive repression 

and violence in an attempt to eradicate terrorist organizations—some 

successfully—the indiscriminant use of violence often leads to 

pyrrhic victories.61

Instead, the threatened use of violence should be precisely targeted 

at that which individual violent nonstate actors hold dear. Developing the ability to devise such an approach requires an intimate knowledge of the individuals comprising terrorist networks or organizations. Again, the threat of violence and its ultimate use is not the only 

approach to deterring and defeating violent nonstate actors. They are 

parts of an integrated strategy that layers a variety of policies designed to prevent terrorism and other acts of violence.

While the threat of massive retaliation must always remain an option to underscore deterrence credibility and eradicate criminals, insurgents, and terrorists, states will stand a better chance in the competition against violent nonstate actors if they have a robust tool kit 

that applies an array of options to the deterrence calculus.
210 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

Recommendations at the Domestic Level

Because nonstate actors are dissatisfied with the status quo in a 

world dominated by nation-states, focusing deterrence at the state or 

society levels is as important, if not more so, as directing it at the individual. Much counterinsurgency literature describes “the people” 

as the center of gravity.62 Win the support of the people, and the insurgency can be defeated. While accomplishing this feat is no easy 

task, it plays an important role in defeating criminal organizations 

and terrorist groups as well.

Deterrence by dissuasion offers the opportunity to apply a number 

of policies directed at political leaders and societies. First, the United 

States should work with foreign leaders to address the possible legitimate grievances of some nonstate actors.63 While political leaders in 

the nondemocratic nations from which most terrorist and insurgent 

groups develop will not accede to free and fair elections, it is possible 

for American policy makers to use the considerable leverage of the 

United States to promote economic and human rights reforms. This 

is a desirable option because it has the potential to reduce or eliminate the grievances that give rise to violent nonstate actors and the 

opportunity to show the United States in a positive light. As the civil 

war in Libya illustrates, American leaders are apt to interpret the 

United States’ interests very broadly, which can lead to intervention 

when a nation experiences internal instability. Thus, encouraging 

national leaders to address grievances well before terrorist groups 

and insurgencies develop stands to limit more invasive American involvement around the world.

Second, and related, a more effective societywide use of proAmerican propaganda could dramatically improve the United States’ 

image around the world.64 Such efforts were highly successful during 

the Cold War and may be successful in the present security context. 

Since the end of the Cold War, organizations such as the Voice of 

America have been largely ineffectual in promoting a generally positive view of the United States. It is time to mobilize national capabilities to combat poisonous ideologies as was done against communism 

during the Cold War. This can be done with relatively limited fiscal 

resources, while repeating significant gains.

Third, the president and the secretary of state could take a more 

active role in discouraging allies—those with large populations of 

discontented citizens—from using state-controlled media to blame 
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 211

domestic ills on the United States, which is rarely responsible.65 This 

practice is more than a half-century old in the Middle East. Authoritarian regimes employ this method of obfuscation in order to turn 

the ire of their people away from the regime’s failures. In many instances, the regimes that are guilty of this practice are allies or friends 

of the United States.

Deterrence by denial can also play an important role at the domestic 

level. Illiberal regimes are susceptible to a denial of economic benefits 

tied to reform.66 Again, eliminating the grievances that give rise to 

nonstate violence and lead segments of society to support them is 

necessary. The United States can also provide many states the training 

and support necessary to create honest and effective police forces—a 

common problem in many countries.67 Denying nonstate actors anonymity through successful local policing may be sufficient to defeat 

them. Additionally, the United States can deny allies the military aid 

they often receive. American troops play a key role in assisting, funding, and training local military forces as part of ongoing foreign internal defense (known as FID) programs. Loss of US assistance might 

force these regimes to address the grievances of nonstate actors or 

face a serious challenge to the regime.68

Deterrence by threat may be the most effective way to apply domestic pressure. American forces can assist local forces in presenting 

a clear military threat to insurgent or terrorist groups.69 The United 

States can also encourage political leaders—in susceptible countries—

to place significant resources and time into addressing their internal 

problems by clearly communicating that the United States will not 

respect territorial sovereignty when hunting down those who have 

attacked the American people. The United States can also make it 

clear that it will hold governments accountable for the acts of their 

citizens.70 For example, Saudi Arabia turned a blind eye to Wahhabi 

jihadists as long as terrorism was directed externally. Only when the 

kingdom became a target did the king act. Other “allies” are undertaking similar, and unacceptable, approaches. Thus, a change in approach by the United States could go a long way in deterring violent 

nonstate actors.

Recommendations at the International Level

Because nonstate actors are not recognized participants in the international system, it is more difficult to design deterrence policies at 
212 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

this level. However three specific policies can assist in deterring these 

groups. First, the international community, led by the United States, 

can bring significant weight to bear in creating a broad cultural rejection of the tactics used by violent nonstate actors.71 If the international community could, for example, reach consensus on a definition of terrorism, it may be possible to create a broader dissuasive 

effect that filters down to the societal and individual levels. As examples 

such as the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and al-Qaeda illustrate, significant funding and support for local activities comes from international sources.72 Thus, developing a consensus on what is and is not 

acceptable behavior has the potential to assist in eliminating these 

sources of support.

Second, improved intelligence gathering and greater cooperation 

across national intelligence agencies can significantly contribute to 

denying potential criminals and terrorists the ability to travel internationally, to launder illicit funds, and to communicate with other 

members and supporters around the globe.73 Interagency and multinational cooperation does occur, but there is certainly room for improvement. However, the case of PFC Bradley Manning and Wikileaks 

has undermined efforts to promote openness among the federal government’s information and intelligence-gathering organizations, making 

this recommendation more difficult than before.74

Third, the United States could shift to a policy of offshore balancing in much of the world. As Robert Pape notes in his work on suicide 

terrorism, groups within countries where American forces are present 

perceive the presence of American troops in the Middle East and 

elsewhere as a threat to the “homeland.” Pape suggests that moving 

US forces offshore will likely reduce the perceived threat. Thus, a reduction in terrorism and insurgent activity may occur as a result.75

Conclusion

Developing an effective deterrence strategy for today’s adversaries 

is more complex and difficult than at any time in American history. 

The range of adversaries confronting the United States is staggering. 

Developing tailored approaches to deterring our adversaries may 

provide the United States with a more effective solution to the challenges facing the nation. Addressing common misconceptions in a 

variety of areas will enable the United States to develop a clearer 
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 213

picture of the threats facing the American people and assist in developing workable approaches to protecting the nation’s interests.

In some instances, deterrence will prove effective. In others, it will 

not. Neither political leaders nor the American people should expect 

deterrence to work in every case in which it is applied. Deterrence 

can never be the sole strategy of the United States. It must work in 

conjunction with other strategies designed to accomplish national 

objectives through alternative means. Through the layered approach 

suggested, the United States may have a greater probability of succeeding in ongoing efforts to defend the country and its interests.

Notes

1. Doenecke, “American Isolationism, 1939–1941”; Astore, “The New American 

Isolationism”; and Patterson, et al., American Foreign Relations, 133–135.

2. Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, 53–96.

3. Ibid., 162–96.

4. Nichols, Eve of Destruction, 46–52.

5. Stiglitz, Globalization and Its Discontents, 3–22.

6. Falk and Morgenstern, Suicide Terror, 275.

7. Belasco, The Cost of Afghanistan, Iraq and Other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11. 

8. The debate between these two perspectives was, and is, seen regularly in publications such as the Weekly Standard, the Nation, the New York Times, the National 

Interest, the New Republic, Blueprint Magazine, Foreign Affairs, and the Atlantic 

Monthly. Perhaps the most well-known neoliberal is Harvard University professor 

and former Clinton administration assistant secretary of defense for international 

security affairs Joseph Nye. During the George W. Bush administration, neoconservatives such as William Kristol, Robert Kagan, Paul Wolfowitz, and Douglas 

Feith rose to prominence. See Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservatism.

9. Kristol, “The Neoconservative Persuasion”; and Vaisse, Neoconservatism, 110–47.

10. Miller, “Explaining Changes in U.S. Grand Strategy.”

11. “Al Maliki Defiant in Face of Regime’s Opponents,” Arizona Daily Star.

12. See Lebovic, Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States.

13. Naroll, Bullough, and Naroll, Military Deterrence in History.

14. Sheehan, The Balance of Power: History & Theory, 122–45.

15. US Strategic Command, Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept.

16. Roberts, “Deterrence and WMD Terrorism,” 275.

17. Payne, Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age, 129–32.

18. Jackson, Frelinger, Lostumbo, and Button, Evaluating Novel Threats to the 

Homeland, 95.

19. Luttwak, Strategy, 225–32; and Kugler, “Dissuasion as a Strategic Concept.”

20. Pape, “Coercion and Military Strategy”; and Byman and Waxman, Dynamics 

of Coercion, 50–56, 80–91.
214 │ DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS

21. Brodie, Strategy in the Missile Age, 264–304.

22. Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, 26–35.

23. White, Nation, State, and Territory, 121–40.

24. An Ismaili terrorist movement was established by Hassan-i-Sabbah, ca. 1080. 

These people were known derisively as “Hasishin” or “users of hashish.” This is where 

the modern word “assassin” and the words for “murder” in some other languages 

come from. These assassins were called “Fida’i” meaning “self-sacrificing agents.” The 

point here is that Muslim terrorism is indeed ancient.

25. Ward, Anarchism.

26. Mulaj, Violent Non-state Actors, 1–27; and Peters, Koechlin, Förster, and 

Fenner Zinkernagel, Non-State Actors as Standard Setters.

27. Naim, “Five Wars of Globalization.”

28. Richards, Transnational Criminal Organizations, Cybercrime, and Money 

Laundering, 2–20.

29. Mainwaring, A Contemporary Challenge to State Sovereignty, 23–33.

30. Jones and Libicki, How Terrorist Groups End, 15.

31. Blanchard, Al-Qaeda.

32. Carr, Lessons of Terror, 161–165.

33. Jones and Libicki, How Terrorist Groups End, 25–29, 35–43.

34. Nance, An End to Al Qaeda, 134–36; and Rabasa, et al., Beyond al Qaeda, 35–36.

35. Shultz and Dew, Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias, 17–37.

36. Galula, Counterinsurgency Warfare, 1–2. Emphasis is in the original.

37. Mao, On Guerilla Warfare, 41.

38. See Snow, Uncivil Wars, 3–24; and Jenkins, Unconquerable Nation, 74–76.

39. The National Security Strategy (NSS) describes the nation’s “enduring national 

interests” as 

    •Security: The security of the United States, its citizens, and US allies and

partners. 

    •Prosperity: A strong innovative and growing US economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity.

    • Values: Respect for universal values at home and around the world.

    •International Order: An international order advanced by US leadership

that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges. 

The NSS is overly generic in its description of national interests, failing to describe 

interests that are readily translatable into policy. National Security Strategy, 17.

40. For a detailed explanation of the vital, major, and peripheral categorization 

used above, see Snow and Drew, Making Twenty-First-Century Strategy, 31–1. 

41. Coolsaet, Jihadi Terrorism and the Radicalization Challenge in Europe, 19; and 

Lesser, Hoffman, Arquilla, Ronfeldt, and Zanini, Countering the New Terrorism, 3.

42. Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, 229–56.

43. Biddle, American Grand Strategy after 9/11, 20.

44. Fischer, U.S. Military Casualty Statistics, 5.

45. Belasco, The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations since 9/11.

46. Davis and Jenkins, Deterrence and Influence in Counterterrorism, xii.

47. Hoffman, Inside Terrorism, 229–56.
DETERRING NONSTATE ACTORS │ 215

48. Steed, Piercing the Fog of War, 251.

49. Gareau, State Terrorism and the United States, 14–15.

50. The law of diminishing marginal utility holds that as a person increases consumption of a product, while keeping consumption of other products constant, there 

is a decline in the marginal utility of consuming each additional unit of that product.

51. Geltzer, US Counterterrorism Strategy and al-Qaeda, 43–65.

52. Davis and Jenkins, Deterrence and Influence in Counterterrorism, 9–28.

53. Jones and Libicki, How Terrorist Groups End, 3–4.

54. Gurr, Why Men Rebel.

55. Mainwaring, Deterrence in the 21st Century, 87–88.

56. See Ismail, Rethinking Islamist Politics.

57. Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks, 99–136.

58. Lebovic, Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States, 147–76.

59. Cronin, How Terrorism Ends, 25.

60. Naim, “The Five Wars of Globalization,” 35–36.

61. Cronin, How Terrorism Ends, 141–44.

62. See Forest, ed., Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century, 38.

63. Moghadam, The Roots of Terrorism, 45–65.

64. Forest, Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st Century, 394; and 

Altheide, Terrorism and the Politics of Fear, 87–132.

65. Snow, Information War, 130–32.

66. Wilkinson, Terrorism versus Democracy, 49–58.

67. Pickering, McCulloch, and Wright-Neville, Counter-terrorism Policing, Ch. 

4, 71–88.

68. Ucko, The New Counterinsurgency Era, 88–90.

69. Ganor, Counter-Terrorism Puzzle, 63–96.

70. Lebovic, Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States, 104–76.

71. Omilecheva, Counterterrorism Policies in Central Asia, 8–10.

72. Johannes and Marc, “Aftermath: Investigation and Mobilization: Irish Nationalists May Feel US’s Funding Squeeze”; and Lichtblau, “Threats and Responses.”

73. Schaffer, “Detecting Terrorist Financing through Financial Intelligence.”

74. Gould, “Pfc. Faces 22 New Charges in Wikileaks Case.”

75. Pape, “Suicide Terrorism and Democracy.”

Chapter 11

Space Strategic Deterrence

Achieving Space Superiority

Dale Hayden

Today, America’s preeminence in space is being challenged. The 

United States relies more heavily on space than any other nation. 

However, that reliance has also created a vulnerability—presenting 

an attractive target for potential adversaries. The nation’s vulnerabilities in space are most apparent in the area of assured access to space—

a national priority. Presently, the United States has limited ability to 

protect its space assets or to deny the actions of others in space, which 

has made “space superiority” only a concept and not an operational 

reality. Except for direct strikes against launch sites, the United States 

lacks any true capability to deny another nation’s access to space.

Before going further into the discussion of strategic space deterrence, it might be helpful to understand more about the medium and 

how the United States has arrived at its current reliance upon space 

assets. Operational space exists in principally near-, low-, and highEarth orbit. By international treaty, space begins at 65,000 feet. It extends upward in all directions from the earth’s surface, and it is a 

global common. Near-Earth orbit begins at 65,000 feet—a little over 

12 miles up, low-Earth orbit ranges from approximately 100 to 1,240 

miles, and high-Earth orbit generally means geostationary orbit, approximately 22,240 miles up. Near-Earth has eddies and wind currents and is capable of sustaining high-altitude balloons. Low-Earth 

orbit is where most satellites and the International Space Station operate, 

and high-Earth orbit, or geostationary orbit, is where the capability 

exists to position a satellite over a specific area on Earth and keep it there.

Why Is Space Important?

Today, no one questions the importance of space operations as an 

integral part of American national strategy. During the Cold War, the 

space race represented not only national pride, but national security 
218 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

as well. In the 1960s Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson stated, “One 

can predict with confidence that failure to master space means being 

second best in every aspect, in the crucial arena of our Cold War 

world. In the eyes of the world first in space means first, period; second 

in space is second in everything.”1 In the past 15 years reliance on 

space has grown geometrically. Global Positioning System (GPS) receivers are commonplace in many of today’s vehicles. Commercial 

banking is dependent upon satellite communications, and both landbased and satellite cable television receivers rely upon space-based 

assets. Military reliance is no less dramatic. From intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) to targeting, satellites provide a 

technological infrastructure that enables today’s precision strike and 

superiority of the battlespace. But our increased reliance on space capabilities has turned advantages into vulnerabilities and likely targets 

for potential adversaries. Thus, deterrence becomes paramount in the 

defense of critical national assets.

Directly related to the missions of deterrence and denial, in 1984 

and 1985 the United States tested antisatellite (ASAT) technology, 

going so far as to launch interceptor missiles from an F-15 toward 

points in space on four separate occasions. Finally in September 

1985, an interceptor missile was launched against an actual target, 

destroying a gamma ray spectroscopy satellite, Solwind P78-1. Congress refused to fund further testing of this technology in 1988, in 

part due to technical difficulties and in part due to cost growth. In 

February 2008 the Missile Defense Agency successfully destroyed a 

failing ISR satellite by firing an interceptor from the Navy’s ballistic 

missile defense cruiser USS Lake Erie, using targeting data from the 

US Air Force. This, however, was not supposed to be an ASAT demonstration. The demonstrated capability was intended for suborbital warheads, objects below the lower limits of low-Earth orbit. Further complicating the issue is the question of how the United States distinguishes 

an antisatellite weapons launch from any other launch.

During the past 40 years, space exploration under direct governmental control has moved to public and private exploitation; space 

has become a medium not that different from the land, sea, or air. 

Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington 

University, puts it this way: “Space is no longer a frontier, used and 

occupied solely by governments. From an environment in which only 

governments operated, largely for exploration and military purposes, 

space has rapidly filled with assets used for intelligence and military 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 219

operations to civilian communications, to observation and commerce. Today, more launches are dedicated to commercial purposes 

than to military ones.”2

 The numbers support his views. In the year 

2010, the commercial space industry generated over $189 billion in 

worldwide revenue.3

 The largest share of this commercial market was 

in space products and services, such as the use of satellites to deliver 

telephone, television, radio, data communications, remote sensing 

data, and government services, accounting for 37 percent of total 

commercial space revenues in 2010.4

Today, space exploration has even wider connotations. The European Union asserts, “Space systems are strategic assets demonstrating 

Europe’s independence and readiness to assume global responsibilities. The strategic mission of the European Space Policy, jointly developed 

by the European Commission and the ESA [European Space Agency], 

is based on the peaceful exploitation of outer space.”5

As in Europe, space asset usage has become a commonplace occurrence for the average American over the past 50 years. An example is our blind acceptance of the technology of television. When we 

turn on the TV, we simply expect the picture and sound to be there; 

no one speaks with awe about how the video and audio waves appear. 

Many of us will start our day by driving to work in an auto with a 

graphic display depicting our present location and directing us across 

town to a predetermined destination. We can gas up using a credit 

card and then remove money from our account using an automated 

bank teller machine in a different bank in another part of the country. 

We will think nothing about the technological wizardry, but these 

transactions—location, directions, and link to credit card and banking 

accounts—are all made possible by instantaneous access to multiple 

satellite constellations, something we all take for granted.

These and other satellite systems can provide navigation for civilian 

airliners, identify underground water in sub-Saharan Africa, and 

mark the destruction of the Amazon rain forests, in addition to numerous 

other everyday services we have all come to expect from a modern 

society. The failure of a single satellite in May 1998 disabled 80 percent of the pagers in the United States, cable and broadcast transmissions, credit card authorization networks, and corporate communication systems. If the GPS—a multisatellite constellation originally 

designed for military navigational assistance—were to fail, economic 

growth, transportation safety, homeland security, and critical national 

infrastructure in the United States would be put at risk.6

 Space, there-
220 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

fore, whether we realize it or not, plays an increasingly important role 

in everyday life.

The evolution of space from a frontier to an operating environment serving numerous customers raised a new set of issues for 

American policy makers. Recognizing the importance of space to US 

national interests, Congress chartered a review of national security 

space activities. Released in May 2001, The Report of the Commission 

to Assess United States National Security, Space Management and Organization, better known as the “Space Commission Report,” concluded that the security and economic well-being of the United States 

and its allies and friends depend on the nation’s ability to operate 

successfully in space. To be able to technologically and operationally 

contribute to peace and stability in a distinctly different but still dangerous and complex global environment, the United States needs to 

remain at the forefront in space, as we have in the air, on land, and at 

sea. Further, it must deter others from taking hostile actions against 

US space assets. Specifically, the United States must have the capability 

to use space as an integral part of its ability to manage crises, deter 

conflicts, and, if deterrence fails, prevail in conflict.7

Not surprisingly, military reliance on space is no less dramatic 

than that of today’s American public. Satellites provide the technological infrastructure that enables today’s precision strike and superiority 

of the battlespace. The military has long understood the significance 

of space, recognizing it as the ultimate “high ground” for military 

operations. Space provides the opportunity for surveillance without 

the issues of overflight and instantaneous communications capability 

that enables command and control of forces across the globe. Secretary of the Air Force Dr. James G. Roche stated, “Space capabilities in 

today’s world are no longer ‘nice to have,’ they’ve become indispensable at the strategic, operational and tactical levels of war.”8

 A decade 

ago, Peter B. Teets, undersecretary of the Air Force, director of the 

National Reconnaissance Office, and the senior Department of Defense (DOD) space official, emphasized the critical nature space 

plays: “I think the recent military conflict [Afghanistan] has shown 

us, without a doubt, how important the use of space is to national 

security and military operations.”9

Gen Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, stated as recently as 

2012, 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 221

Even with extraordinary budget pressures, we are protecting—and in some 

cases, even increasing—investments in our top acquisition priorities, including 

space systems that we deem critical to Joint war-fighting requirements. In fact, 

space acquisitions represent 21 percent of all Air Force investment spending, 

and include 4 of our 10 largest procurement programs: Space-Based Infrared, 

Global Positioning System–III, and Advanced Extremely-High Frequency 

systems, and the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle.10

How Did We Get to Where We Are Now? 

The Evolution of US National Space Policy

While it may be simplistic to state that it all began with a single 

launch—it all began with the Soviet Union’s Sputnik launch in 1957, 

which made the USSR the first space-faring nation. That launch 

shook the United States like nothing since the opening days of the 

Korean War. How could anyone but US scientists have the necessary 

background with which to accomplish such a feat? The Eisenhower 

administration moved rapidly to determine a direction for America’s 

space effort and created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on 1 October 1958, which dictated the civilian 

route of the US entry into space. During this same period, the US Air 

Force moved quickly to stake its claim to military operational interests. 

Gen Thomas D. White issued the first Air Force space doctrine on 29 

November 1957, which included the ideas that space power would 

someday prove as dominant in combat as the Air Force believed that 

airpower already was and that the Air Force should have operational 

control over all forces within this medium.11

Today, civilian-operated NASA controls manned space flight and 

space exploration, while the DOD directs the nation’s military space 

efforts, with the Army, Navy, and Air Force operating separate organizations responsible for space application within their services. Following the Space Commission Report in May 2001, DOD identified 

the Air Force as the military’s executive agent of space, reporting to 

the undersecretary of the Air Force.12 Within the Air Force, Air Force 

Space Command serves as the “space corps” discussed in the commission’s report, with cradle-to-grave responsibility for space systems 

acquisition and operations.13 Further streamlining the administrative 

function of space within DOD, effective 1 October 2002, United 

States Strategic Command assumed control of military space as the 

nation’s unified command.
222 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

One significant change since the earliest days of the US space program is the current state of cooperation between NASA and the military. Through much of US space history, NASA and the military competed for resources, which is understandable with space being an 

extension of Cold War expectations. During the post–Cold War era, 

the paradigm changed, culminating in May 2002, when Congress directed the secretary of the Air Force to continue the growing cooperative 

relationship with NASA and explore the possibility of a joint development project for future space lift that could meet each organization’s 

requirements.14 One outgrowth of this new direction was the Air 

Force’s XB-37B, an orbital test vehicle, which was an unmanned 

vehicle capable of multiple launch and recovery while sustaining 

low-Earth orbit for months at a time. 

Just as the US national security strategy evolved and adapted to a 

changing international environment, so did space policy. During the 

Cold War it reflected the struggle between East and West. According 

to Matthew J. Mowthorpe, author of US Military Approach to Space 

during the Cold War, American administrations generally viewed 

space as a “sanctuary” during the early period of the Cold War—that 

is, not to be used for military purposes and to remain free from weapons. 

Space could then provide strategic stability by providing surveillance 

of missile launches and increasing the survivability of retaliatory strategic 

forces.15 During the 1980s, the Reagan administration shifted US 

policy from viewing space as a surveillance medium to exploring the 

feasibility of using space for strategic defense.16 The announcement of 

the Strategic Defense Initiative in March 1983, coupled with the 

Challenger disaster in January 1986, led to a revised US space policy 

in January 1988 that set up four new pillars for space: deterring or 

defending against enemy attack, assured US space access, negating 

hostile space systems, and enhancing operations of United States and 

allied forces.17

The Reagan administration’s policy shift implied for the first time 

that space was not a pristine environment, but like land, sea, and air, 

simply another arena for military operations. As the first post–Cold 

War statement of national space policy, the 1996 National Space Policy 

continued this trend and announced, “Access to and use of space is 

central for preserving peace and protecting US national security as 

well as civil and commercial interests.”18 Completing the transition in 

national space policy, President Clinton’s secretary of defense, William 

Cohen, wrote in a letter to his service secretaries and senior military 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 223

personnel, “Space is a medium like the land, sea, and air within 

which military activities will be conducted to achieve US national 

security objectives.”19

Recognizing the increasing importance of space, the National Security 

Strategy (NSS) of December 1999 declared for the first time that the 

“unimpeded access to and use of space is essential for protecting U.S. 

national security.”20 The congressionally chartered “Space Commission” completed the current evolution of US space policy when it 

reached five unanimous conclusions in its report:

First, the present extent of U. S. dependence on space, the rapid pace at which 

this dependence is increasing, and the vulnerability it creates all demand that 

U. S. national security space interests be recognized as a top national security 

priority. . . . Second, the U. S. government—in particular, the Department of 

Defense and the Intelligence Community—is not yet arranged or focused to 

meet the national security space needs of the twenty-first century. . . . Third, 

U. S. national security space programs are vital to peace and stability. . . . 

Fourth, we know from history that every medium—air, land, and sea—has 

seen conflict; reality indicates that space will be no different. Given this virtual 

certainty, the US must develop the means both to deter and to defend against 

hostile acts in U. S. and from space. . . . Finally, investment in science and technology resources—not just facilities, but people—is essential if the U.S. is to 

remain the world’s leading space-faring nation.21

The Bush administration’s National Security Strategy of September 

2002 remained consistent with the policy transition begun during the 

Reagan administration. The 2002 Bush NSS addressed space in the 

post–9/11 environment:

Before the war in Afghanistan, that area [space] was low on the list of major 

planning contingencies. Yet, in a very short time, we had to operate across the 

length and breadth of that remote nation, using every branch of the armed 

forces. We must prepare for more such deployments by developing assets such 

as advanced remote sensing, long-range precision strike capabilities, and 

transformed maneuver and expeditionary forces. This broad portfolio of military capabilities must also include the ability to defend the homeland, conduct 

information operations, ensure U. S. access to distant theaters, and protect 

critical U. S. infrastructure and assets in outer space.22

Recognizing a need to update the 1996 US space policy to reflect 

both the post–Cold War and post–9/11 situations, on 28 June 2002, 

President Bush directed the National Security Council to chair a review of US space policy and report back during 2003.23 The destruction of the shuttle Columbia during reentry on 1 February 2003 

caused an almost three-year delay in the report. On 31 August 2006, 
224 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

President Bush signed off on the new space policy—a document that 

superseded the September 1996 version of the directive. The new 

policy supported not only a Moon, Mars, and beyond exploration 

agenda, but also responded to a post–9/11 world of terrorist actions, 

such as the need for intelligence gathering internal and external to 

the United States. The directive recognized that “space has become a 

place that is increasingly used by a host of nations, consortia, businesses, and entrepreneurs. . . . In this new century, those who effectively utilize space will enjoy added prosperity and security and will 

hold a substantial advantage over those who do not.”24

In 2010 Pres. Barack Obama’s administration announced it would 

shift spending from government projects (e.g., the decision to cancel 

NASA’s Constellation manned spaceflight program) and rely more 

heavily upon commercial endeavors like those of SpaceX. Marking a 

potentially dramatic change in American space policy in the second 

decade of the twenty-first century, the United States appears poised 

to place greater emphasis on private companies, rather than relying 

heavily upon government-developed programs.25

Who Are the Players and Why Are They Important?

Throughout most of the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet 

Union were the only nations with the industrial infrastructure and 

political will to break the bounds of Earth. Today, in addition to the 

European Space Agency consortium, no less than seven countries 

have space-launch capability.26

Furthermore, space activities are moving away from government 

operation and are increasingly becoming commercially oriented. The 

proliferation of space activities broadens the threat. The US industrial 

base finds new invigorated competition, potentially driving the few 

remaining American companies abroad to remain competitive, while 

directly challenging the decades-old US space preeminence. The US 

dependence on space further highlights its vulnerability. Today, any 

nation with adequate funding can purchase capability for almost any 

purpose. This dramatically changes the dynamic from the Cold–War era.

A decade ago Charles V. Pena of the Cato Institute described space 

as it relates to national security as being shaped and influenced more 

by the future of commercial space activities rather than international 

military competition.27 We have seen this emerge where commercial 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 225

ventures continue to rise to fill the demand for low-cost, reliable lift. 

However, full comprehension of the challenge requires an appreciation of the evolution of the early twenty-first century environment.

During the 1990s, the United States, Europe, China, and Russia 

developed proven commercial launch capabilities. Orbital Sciences 

Corporation of Dulles, Virginia, launched a Department of Defense 

satellite aboard an air-launched Pegasus rocket in 1990. It became the 

first privately developed space launch vehicle and launch bought by 

the government on a commercial basis.28

The European Space Agency’s family of Ariane vehicles has been 

the chief US competitor in the international launch market. Ariane 

vehicles have dominated the market, launching 55 percent of all commercial payloads between 1990 and 1995, China’s Long-March vehicle 

captured 9 percent, and the United States, 36 percent.29 Russia entered 

the commercial launch market through a consortium with Lockheed 

Martin, called International Launch Services, while offering other 

independent commercial launch services at the same time. India, Israel, 

Japan, and Australia round out the list of countries with proven 

space-launch capabilities and, with the exception of Japan, have yet to 

offer international commercial services. This reality has provided a 

significant opening for such privately owned companies as SpaceX 

and Orbital to enter the marketplace. The new reality is even recognized 

by NASA administrator Charles Bolden in remarks articulating the 

future for United States manned spaceflight, where he sees a growing 

role for commercial space effort, particularly in low-Earth orbit.30

As we are seeing, the future space exploitation may not be restricted primarily to governments and multinational corporations 

but may follow the proliferation pattern exhibited by aviation. One 

such example is an attempt to emulate the aviation industry of the 

early 1920s when private organizations offered monetary rewards in 

an attempt to spur technological development. In the spirit of Charles 

Lindbergh and his winning the race for the first solo flight across the 

Atlantic, a group of St. Louis, Missouri–based business leaders started 

the X-Prize in 1996 to promote private space travel. In all, 21 teams 

from six countries—Argentina, Canada, Romania, Russia, United 

Kingdom, and the United States—joined the competition for the $10 

million prize to be the first amateur team that builds and flies a 

manned craft into space.31 On 29 September and 4 October 2004, 

SpaceShipOne broke the 100-kilometer mark (62.5 miles), the internationally recognized boundary of space. A public company, Virgin 
226 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Galactic, is now poised to ferry paying customers into suborbital 

flight out of a New Mexico spaceport.

Amateur unmanned programs have proliferated as capabilities increase and cost decreases. Virgin Galactic successfully demonstrated 

the way for a number of privately owned efforts, to include Civilian 

Space eXploration Team, Interorbital Systems, and Starchaser Industries, just to name a few. By 2010, Elon Musk’s company, SpaceX, successfully launched light- and medium-lift vehicles in Falcon 1 and 

Falcon 9. Attempting to shape space launch through the public sector, 

both the Falcon 1 and 9 significantly reduce cost and are designed to 

undercut their rivals (Boeing and Lockheed Martin) by a factor of 

10.32 In December 2008 NASA selected SpaceX to resupply the International Space Station during the hiatus of US manned flight following the last space shuttle mission in July 2011.33

For the immediate future, space remains the purview, principally, 

of nation-states, despite great commercial and private involvement. 

Space exploration reflects national pride and represents strategic national interests. Henry Kissinger, President Nixon’s secretary of state, 

noted that the “international system of the twenty-first century will 

contain at least six major powers—the United States, Europe, China, 

Japan, Russia, and probably India.”34 These also happen to be the nations most capable of independent projection into space for both the 

present and the near term. Each has highly capable industrial infrastructures and possesses the will to expend scarce resources to support space-faring goals. None yet has the ability to directly threaten 

US dominance in space. But an accurate picture requires one to look 

at capabilities and future intent. Before determining what impact 

they may have on future US policy—and ultimately deterrence—the 

state of play in each power should be reviewed. Russia, inheritor of 

much of the Soviet Union’s Cold War space heritage, is a logical place 

to begin.

Russia

Today, the Russian space program faces many daunting challenges, 

with shortfalls in financing being blamed for a series of failures and 

placing in question the continuing relationship with NASA.35 Much 

change has occurred since the “fall of the wall,” and the dissolution of 

the Soviet Union. While the Russian government inherited vast 

capabilities, it also inherited significant challenges from its Soviet 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 227

predecessor. The Russian Federal Space Agency or Roscosmos and 

the Russian Space Forces, both founded in 1992, were given the initial responsibility for maintaining a diverse constellation of approximately 170 operational spacecraft and the industry behind them.36 In 

December 2011, Russia transitioned satellite and Plesetsk Cosmodrome operations to the Russian Aerospace Defence Forces. Administrative changes have not slowed criticism of a program that some 50 

years ago placed the first satellite in space.

Yuri Koptev, Roscosmos director, concluded that the steady decline of Moscow’s space program meant it was only capable of providing 

services to others—no longer capable of independent major mission 

launch. The Russian space budget has shrunk to one-nineteenth of 

what it was in 1989. Mr. Koptev remarked at a conference on space 

research in December 2002, “Our NASA colleagues are terrified by 

the fact that their budget amounts to $15 billion a year, but Russia’s 

space budget totals $309 million.” He added that India spends nearly 

$530 million annually on space research.37

Underfunding not only affects the Russian space effort, but its infrastructure as well. A May 2001 fire at Serpukhov, 150 miles from 

Moscow, severely damaged Russian command and control capabilities, while in May 2002 a roof collapsed at the Baikonur Cosmodrome, killing six workers and damaging the Buran shuttle spacecraft, the only one of three built to have flown in space. The Soviets 

initiated the Buran project in 1976 in response to the US shuttle program but abandoned it after the fall of the Soviet Union.38

Further hampering the Russian space effort is the location of its 

main launch site at the Baikonur Cosmodrome in the now independent Republic of Kazakhstan, in the former Soviet Central Asia. Moscow 

leases the facility from its neighbor but has been trying to shift 

launches to its own Plesetsk Cosmodrome, which represents yet another 

funding challenge.39

The increased revenue generated by Russian oil fields is, for now, 

providing the financial wherewithal for a resurgent Russia. Russia retains 

a robust launch capability, able to place objects in both near-Earth 

and deep-space orbits. Its Soyuz rocket, the backbone of Russia’s 

space operations, traces its origins to the rocket that sent the first 

man, Yuri Gagarin of the Soviet Union, into space in 1961. It remains 

highly reliable and has experienced only one failure within the past 

11 years. Following NASA’s ending of the space shuttle program in 

2011, Russia’s launch capability represents the only viable lifeline to 
228 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

the International Space Station for the foreseeable future. While the 

past presents a proud heritage for the Russian space program and the 

present displays hope, the future may not be as bright.

China

Another Cold War adversary and potential competitor is the People’s Republic of China, which has made significant advances toward 

reaching its goals as a space-faring nation. It launched its first satellite 

on 24 April 1970 and possesses a robust family of boosters called 

Long March. Launching from three sites—Jiuquan, Xichang, and 

Taiyuan—it has established an integrated command and control network capable of directing satellites in both near-Earth and geostationary orbit, the largest models being three tons.40

Taking its first steps toward reaching manned space flight on 20 

November 1999, China launched an unmanned experimental spacecraft and then recovered it the next day.41 The China Business Times, a 

Chinese government-run publication, noted the military implications for the space flight, as well. It quoted a Chinese military expert 

as stating the same low-power propulsion technology used to adjust 

a spacecraft’s orbit could also be used to alter the path of offensive 

missiles, helping them evade proposed US antimissile defense systems.42

Luan Enjie, administrator of the China National Space Agency, 

proclaimed at the 4 October 2000 Third United Nations Conference 

on the Exploration and Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, “The development and application level of the space technology has become an 

important indicator of a nation’s comprehensive strength. Sustained 

development and application of the space technology has been the 

important topic of every country dedicated to its own development.” 

He went on to state that “China will actively and pragmatically implement a comprehensive multilayer and multiform strategy of international cooperation and exchange in space technology according to 

the market demands of space science, space technology and space 

application. The new century is a century for Chinese space industry 

to develop continuously.”43

China’s Tenth Five-Year Plan, published in December 2001, gave 

more details of its space goals and articulated a new generation of 

boosters with greater thrust, higher reliability, and lower cost. It also 

described aspirations for a manned space program that could potentially lead to lunar and deep space exploration.44
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 229

China became the third country with a successful manned space 

program by sending an astronaut into space aboard Shenzhou 5 on 15 

October 2003 for more than 21 hours. Since then, China has turned its 

focus to extraterrestrial exploration beginning with the Moon. The first 

Chinese Lunar Exploration Program unmanned lunar orbiter, Chang’e

1, was successfully launched on 24 October 2007, making China the 

fifth nation in the world to master this technology. Further demonstrating advanced capabilities, the Chinese government has placed a 

space station in low-Earth orbit, successfully carrying out docking and 

undocking maneuvers,45 something only two other nations have successfully accomplished. Attempting to avoid public missteps of both 

the US and Russian space programs, China’s manned space program 

goals remain simultaneously guarded and deliberate.

China, however, faces many challenges in the near future. To date, it 

appears to be effectively transforming itself from a command economy 

to a more capitalist model. A new moneyed elite is emerging, and 

entrepreneurs were welcomed for the first time at a Chinese Communist Party Congress in November 2002, yet vast areas within 

China remain unaffected by the economic boom of the first part of 

the twenty-first century. Furthermore, officials are struggling with 

the question of how to reform the party while retaining control of the 

government, something few one-party systems have ever accomplished. While there is no guarantee of China reaching its full potential, underestimating China would be foolhardy. China sees itself as a 

future world player to be taken seriously.

Japan

Long in the shadow of shared US space technology, Japan is beginning to strike an independent path. The National Space Development 

Agency (NASDA), established in 1969 to oversee most of Japan’s 

space effort, witnessed its first satellite launch in 1970. Over the next 

two decades, Japan based its booster program on shared US technology, 

but during the 1980s, it began developing a domestically designed 

booster to take advantage of the growing commercial market and to 

increase its flexibility.46

While Japan was poised to enter the competitive commercial market 

with its domestically produced H-2 booster, Japan experienced failure 

after failure and eventually canceled the H-2 program in 1999.47 In 

August 2001, Japan successfully launched its H-2A booster, which 
230 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

ended six major setbacks in seven years, restoring much of Japan’s 

sapped morale. The Japanese vision for space development was based 

upon NASDA doctrine: (1) establishing a strong foundation for the 

future of Japanese space development programs; (2) involvement in 

developing new and innovative space technologies and systems; and 

(3) promoting international cooperation programs by sharing philosophical ideas behind the future of space development. Because of this 

direction, Japan has placed higher priority on four areas: construction 

of a global Earth observation system, promotion of advanced space 

science and unmanned lunar exploration, an in-orbit laboratory, and 

development and operation of new space program infrastructures.

The Japanese space program continues to evolve and since 2003 

has been guided by the Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency 

(JAXA). Formed from three previously existing organizations, the 

Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, the National Aerospace 

Laboratory of Japan, and NASDA, JAXA is responsible for research, 

technological development, and satellite launch. The new Japanese 

space goals are articulated in JAXA 2025, but even there the challenges Japan faces are evident.48 Phrases such as “establish space 

transportation system,” “revive aircraft manufacturing,” and “establish indigenous technologies for human space activities,” foreshadow 

the difficult path ahead.49

Looking toward space exploration and exploitation, Japan is moving 

further into the marketplace on an almost two-decade quest to compete in the world’s commercial satellite-launch business.50 While this 

was built on the success of the Japanese economy at the close of the 

twentieth century, the intervening decades have not been kind. Presently, Japanese space expenditures hover around $4 billion annually.51

Nevertheless, despite lofty goals and aspirations, the Japanese space 

program faces significant challenges. In addition to financial issues, a 

significant limiting factor for Japan will probably be human capital, 

as the Japanese cadre of scientists and engineers that constitute the 

space workforce diminish further in the face of demographic challenges. The estimated space workforce for Japan today is roughly 

6,500 workers, in comparison to China’s 50,000. One virtue of the 

small satellite development efforts in Japan is that spreading this 

work into universities and other institutions helps to cultivate 

younger engineering and scientific talents.52

Further complicating finances, Hughes satellite manufacturing 

pulled out of a contract with Japan to launch 10 of its satellites on the 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 231

H-2A, and other clients seem reluctant to risk their satellites on this 

still unproven rocket when other, more established launch vehicles 

are available.53 In addition, the commercial launch business is becoming more competitive, with Russian and Chinese launch systems, 

not to mention SpaceX, providing viable launch alternatives at a 

competitive price. An editorial in the Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper expressed early public concerns about the Japanese space program in 

light of Japanese involvement in the International Space Station and 

the economic stagnation of the Japanese economy over the past decade. Labeling the national goal for space as “unclear mission creep,” 

the editorial concluded with these questions: “How much money is 

needed for space development? What can be done when? Or, what 

cannot be done? Is the final goal a practical space manned flight? Or 

is it just a fundamental technological experiment?”54 A decade later 

these concerns continue, fuelled by the global economic downturn 

that began in 2007, questions both the Japanese government and its 

people must eventually answer.

European Space Agency

The most immediate commercial competitor to the United States 

space effort is the European Space Agency (ESA), a consortium of 

European nations representing 19 member states: Austria, Belgium, 

the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, 

Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, 

Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Canada takes 

part in some projects under a cooperation agreement. Romania 

signed its accession agreement with ESA on 20 January 2011 and became the 19th member state in December 2011. Hungary, Poland, 

Estonia, and Slovenia are European Cooperating States. Other countries have signed cooperation agreements with ESA. The European 

Union and ESA are independent of each other, but they interact in 

evolving European space programs and policy.55

ESA’s charter is to “provide for and to promote for exclusively 

peaceful purposes, cooperation among European States in space research and technology and their space applications, with a view to 

their being used for scientific purposes and operational space applications systems.”56 While individual members retain some autonomy 

and nations such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Germany have 

expressed space goals, the true might of the European space effort is 
232 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

expressed through ESA. Though not a subsidiary of the European 

Union (EU), the EU and ESA do cooperate closely.

Late in 2000 the EU Research Council and the ESA Ministerial 

Council met and outlined a new European space strategy. Edelgard 

Bulmahn, Germany’s federal minister of education and research, described the strategy as “aimed at providing Europe with its own access to space.”57 The strategy detailed three lines of action: strengthen 

the foundations of space activities, enhance scientific knowledge, and 

reap the benefits for society and seize markets opportunities.58 According to the ESA, the first line of action encompasses broadening 

space technology and guaranteeing access to space through a family 

of launch vehicles. The second sees Europe continuing to pursue cutting-edge technology, while the third has the objectives of seizing 

market opportunities and meeting new societal demands.59 Whereas 

lines one and two have significant international implications, with 

the Ariane family of rockets proving quite reliable and competitive 

on the commercial market, in line three the Europeans see their 

greatest promise. The European Space Agency puts the case directly: 

“The challenge is to ensure that Europe can take a fair share of the 

global market and related jobs.”60

In a highly competitive market and with an eye toward peaceful 

space exploitation, where might Europe be headed? In a 1999 article 

in The Parliamentary Monitor Magazine, Ian Taylor, a member of the 

UK Parliament, observed that economic challenges are “transforming 

the space industry, with larger, leaner suppliers emerging in both the 

United States and Europe.” In an attempt to define what role Europe 

might play in space, he went on to say, “Perhaps we [Europeans] 

could challenge the US dominance by backing dedicated niche applications,” such as better, smaller, and cheaper satellites.61 The November 2000 report to the ESA director general (commonly referred 

to as the “Wise Men Report”) asserted, “Without a clear space component, the evolution towards the [European Security and Defense 

Policy] will be incomplete.”62

European leaders see space as an arena that must be actively engaged. 

Europe is moving ahead with Galileo, a civilian satellite navigation 

program comparable to the US GPS constellation. Per the ESA to the 

European Parliament, “Galileo is one of the Union’s flagship programmes and the first satellite navigation system in the world designed 

for civilian use. It will enable the Union to remain independent in a 

time when reliance on global navigation systems continues to grow.”63
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 233

The European Union and ESA have both the political drive and the 

technological ability to implement their goals; the problematic area is 

funding. By 2012 the ESA budget had reached between $4 and $5 billion annually, slightly more than the Japanese space budget.64 The 

challenge facing the ESA is the successful articulation of goals to an 

ever-stressed international consortium of independent states. Despite funding limitations and competing national priorities, Europe 

remains a fierce competitor within the aerospace arena. 

The Rest

The remaining space-faring nations include India, Australia, Israel, 

and potentially North Korea and Iran. Each has demonstrated spaceaccess capabilities to varying degrees of success. Looking at their accomplishments and aspirations shows that the future model for international 

development in space will be proliferation rather than retrenchment. 

India. India entered the fellowship of space-faring nations on 15 

October 1994, with the successful launch of its polar satellite launch 

vehicle PSLV-D2 rocket with an 804kg Indian Remote Sensing-P2 

satellite. The focus of India’s space program is in the arena of weather, 

surveillance, and communications, particularly in light of increased 

tensions with its Pakistani neighbors. The Indian launch program 

remains active, with its seventh successful flight of its indigenous 

PSLV in September 2002, which placed its first dedicated weather 

satellite in orbit.65 India reached further in 2008 when it launched 

Chandrayaan-1, an unmanned lunar orbiter on a two-year mission 

to explore the Moon.66

Australia. Australia has a long history of involvement in space 

flight, mostly through their cooperation in US and British launches 

from their Woomera launch site. Australia has on numerous occasions attempted to join the space-faring nations independent of its 

old allies. The latest attempt occurred in 1999, when SpaceLift Australia Ltd signed an agreement with Russia to launch payloads less 

than 800 kilograms into low-Earth orbit. The agreement remains 

only a stated goal at this time, as the company has yet to meet its 

planned test launch of 2001.67 Australia continues to await independent launch capability without a clear path to obtain it. This agreement opened avenues for continued partnering between the two 

nations. Alexei Korostelev of the Russian space agency Roskosomos 

stated, “Australian organizations may also participate in other 
234 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Russian scientific programs, such as putting Australian materials 

processing equipment on board the Russian segment of the International Space Station.”68

Israel. Israel’s space program also has a long history, dating back to 

1961 with the launch of its first solid fueled minirocket. Desiring 

greater independence and self-reliance following the 1986 Challenger 

accident, Israel felt compelled to develop an indigenous space capability, and on 19 September 1988 launched its first domestically constructed satellite.69 Since 1988 Israel has continued domestic satellite 

launches from its Palmachim site, though it also relies upon US and 

ESA launch support for surveillance and communications capabilities.

North Korea. North Korea announced on 4 September 1998 that 

four days earlier it had placed its first satellite into orbit aboard a 

Taepodong, or Kwangmyongsong-1, rocket.70 Again, on 5 April 2009, 

the North Korean government publically declared the successful 

launch of a satellite aboard a Kwangmyongsong-2 rocket. While international debate immediately erupted concerning the success and intent of both launches, North Korea certainly exhibited both ICBM 

and space launch intent, if short of full capability. Shortly after new 

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un came to power, a spectacular failure 

of a rocket meant to put a satellite into orbit was more than a $1 billion 

humiliation.71 Despite its failures, the attempts, coupled with an open 

admission of a continued nuclear research with open testing, mark 

North Korea as a challenge, if not a direct threat, to US policy makers 

in the areas of both international relations and space development. 

Iran. On 4 February 2008 Iran successfully launched the two-staged, 

all-liquid propellant suborbital rocket Kavoshgar-1 (Explorer-1) on a 

maiden suborbital test flight from Shahroud, its newly inaugurated 

domestic space-launch complex. Since then, Iranian state television 

reported that Iran’s first “domestically” made satellite, the Omid (Persian meaning “Hope”), had been successfully launched into lowEarth orbit by a domestically produced Safir-2 rocket on 2 February 

2009. The operation was made to coincide with the 30th anniversary 

of the Iranian revolution. Almost immediately following the launch, 

US leadership expressed concern about an overlap between the technology used to launch satellites and the technology necessary for 

making advanced ballistic missiles. Acting State Department representative Robert Wood said in a statement: “Iran’s development of a 

space launch vehicle (SLV) capable of putting a satellite into orbit 

establishes the technical basis from which Iran could develop long-
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 235

range ballistic missile systems. Many of the technological building 

blocks involved in SLVs are the same as those required to develop 

long-range ballistic missiles.”72

Iran has also expressed an interest in manned space flight, publically declaring that it would place an Iranian in orbit aboard its own 

spacecraft by 2021. Scientific research on this program has already 

begun as Iran considers a manned space program, much like its nuclear 

program, vital in its technological race. While reality may be different, 

as with North Korea, the expressed intent and some demonstrated 

capabilities present a challenge for their neighbors, as well as for US 

policy makers.

This brief review of space-faring nations points to a future where 

space capability represents not just a nation’s pride, but also its strategic 

interests. US policy makers face many uncertainties, though possibly 

none is more daunting than intent and direction of international 

space development. Due to the increased activity over the past decades, the question remains whether the United States should be concerned, and if so, what is the best approach to protect its own national 

interests? The old paradigm of a single adversary is long past. Definitions like enemy or even adversary may be obsolete, particularly in an 

era when cooperation and competition live side by side. The loss of a 

bipolar military environment, rather than simplifying deterrence, has 

added significant complexity to the equation.

The Threat: Some Considerations

Complicating Deterrence

Every nation with space-faring capability or such aspirations openly 

advertises its peaceful intentions for space. There is open cooperation 

on the International Space Station and among the United States, Canada, 

Japan, Russia, the EU, and the ESA. Furthermore, international agreements and treaties discourage weapons in space. But to appreciate 

fully the impact of increased international development in space, it is 

necessary to widen the concept of threat. Threat need not be simply 

defined as militarily based; policy makers must expand the concept 

to include economic development, because underlying the openly 

peaceful aspirations for space that are universally expressed are the 

realistic expressions concerning national security and self interests. 
236 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Three areas that provide some indication of the threat are competition, proliferation, and surveillance.

Competition

Today’s space race is active and highly competitive. The European 

Space Agency’s Ariane, China’s Long March, Russia’s Soyuz, and the 

Japanese H-2A boosters have all been proven highly reliable, and 

American industry is positioning for the future with continued successful launches of the Delta IV and Atlas V boosters, and most recently Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. However, launch competition is only 

one challenge facing the United States. A greater concern to policy 

makers might well be competition in areas they consider safe, specifically the high technology sector. The ESA has openly expressed 

the goal of improving its market share in a number of areas, including 

the civilian navigational satellite market through the program entitled 

Galileo. The outcome of the first partnership between ESA and the 

European Commission, the 30-satellite Galileo navigation system is 

designed to provide high-quality positioning, navigation, and timing 

services to users across the whole world as a civil-controlled service 

offering guaranteed continuity of coverage.73 Referring to Galileo in a 

January 2002 statement, Claudio Mastracci, ESA’s director of application programs, said, “The stakes here [with Galileo] are commercial. 

The technical issues can be worked out between us [the United States 

and Europe] without much difficulty. They are not a problem.”74

French president Jacques Chirac’s comments on the situation can be 

interpreted from an economic as well as a political perspective when 

he suggested the failure to go ahead with Galileo would have resulted 

in Europe becoming a “vassal” of the United States.75

In light of potential commercial competition, policy makers must 

address the state of health of the American space industry. Space infrastructure and support industries, such as satellite manufacturing, 

now account for the second-largest component of the commercial 

space sector, reaching 32 percent of global space activity by 2010.76

Total global and total US space sales have continued to increase, 

mostly in services. However, the US share of the global market has 

decreased. For example, the US share of satellite manufacturing decreased 20 percent for all commercial communication satellite 

(COMMSAT) sales and 10 percent for geosynchronous Earth orbit 

(GEO) COMMSATs between 1999 and 2007.77 Defense funding, domestic 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 237

nondefense services, and ground equipment dominated US space industry sales. Export sales, though, represented less than 10 percent of 

total US company revenues annually from 2003 to 2006.78 Then the 

question is, Is the US space commercial sector healthy enough to sustain competition from European consortiums that have proven quite 

capable and competitive?

Proliferation: The Greatest Threat to Deterrence

Beyond the challenge exhibited by direct competition, the United 

States must face the specter of technological proliferation, further 

complicating the deterrence equation. Commercial space-launch 

enterprises have produced some unexpected consequences for US 

national space policy. Following a Chinese Long March-2E vehicle 

failure in January 1995 with a Hughes Space and Communications 

satellite payload onboard, China and Hughes immediately commissioned an independent review to determine the cause of the failure. 

The US State Department concluded in its analysis of the review that 

“Hughes assistance directly supported the Chinese space program in 

the areas of anomaly analysis/accident investigation, telemetry analysis, 

coupled loads analysis, hardware design and manufacturing, testing, 

and weather analysis. Moreover, the assistance provided by Hughes is 

likely to improve the standing of the Chinese in the commercial 

launch market, as they make improvements in spacelift reliability and 

performance.”79 The report went on to predict, “The long-term effect 

of increased reliability will be to improve the rate of successful deployment of Chinese satellites and, in turn, to facilitate China’s access to 

space for commercial and military programs.”80 China has not had a 

failure of its Long March family of vehicles since the assistance 

from Hughes.

History has proven technology is extremely difficult to contain, 

with proliferation appearing as the natural order of things. Accordingly, America is faced with enhanced Chinese space-lift capabilities, 

increased commercial launch competition, and the potential transfer 

of technology from the civilian to a more hostile military sector. Policy 

makers must rapidly determine the most appropriate response to deter 

potential hostile actions in space, particularly when faced with technological proliferation driven by almost universal access to the Internet 
238 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

and ready entrée by the international community to American colleges and universities.

Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance

Beyond the arena of increased ISR threat posed by nation-states, 

US policy makers must also concern themselves with commercially 

available imagery. Over the past decade, numerous companies have 

begun providing high-resolution satellite imagery to those willing to 

purchase their product. One example is the SPOT Image Corporation of France that has been commercially offering high-resolution 

imagery since the early 1990s. SPOT provides Earth observation 

products for such diverse applications as agriculture, cartography, 

cadastral mapping, environmental studies, urban planning, telecommunications, surveillance, forestry, land-use/land-cover mapping, 

natural hazard assessments, flood risk management, oil and gas exploration, geology, and civil engineering.81

The concern over commercially available imagery became so great 

during the 2002 Afghanistan campaign that the US National Imagery 

and Mapping Agency purchased exclusive rights to pictures taken of 

the war zone by Space Imaging’s IKONOS satellite, which has onemeter black and white resolution and four-meter color resolution. According to Charles Pena of the Cato Institute, this “buy to deny” policy 

is an example that demonstrates the importance of and demand for 

commercial space assets.82 While such arrangements augment government-owned resources, they also preclude others from obtaining 

like intelligence data. Commercial imagery is rapidly improving, with 

less than one-meter resolution available. Further, as providing commercial imagery becomes more profitable, new companies will certainly be enticed to enter the marketplace. For the United States, will 

“buy to deny” continue to be a successful deterrence strategy to restrict space access? If not, what might be an alternative?

Space Defense in Depth: A Viable Deterrence Strategy

As more nations field systems, to include such technologies as antisatellites and ground-based jammers and lasers, space superiority 

cannot be assured. Space control, a concept little different from that 

of air and potentially cyberspace control, is problematic. The United 

States does not have the ability to either protect its space assets or 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 239

deter the actions of others in space. As more nations field space 

systems, space superiority becomes an illusion. The challenge is to 

establish a strategy that furthers US national interests and creates a 

realistic space control architecture. Existing US vulnerabilities in 

space could drive a strategy that would lead to space weaponization. 

For years space professionals have discussed the potentiality of weapons 

in space. The imagination of science fiction depicted in such television series as Star Trek and movies like Star Wars excites the imagination of the possible. To many, space weaponization seems inevitable. 

As weapons moved from land to sea to air, logically, space seems the 

next domain. The United States could potentially spark a space arms 

race by placing weapons in space.

A less volatile, less expensive, and potentially more successful 

strategy to deter hostile actions and obtain space superiority would 

be to use the entire spectrum of diplomatic, information, military, 

and economic capabilities to develop a defense-in-depth construct for 

US space operations. By a multilayered approach, the space defense 

in depth takes advantage of the nation’s strength. Not knowing what 

asset to attack to reach the US space center of gravity places the adversary in a defensive position. This might also be known as the 

“make my day” approach. By instilling doubt in the adversary’s decisionmaking process, the United States forces any foe to face the question 

Clint Eastwood posed in his movie Dirty Harry: “You’ve got to ask 

yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya punk?”83

Space defense in depth should not begin with a military solution. 

It starts with the United States taking the lead in engaging the international community to the fullest extent in creating a system of protocols and relationships that encourages beneficial and benign behavior in space. Through economic and technical cooperation, 

nations become interdependent and much less likely to act against 

their own interests. America already partners widely with the international community in space operations. The United States is engaged with Russia, Japan, Canada, Brazil, the EU, and ESA in the International Space Station. Russia, China, and the ESA have launched 

satellites for United States–based corporations. Further, the United 

States and Europe are cooperating to avoid frequency overlap in the 

deployment of Galileo, a European version of GPS. The hope is that 

through economic and technical cooperation nations become interdependent and less likely to act against their own interests.
240 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

Partnering also lays the foundation for international negotiation, 

regulation, and governance by the rule of law, powerful concepts appreciated by our allies. Currently, the United States is party to a series 

of international regulations across land, sea, air, and space. A new 

round of international agreements could call for eliminating all weapons 

in space, which many nations may well find attractive. Precedents exist 

to regulate space activity through international negotiation and regulation. Following a successful US space-based nuclear weapons test during 

the early 1960s, the international arena—with US support—moved to 

ban such weapons in space.

Such an opportunity exists in relation to ASAT weapons. One side 

effect of the successful Chinese ASAT launch in 2007 was a massive 

debris field that extends from less than 125 miles to more than 2,292 

miles—this range encompasses much of low-Earth orbit. Nicholas 

Johnson, NASA’s chief scientist for orbital debris, stated that “this satellite breakup represents the most prolific and serious fragmentation in 

the course of 50 years of space operations.”84 The resulting clutter will 

affect all nations, including the Chinese, who desire to place satellites 

in low-Earth orbit. However, as the Chinese discovered with their ASAT 

launch, unintended consequences often outweigh the advantage.

Through global partnering, or rather building partnership capacity, the United States could also gain access to more economical lift. 

Nations like Brazil offer the potential for modern launch facilities 

where decreased lift is required to place an object in orbit. Further, 

combining on-site fabrication facilities for satellites and lifters could 

reduce cost and enhance responsiveness. The United States will continue to need its continental–United States launch ranges, such as 

Vandenberg Air Force Base and Kennedy Space Center, particularly 

for sensitive payloads, but it must move to a lower-cost, more-capable 

alternative for routine lift.

Pres. Ronald Reagan once said, “Trust, but verify.” In space this is 

problematic, for without situational awareness it is difficult to do either. 

While deterrence is not directly connected to knowing where the aggressor lies, it is certainly enhanced when the deterrer possesses that 

information. The United States must be prepared to act unilaterally 

when required to ensure space control and deter hostile activities. 

Unilateral action, however, requires enhanced situational awareness. 

Currently, adversaries could alter a satellite’s orbit by a few degrees, 

and requisitions may take days or weeks. Additionally, microsatellites 

are becoming an increasing reality, and the United States has little or 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 241

no ability to track objects that small. Many of our land-based radar 

systems were originally designed for ICBM early warning, not objects 

in low-Earth or geosynchronous orbit.

The Air Force has taken positive steps to correct the deficiency with 

the launch of the Pathfinder, the first space-based surveillance system, 

in an attempt to improve space situational awareness of geosynchronous orbit. However, the Air Force must also field a capability designed to detect objects in low-Earth orbit and integrate space, ground, 

and maritime systems into a coherent detection architecture. Only 

with a robust system observing both low- and high-Earth orbits will 

the United States be able to provide comprehensive space situational 

awareness—an essential element for ensuring true space superiority.

Another essential element to space control, and ultimately space 

superiority, is guaranteed access to the domain. The Air Force has a 

rich history of being involved in the nation’s race to space. However, 

it does not have a record of responsive launch. Special handling requirements for lift vehicles and satellites require months, or years, of 

planning for any on-time launch. Space systems must become more 

responsive and less vulnerable to meet the war fighter’s needs as warfare continues to evolve. DOD has long relied upon large, expensive 

satellite systems to meet its needs. However, the launch of the Defense Satellite Communication System (DSCS) follow on, the Wideband Global System (WGS), is an example of this good-news-andbad-news story. While each WGS satellite is more capable than the 

entire constellation of nine DSCS satellites, the planned six-satellite 

WGS constellation increases US space vulnerabilities by placing 

greater reliance on a reduced number of satellites.

Operationally Responsive Space: 

A Necessary Concept for Deterrence

Operationally responsive space (ORS), while not a cure-all, must 

become an element of US national space policy. Over the years the 

term ORS has become synonymous with what in one era was termed 

“cheap sat,” systems less capable and potentially less effective than the 

current family of space assets. Under Secretary of the Air Force Peter 

B. Teets defined ORS in a much broader sense when he identified it as 

a means “to create a more responsive, reliable, and affordable lift family 
242 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

capable of fulfilling both current and future launch requirements, 

and the corresponding responsive and affordable satellites.”85

Spacelift is possibly the most critical element of space control. 

Without the ability to place satellites in orbit, the United States regresses to the 1950s—totally reliant upon air breathing and terrestrialbased capabilities. The primary space launch vehicles in use by the 

US Air Force today are known as the evolved expendable launch vehicle 

(EELV)—Boeing’s Delta IV family and Lockheed Martin’s Atlas V 

family, launched under the joint United Launch Alliance venture. 

These two lift families are designed to be the primary medium and 

heavy lifters well into the next decade. Becoming operational in 2002 

and at about $100 million per vehicle, EELV was designed to standardize and improve space launch operability, reduce the government’s traditional involvement in launch processing, and save a projected $6 billion in launch costs between 2002 and 2020.

In 2006 a congressionally mandated National Security Space 

Launch Requirements Panel addressing DOD lift concluded that 

“ample evidence suggests that these rockets [Delta IV and Atlas V] 

can meet the NSS [National Security Strategy] launch needs of the 

United States through 2020 (the end of the [panel’s] study period), 

barring the emergence of payload requirements that exceed their design lift capability.” The report noted, however, that the two launch 

families were “largely uncompetitive in today’s commercial market,” 

and that because ORS concepts were in the formative stages, “it was 

premature to specify launcher requirements.”86 The Air Force objective must be to achieve lower cost with responsiveness marked by 

days and weeks rather than months and years. Less expensive lifters 

and satellites that are also operationally responsive must become 

commonplace in the Air Force inventory.

To further mitigate vulnerability in space and enhance deterrence 

capabilities, the United States must establish greater resiliency in its 

satellite constellations. Accordingly, deterrence need not be through 

offensive actions alone. It can be dramatically enhanced by robust, 

resilient defensive capabilities. This can be accomplished by numerous 

means, some of which include networking a larger number of satellites, having spares on orbit, and/or being able to replace lost assets 

rapidly. The basic idea is to eliminate any incentive for an adversary 

to destroy US space-based assets. If an adversary neutralizes one or 

more satellites, the nation could recover through networking potentially less complex satellites together, as is done today with computers. 
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 243

Additionally, operational capability can be enhanced through responsive launch and the ability to reconstitute capabilities rapidly.

The US Air Force has a rich history of being involved in the nation’s 

space efforts. However, it does not have a record of responsive launch. 

Special handling requirements for the lift vehicle and the satellites 

dictate months of planning for an on-time launch. Responsive launch 

has traditionally been viewed in months rather than days or weeks. 

Further, the space operations process remains mired in a slow, highly 

expensive acquisition cycle. A stressed national budget will eventually drive a new paradigm for space operations. Smaller, less expensive lifters and satellites must become commonplace. The nation will 

always require large and correspondingly more expensive satellites, 

especially in geostationary orbit. However, a mix of both systems is 

needed to increase capability and simultaneously reduce vulnerability.

Space systems must become more responsive and less vulnerable 

at the same time. The Air Force is moving in the right direction with 

the Minotaur IV, a modified Peacekeeper ICBM, which reduces cost 

with a smaller lifter for smaller payloads. Additionally, Congress has 

appropriated funds for continued research and development of ORS 

systems. With the nation depending to even a greater degree on commercial industry, partnering will be necessary to reach the goal set by 

Secretary Teets. Commercial companies like SpaceX and Virgin Galactic 

may hold the key to rapid and reliable space access, particularly if 

costs can be driven to single digits when compared to over $30 million per Minotaur.

The US Air Force has for decades attempted to improve its space 

acquisition process. Historically, it was common for a 10- to 15-year 

period to occur from system requirement to launch. Reducing the 

acquisition cycle reduces US vulnerabilities, enhances deterrence 

through resiliency, and allows for greater use of current technologies 

while avoiding the potential for launching satellites designed a decade earlier. Space systems acquisition lives with the heritage of exploring the new frontier. US satellites have been essentially one of a 

kind, handmade marvels that often push the technological envelope. 

Cost overruns in the space-based infrared system (SBIRS) and the 

cancellation of the space radar program point to an obvious conclusion that Congress has little confidence in the Air Force’s ability to 

acquire and field new space systems. It may take a decade or longer to 

right the ship, so the programs the Air Force fields in the future must 

come in on time, on budget, and on message—the Air Force cannot 
244 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

overpromise. Accordingly, the next major space program must be 

well conceived, ruthlessly managed, and delivered as promised.

Space systems have long fallen prey to the approach that the enemy 

of good is not just better but best. Stability must be the watchword for 

all future space systems, ensuring the right people are in charge of 

and associated with the programs they manage over longer periods 

and stability within the requirements process—just say no to the C 

model when you need the system sooner and the A version will do. 

Spiral development is a strategy long used in aircraft acquisition 

where production of A, B, and C variants are commonplace. The military industrial complex provides exceptional capabilities, and it is 

often difficult for the Air Force to say no to enhancements when offered 

up by industry. Stability when combined with standardization, from 

the bus to the subsystems, can make a significant impact on reducing 

cost and potentially shorten production times.

Conclusion

Deterrence is seldom a simple proposition. The US nuclear deterrence strategy of mutually assured destruction took decades to mature. 

A comparable deterrence strategy for space will also likely take decades. In the interim, the United States enjoys a significant amount of 

freedom of action in space. As with air superiority, which the United 

States has enjoyed since the Korean Conflict, the nation can never 

take space superiority for granted. The approach of defense in depth 

offers a way ahead, a strategy that the nation, and more specifically 

the Department of Defense, can implement, even in a resourceconstrained environment. It is not a panacea, nor does it pretend to 

satisfy those who would call for immediate weaponization of space. 

What the strategy attempts to do is to provide an alternative that protects US vital national interests, is less costly, garners international 

support, and at minimum, slows the march toward a weapons race in 

space. Reasonable men may disagree, but only the most foolhardy 

would discount the concept and ignore its potential benefits.

Notes

1. Cited from McDougall, Heavens and the Earth, 320.

2. Gordon Adams, quoted in Nardon, Satellite Imagery Control, 3.
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 245

3. The Space Report, 6. 

4. Ibid.

5. European Commission, Space.

6. Government Accountability Office (GAO), House Subcommittee on National 

Security and Foreign Affairs, 1.

7. Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security, Space Management and Organization, 9.

8. Elliott, “SECAF: Space Forces Have Become Indispensable.”

9. Elliott, “Partnership Will Guide Military, Civilian Space Activities.” 

10. Schwartz, “National Security Space and the Air Force.”

11. Mowthorpe, “The United States Approach to Military Space during the Cold War.”

12. Davidson, Letter.

13. Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security, chap. 6, 80.

14. “National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003 Report.”

15. Mowthorpe, “United States Approach to Military,” 11.

16. Ibid., 4.

17. “Presidential Directive on National Space Policy.”

18. National Space Technology Council, “Fact Sheet.”

19. Department of Defense Directive 3100.10, Space Policy.

20. National Security Strategy for a New Century, 25.

21. Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security, chap. 7, 99–100. 

22. National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 29–30.

23. “National Space Policy Review.”

24. Office of Science and Technology, “Fact Sheet.”

25. Chang, “Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program.”

26. Nations with space-faring capability: United States, Russia, China, Japan, India, 

Australia, Iran, and Israel. The first three have exhibited manned space capabilities. 

Added to this list of nations would be the European Space Agency, with France, Germany, and Great Britain in the lead.

27. Pena, “US Commercial Space Programs,” 10.

28. Myers and Ball, “Space Transportation.”

29. Ibid.

30. Bolden, “NASA Administrator Bolden Defends Future Manned Space Flight 

Program.”

31. Stenger, “Armadillo, Romanians Join $10 Million Space Race.”

32. Siemens PLM Software, “Case Study,” 15.

33. “Dragon Overview,” Space Exploration Technologies Corporation.

34. Huntington, Clash of Civilizations, 28.

35. Moskowitz, “Are Russian’s Recent Space Woes a Sign of Larger Problems?”

36. Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Space Policy Project (SPP), “Russian 

and Soviet Space Agencies.”

37. “Top Official Deplores Decline of Russian Space Program,” Sydney Morning 

Herald.

38. “Bodies Found in Cosmodrome Debris,” BBC News.

39. FAS SPP, “Baikonur Cosmodrome.”

40. Information Office of the State Council, People’s Republic of China (IOSC, 

PRC), “China’s Space Activities.”
246 │ SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE

41. IOSC, PRC, “The Day of Carrier Space Flight of China is not Far Off.”

42. Windrem and Boyle, “China Space Shot Has Military Implications.”

43. Luan, “Chinese Space Undertakings toward the 21st Century.”

44. IOSC, PRC, “Development of China’s Aerospace Industry.”

45. Jones, “China’s Space Program Accelerates.”

46. National Aeronautics Space Development Association, “To a New Phase of 

Japanese Rocket Development.”

47. “Japanese Rocket Blasts Off,” BBC News.

48. Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, “JAXA Vision.”

49. Ibid.

50. Dawson, “Japan Launches Space Cargo Push.”

51. Wilkinson, “Japan’s Evolving Space Program.”

52. Ibid.

53. Whitehouse, “Japan’s Uncertain Space Future.”

54. Chino, “Need for Japanese Manned Spacecraft.”

55. European Space Agency (ESA), “New Member States.”

56. ESA, “ESA’s Purpose.”

57. Likanen, “Aerospace and the Evolution of Europe.”

58. ESA, “ESA and the European Union.”

59. Ibid.

60. ESA, “Shaping the Future of Europe.”

61. Taylor, “A Competitive Space.”

62. Bildt, Peyrelevade, and Spath, Towards a Space Agency, 9.

63. Commission to the Council, Toward a Space Strategy, 4.

64. ESA, “Funding.”

65. “India Launches Its First Weather Satellite,” CNN.com.

66. Somini Sengupta, “India Launches Unmanned Orbiter.”

67. “Spacelift: Spacelift Australia,” SpaceDaily.

68. “Russia and Australia,” SpatialSource.com.

69. Israeli Space Agency, “Israel Space Agency History.”

70. James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, CNS Resources on North 

Korea’s Ballistic Missile Program.

71. Choe and Sanger, “Rocket Failure.” 

72. Lake, “Iran’s Space Launch Turns Clock Back.”

73. ESA, “Galileo IOV” (In-Orbit Validation).

74. de Selding, “Europeans Blame US Government,” 6.

75. Logsdon, “A Security Space Capability for Europe?”

76. The Space Report, 6.

77. Department of the Air Force, Defense Industrial Base, xi.

78. Ibid.

79. Department of State (DOS) Memorandum, subject: Review of APSTAR II/

Long March 2E Failure Investigation Data, 18 December 1998, In Report of The 

United States House of Representatives Select Committee on U.S. National Security and 

Military/Commercial Concerns, 76.

80. Ibid.

81. SPOT Image Corporation, website.

82. Pena, “US Commercial Space Programs,” 10.
SPACE STRATEGIC DETERRENCE │ 247

83. Fink and Fink, Dirty Harry.

84. David, “China’s Anti-Satellite Test,” 2.

85. “Congressional Hearing Testimony for the Under Secretary of the Air Force 

the Honorable Peter B. Teets.”

86. McCartney et al., National Security Space Launch Report, xv–xvi, 42.

Chapter 12

Unmanned Air Systems and Deterrence

James D. Perry

This chapter examines the role of unmanned air systems (UAS)✳ in 

deterrence and argues that potential adversaries will increasingly 

adopt “antiaccess” strategies in order to deter the United States from 

projecting power within their geographic regions. If the United States 

can overcome these antiaccess strategies, then such strategies no longer 

have any deterrent value. Furthermore, the US ability to project 

power, to deny the adversary military victory, and to hold his most 

valuable assets at risk would likely exert a strong deterrent effect. This 

chapter argues that UASs are the most efficient way—in some cases, 

the only way—to overcome antiaccess challenges, and thus should 

have a significant deterrent effect if they are acquired in sufficient 

numbers. Also the ways in which UASs provide deterrent effects that 

are qualitatively different from manned airborne platforms, rather 

than simply providing “more of the same” due to greater endurance 

are examined. Lastly, the pros and cons of UASs in “strategic deterrence” (i.e., nuclear delivery) and the role of UASs in deterring terrorists and insurgent movements are briefly considered.

Classic deterrence theory holds that deterrence results from effective threats of punishment or denial. “Deterrence through punishment” entails a threat to inflict unacceptable damage on something 

an adversary values. “Deterrence through denial” involves an effort 

to convince an enemy that an attack will fail or only succeed at unacceptable cost. Both types of deterrence require accurate knowledge of 

the adversary—what it values, its capabilities and intentions, and its 

willingness to take risks and accept costs in order to achieve a particular objective. Both types of deterrence require the United States to 

communicate threats to the adversary in a timely and credible manner. 

The historical record contains numerous examples of the Unite States 

failing to understand what its enemies value (and do not value), to

✳The Air Force uses the terms remotely piloted vehicle and remotely piloted aircraft to 

refer to unmanned systems.
250 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

 appreciate the costs and risks that adversaries are prepared to accept, 

and to communicate threats effectively. Therefore, the United States 

should plan for deterrence to fail from time to time, and should prepare to defeat its adversaries rather than simply punish them after the 

fact. Of course, preparations to defeat the adversary are required in 

any case to make the threat of “deterrence through denial” credible.

Deterrence and the Antiaccess Threat

For the past 12 years, the Defense Department has described the 

antiaccess threat as a major challenge to American power projection, 

particularly in Asia. The 1997 National Defense Panel observed that 

the ability to project power is the “cornerstone of America’s continued 

military preeminence,” and that “much of our power projection capability depends on sustained access to regions of concern.”1

Using the threat of punitive strikes, perhaps involving weapons of 

mass destruction (WMD), adversaries could coerce US allies into refusing access to forward ports and bases. Adversaries could also attack forward ports and bases with WMDs, cruise missiles, or ballistic 

missiles to deny access.2

 The 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 

emphasized the need to “overcome anti-access or area-denial threats,” 

and set as a critical goal for the Defense Department “projecting and 

sustaining US forces in distant anti-access or area-denial environments and defeating anti-access and area-denial threats.”3

 The 2006 

QDR noted the Defense Department’s continued efforts to “mitigate 

antiaccess threats and offset potential political coercion designed to 

limit US access to any region,” and repeatedly emphasized the need 

for the capability to operate “at great distances into denied areas.”4

Adversaries understand the central importance of airpower to 

American military operations, and thus particularly strive to reduce 

the effectiveness of US joint air forces. As US airpower principally 

consists of relatively short-ranged aircraft, one objective of an antiaccess strategy is to deny these aircraft the use of the bases they need 

to operate. To this end, an enemy could employ ballistic and cruise 

missiles with precision guidance and submunitions.5

 An enemy could 

also attack theater airbases with WMDs, terrorists, or special operations forces.6

 To deny access to sea-based airpower, an adversary 

could employ antiship ballistic missiles, or launch antiship cruise 

missiles from air, surface, and subsurface platforms. An adversary 
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 251

could also employ advanced submarines, surface vessels, and sea 

mines. Larger adversaries would have integrated air defense systems 

that would include so-called “triple-digit SAMs” and advanced fighter 

aircraft with long-range air-to-air missiles. Nonstealthy platforms 

could penetrate enemy airspace only with great difficulty in the face 

of such defenses.

Any US aircraft that did penetrate enemy defenses would face a 

severe problem with mobile targets. Many of an adversary’s missile 

launchers would be mobile to complicate tracking and targeting, and 

long-range missile systems and space-denial capabilities would be located deep within the enemy homeland beyond the reach of manned 

tactical aircraft.7

 Adversary command and control, fielded military 

forces, and possibly irregular forces would constitute another large 

set of mobile or nonpreplanned targets.

A large, powerful adversary would probably have a “dense” antiaccess network consisting of many of the above capabilities deployed 

in large numbers.8

 Lesser powers, however, could develop a meaningful antiaccess capability relatively cheaply even without a major power 

sponsor. In the 1990s, the Defense Science Board estimated that

potential US regional adversaries spending on the order of only $15–20 billion 

over a decade in the global marketplace could develop robust theater-denial/

disruption capabilities. These include conventional anti-naval forces (e.g., ultraquiet diesel submarines, advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, and sophisticated 

sea mines); theater-range ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles (with the latter 

expected to be available in the thousands, and, increasingly, with low-observable 

characteristics); and nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.9

Notably, combat against relatively primitive opponents in Iraq and 

Afghanistan required US joint air forces to find and track a large 

number of mobile targets, such as insurgents and foreign volunteers 

intermingled with the civilian population. This difficult challenge 

continues today.

Antiaccess strategies have a political as well as military dimension. 

For example, in Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom the 

access constraints were almost entirely political in nature. Neighboring countries either denied the US access outright or severely restricted 

what US forces could and could not do from their territory and airspace. Basing options in Central Asia were difficult to exploit because 

the region was remote and the infrastructure was not well developed.10

The fundamental purpose of an antiaccess strategy is deterrence. 

Potential adversaries seek to convince the United States that in the 
252 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

event of conflict, they can defeat US intervention and inflict unacceptable losses on critical national assets such as aircraft carriers and 

advanced combat aircraft. Adversaries hope that this prospect of denial and punishment will deter the United States from intervening in 

disputes within their spheres of influence and that America’s regional 

allies will be politically neutralized or may even join our adversary’s 

side. An adversary would then enjoy freedom of political and military action wherever the United States was unable to operate. Clearly, 

if the United States can project power effectively without suffering 

excessive losses, then an adversary’s antiaccess capabilities no longer 

have any deterrent value. Moreover, the American ability to project 

power, to deny an adversary military victory, and to hold its most 

valuable assets at risk would likely exert a strong deterrent effect on 

an adversary. Therefore, if UASs provide an efficient way to overcome 

antiaccess challenges, they should have a significant deterrent effect if 

they are acquired in adequate numbers.

Antiaccess strategies have multiple dimensions and overcoming 

them will require a multidimensional approach that includes air, surface, and subsurface elements. However, this paper focuses on the air 

dimension. What attributes do airborne platforms need in order to 

defeat antiaccess strategies? In general, they require long organic (unrefueled) range, organic sensing/targeting, deep weapons magazines, 

and broadband, all-aspect low observability (stealth). The 2006 QDR

describes these attributes as follows:

Joint air capabilities must be reoriented to favor, where appropriate, systems 

that have far greater range and persistence; larger and more flexible payloads 

for surveillance or strike; and the ability to penetrate and sustain operations in 

denied areas. The future force will place a premium on capabilities that are 

responsive and survivable. It will be able to destroy moving targets in all 

weather conditions, exploit nontraditional intelligence, and conduct nextgeneration electronic warfare. Joint air forces will be capable of rapidly and 

simultaneously locating and attacking thousands of fixed and mobile targets 

at global ranges. The future force will exploit stealth and advanced electronic 

warfare capabilities when and where they are needed.11

If an adversary can deny the United States access to airbases within 

a certain distance of its territory, but US aircraft have sufficient range 

to operate effectively from beyond that distance, then the adversary’s 

antiaccess strategy is defeated. Long organic range combined with 

aerial refueling capability permits aircraft to refuel from tankers orbiting beyond the range of enemy air defenses, penetrate deep into 
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 253

enemy territory, and persist long enough to find and attack mobile 

targets.12 One analyst notes that current tactical aircraft cannot attack 

targets “much deeper inside defended airspace than 500–750nm 

[nautical miles],” but “a number of potential adversaries could locate 

key facilities deeper inside their borders than 500–750nm.”13 The 

same analyst advocates the acquisition of aircraft with an unrefueled 

combat radius of 3,000 nm. Very likely, 1,500 nm should be considered 

the minimum acceptable unrefueled combat radius needed to deny 

the sanctuary of strategic depth to a continent-sized adversary or 

even a lesser adversary located far from friendly bases.14 An aircraft 

with shorter range would be inadequate if close-in basing were denied through some combination of geography, diplomatic pressure, 

and enemy military capability. Long organic range, of course, also 

increases persistence at depth—the amount of time an aircraft can 

spend on station over the area of interest—and reduces the burden on 

the tanker force.

Airborne platforms not only need the range to reach the target 

area, but also need the “multi-INT” sensor capability, a combination 

of communications intelligence, electronic intelligence, moving target 

indication radar, and electro-optic/infrared sensors on a single aircraft, to identify and track mobile or emergent targets. To reduce 

communications requirements and compress the kill chain, the aircraft should ideally have the onboard capability to process sensor information and generate targeting solutions.15 Networking allows the 

aircraft to benefit from, and contribute to, joint battlespace awareness. Organic targeting capability compensates when enemy action 

disrupts communications links, as a competent enemy will certainly 

attempt to do.

A deep weapons magazine ensures that the aircraft can remain on 

station longer before needing to return to base to rearm. Analysts 

have noted the evolving trend towards payload fractionation.16 Precision guidance enables aircraft to carry a larger number of smaller 

weapons per sortie, rather than the smaller number of larger weapons that aircraft typically carried in the unguided weapons era. One 

implication of this trend is that aircraft can be smaller, possibly 

cheaper, and stealthier than was previously the case. Ultimately, airborne directed-energy weapons may provide deep magazines with a 

lower life-cycle cost and a smaller, simpler logistics tail than conventional munitions.
254 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

Low observability is essential for survivability in high-threat, antiaccess environments.17 In order to survive, aircraft must break the 

air-defense kill chain at some point during detection, tracking, and 

engagement. Common strategies involve some form of concealment, 

suppression, or destruction of enemy air defenses and electronic warfare and other countermeasures. Low observability seeks to reduce 

the range at which early warning and fire control radars can detect 

the aircraft, track it, and guide a surface-to-air missile (SAM) or airto-air missile interceptor. This allows the aircraft to escape engagement altogether, to destroy SAM sites and radars from outside SAM 

engagement range, or to destroy enemy fighters before they can 

launch their missiles. Stealth aircraft have thus far generally flown 

carefully preplanned routes to execute strikes against fixed targets. 

During such missions, the aircraft seeks to ingress and egress as rapidly 

as possible and does not attempt to persist in enemy airspace. An effort to persist in enemy airspace to find, track, and engage mobile 

targets is a far more difficult problem, requiring an organic, in-flight 

capability to replan the optimally survivable route in real time in response to evolving threats while still completing the mission. From 

the standpoint of aircraft design, aircraft that do not intend to persist 

in enemy airspace or go deep inland may be optimized for low observability from certain aspects—most importantly, the front—but 

need not be optimized in all aspects.18 An aircraft whose radar signature is reduced from the frontal aspect can succeed against less dense 

threat environments through such tactics as flying around anticipated radar coverage areas. However, in heavily defended airspace 

with overlapping radar coverage, aircraft unavoidably expose their 

nonstealthy side and rear aspects to enemy radars. They are thereby 

detected and engaged.19 Persistent operations at depth and in heavily 

defended airspace demand minimizing observability from all aspects 

and in all radio frequency threat bands. 20 This design reduces the 

number of total air-defense engagements and allows the aircraft to 

follow a route that enables it rapidly to detect, track, and kill timesensitive targets. True broadband, all-aspect low observability requires a tailless flying wing design, and most optimally, an unmanned 

design, since a cockpit compromises stealth.21 Subsonic aircraft are 

generally better suited to persistent operations than supersonic aircraft. Supersonic flight greatly increases an aircraft’s infrared signature, 

compromising stealth. It also significantly increases an aircraft’s 

weight and fuel consumption, decreasing persistence.
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 255

Why do unmanned, tailless aircraft combine the above attributes 

more effectively than manned platforms? As already noted, unmanned 

aircraft will have an advantage in low observability relative to manned 

aircraft, but the most important advantage of unmanned systems is 

persistence. The persistence advantage of unmanned systems emerges 

from the limitations that human physiology imposes on manned aircraft. Generally speaking, single-seat aircraft pilots cannot sustain 

operations in a combat environment for more than about five hours 

before fatigue levels rise and aircraft are forced to return to base.22 In 

addition, pilots are limited in the number of hours they can fly per 

month due to the effects of cumulative fatigue.23 These factors create 

a range limit beyond which manned fighter-sized aircraft simply cannot operate effectively due to human physiology; one analyst puts 

this limit at 1,000 to 1,500 nm.24 On the other hand, unmanned aircraft are not subject to these limitations, and thus have a superior 

ability to generate the persistent coverage needed to find and attack 

mobile targets at long range. If an adversary denied the United States 

access to bases within 1,500 nm of its territory, then unmanned air 

systems able to generate persistent coverage from outside this range 

might be the best way to overcome this antiaccess challenge. Other 

methods such as submarine-launched cruise missiles or conventional 

ballistic missiles might be contemplated, but how would these weapons 

be targeted? Most likely, in combination with space-based sensors, 

UASs would provide targeting data to enable these weapons to strike 

mobile targets. If the UAS is in the target area anyway, why not simply 

arm the UASs? Cruise and ballistic missiles are much more expensive 

than bombs dropped from UASs, and they have time-of-flight issues 

that bombs from an on-station UAS do not.25

To illustrate the persistence advantage of unmanned over manned 

aircraft, let us compare two aircraft that are otherwise identical, except one is unmanned and the other is manned (Table 12.1). Both are 

low observable tailless designs, and both can be refueled in flight. 

Each cruises at 460 knots true airspeed (ktas) and has an unrefueled 

range of 3,000 nm. Assume that the sustained combat endurance of 

the manned aircraft is 10 hours, owing chiefly to human physiological 

constraints.26 Assume that the refueled system endurance of the unmanned aircraft is 50 hours, limited primarily by the expenditure of 

consumables and equipment with periodic maintenance requirements27 and that aerial refueling is available and requires 30 minutes 

per refueling.
256 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

Table 12.1. Manned and unmanned endurance

Notional Manned Aircraft Notional Unmanned Aircraft

Organic Range (nm) 3,000 3,000

Cruise Speed (ktas) 460 460

Aircrew Max Combat 

Endurance (hours)

10 50

Now let us take three scenarios: a short-range scenario with aircraft 

based 600 nm from their targets, a medium-range scenario with aircraft 

based 1,200 nm from their targets, and a long-range scenario with aircraft based 2,000 nm from their targets. Aircraft refuel at a tanker safe 

line (TSL) 200 nm from the target area in the first scenario, TSL is 300 

nm from the target area in the second scenario, and TSL 600 nm is from 

the target area in the final scenario. How many hours on combat station 

per sortie does each aircraft generate in each scenario (Table 12.2)?

Table 12.2. Hours on station per sortie for manned and unmanned

aircraft at a given range

Short Range

(600 nm with 200 nm 

tanker standoff)

Medium Range

(1,200 nm with 

300 nm tanker 

standoff)

Long Range

(2,000 nm with 

600 nm tanker 

standoff)

Unmanned Aircraft 37.3 29.4 21.5

Manned Aircraft 5.3 3.8 0.3

The dramatic difference in time on-station is because the manned 

aircraft usually can make only one ingress from the TSL before the 

aircrew endurance limit forces the aircraft to return to base. In contrast, the unmanned aircraft can perform multiple ingress/egress cycles 

from the TSL before the overall mission endurance limit forces the 

aircraft to return to base.

Another measure of effectiveness is how many persistent orbits a 

given force of aircraft can generate. A persistent orbit is defined as 

one aircraft constantly on station at a given distance from base. Using 

the same aircraft as above, and using the same scenarios, how many 

persistent orbits can a force of 100 manned aircraft generate? And a 

force of 100 unmanned aircraft (Table 12.3)?
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 257

Table 12.3. Number of persistent orbits a force of 100 aircraft generates 

at a given range

Short Range

(600 nm with 200 nm 

tanker standoff)

Medium Range

(1,200 nm with 

300 nm tanker 

standoff)

Long Range

(2,000 nm with 

600 nm tanker 

standoff)

Unmanned Aircraft 55 46.7 33

Manned Aircraft 23 15.5 1.25

Clearly, UASs are vastly more efficient at generating the persistent 

coverage at long range necessary to find and attack mobile targets. 

The unmanned force puts more than twice as many aircraft on station 

as the manned force in the short-range scenario and more than 20 

times as many aircraft on station as the manned force in the longrange scenario. Looked at another way, the number of aircraft required to generate a persistent orbit increases much more steeply for 

manned aircraft than for unmanned aircraft at the given ranges. This 

efficiency translates into a smaller force size needed to sustain the 

same number of aircraft on station. The Defense Department either 

could spend less money on an unmanned force while maintaining 

the same military capability as a manned force, or could achieve far 

greater military capability for the same amount of money with an 

unmanned force relative to a manned force.

Unmanned air systems have a superior capability to overcome antiaccess strategies and thus present an adversary with a credible prospect 

that the United States could defeat any aggression and reverse any gains 

the aggressor had made. In principle, this should deter a rational adversary from undertaking an aggressive act, at least insofar as aerial weapons 

could defeat an attack. UASs may also have deterrent effects that emerge 

from the mere fact that they are unmanned. If adversaries perceive that 

the United States can act against them without risking the capture or 

death of aircrew, or political embarrassment, then US airpower may be 

more “usable” and have a greater deterrent effect when unmanned 

rather than manned aircraft are employed.

Moving beyond deterrence, the Defense Department has argued 

that American strategic forces must not merely deter and defeat potential aggressors, but must assure allies and dissuade potential competitors from initiating military competition with the United States.28

To this end, the Nuclear Posture Review recommended the acquisition of nonnuclear strategic strike forces to complement US nuclear 

forces. A full discussion of assurance and dissuasion is beyond the 
258 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

scope of this chapter. However, one should note that antiaccess strategies, 

if not countered, over time would increasingly convince America’s 

allies that America could not protect them because American forces 

could not operate effectively from regional bases and waters in the 

event of conflict. A force of stealthy, refuelable UASs able to operate 

effectively from extended ranges would provide a powerful and credible 

means to assure allies in peacetime that the United States could protect them in the event of war.

Dissuasion strategies seek to increase the perceived costs and decrease the perceived benefits of competing militarily with America.29

Stealthy, long-range UASs provide a means to conduct persistent surveillance and high-volume strikes against all classes of targets, even at 

extended range.30 Therefore, they enhance the military component of 

dissuasion because they diminish the perceived benefits of acquiring 

threatening military capabilities.31 The 2006 QDR states that “to dissuade major and emerging powers from developing capabilities that 

could threaten regional stability, to deter conflict, and to defeat aggression should deterrence fail,” the United States needs the capability 

to “mitigate anti-access threats and offset potential political coercion 

designed to limit US access to any region.”32 To this end, the United 

States requires “persistent surveillance, including systems that can 

penetrate and loiter in denied or contested areas” and “prompt and 

high-volume global strike to deter aggression or coercion.”33 Stealthy, 

refuelable unmanned combat air vehicles clearly provide such capabilities and can mitigate antiaccess threats. In sum, a force of UASs 

able to overcome antiaccess threats and to deter and defeat an adversary would also be highly effective at assuring America’s allies and 

dissuading adversaries from competing with the United States.

UASs and Nuclear Deterrence

The self-evident need to recapitalize the nation’s aging nuclear 

weapons and delivery systems raises the question of whether some, 

or all, of the air-breathing component of the triad should be unmanned. The case for nuclear-armed UASs depends to a great degree 

on what one assumes about the nature of nuclear deterrence, defense, 

and warfare in the “Second Nuclear Age”; that is, whether nuclear 

weapons will be “usable” in certain scenarios. For example, one analyst 

advocates acquiring a stealthy, manned bomber in case it is necessary 
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 259

to conduct limited nuclear strikes “against authoritarian regimes with 

small atomic arsenals and less than intercontinental reach.”34 If we 

choose to build a new nuclear-capable bomber, the unmanned option 

should not be rejected out of hand, because the arguments that a nuclearcapable bomber must be manned are weak. The most plausible role 

for UASs in nuclear operations, however, is not to deliver nuclear 

weapons, but to provide intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, 

and targeting for other nuclear delivery systems, such as ballistic missiles.35 UASs can also conduct conventional precision strikes on enemy 

strategic systems and provide a launch platform for boost-phase ballistic missile defense interceptors.

The United States has operated “unmanned” nuclear systems for a 

long time, in the form of intercontinental and submarine launched 

ballistic missiles (ICBM and SLBM) and cruise missiles, but a nuclearcapable UAS would still have to surmount strong cultural and psychological resistance. The chief difference between a UAS and a cruise 

missile in flight is that in the past, cruise missiles operated autonomously after launch, and could not land after launch, while UASs accepted operator control and direction, and could land after launch. 

The trend in cruise missiles, however, is increasingly to permit operator intervention and dynamic retasking in order to engage mobile 

targets. In effect, the cruise missile becomes an air-launched UAS 

controlled from the launch platform. The Air Force, if it developed a 

successor to the AGM-129, could require the new missile to accept 

in-flight retasking from the launch platform. If so, the resulting missile would differ from a stealthy UAS only in that it would not have 

the ability to land, though this, too, could be incorporated if desired 

in order to recover the weapon if it is not used.

The safe recovery of a nuclear-armed unmanned aircraft would be 

a concern, but unmanned bombers need only fly with nuclear weapons 

aboard during a fully generated alert. Such alerts were exceedingly 

rare events even during the Cold War. UASs would not need to fly 

training flights with nuclear weapons on board;36 one advantage of 

unmanned aircraft is that operator training can occur almost entirely 

through simulation, reducing the costs and risks of flying the aircraft 

itself for training purposes. 

While “low end” UASs historically have been crash-prone, there is 

no technical reason that UASs cannot have a level of reliability equal 

to manned systems, and in fact UAS reliability is already approaching 

manned levels.37 Smaller UASs are more crash-prone because they are 
260 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

cheap and disposable by design, but a nuclear-capable UAS would be 

designed to the highest levels of reliability. Even a nonnuclear-capable 

unmanned bomber would require extremely high levels of reliability, 

and the same technology path would assure the reliability of an unmanned nuclear-capable bomber.38

Nuclear-capable UASs would unquestionably require secure, reliable, 

and survivable communications. This requirement is not, however, 

specific to unmanned aircraft. Any communications system secure, 

reliable, and survivable enough for manned aircraft to conduct 

nuclear operations should be secure, reliable, and survivable enough 

for unmanned aircraft too. Some analysts argue that manned bombers 

are preferable to unmanned aircraft or ballistic missiles “because they 

permit more time for second thoughts or last-minute changes of the 

President’s mind.”39 The thought of the president making decisions on 

this timescale and micromanaging a nuclear operation up to the moment 

of weapons release scarcely seems plausible. Nevertheless, if we assume that a communications system exists that can recall a manned 

bomber up to the very moment of weapons release, then that same 

system could also recall an unmanned aircraft in the same circumstances. (Either the communications system can support nuclear micromanagement, or it cannot!) A manned bomber on a nuclear mission 

that lost connectivity would either attack the preplanned target or 

return to base without using its weapon. An unmanned bomber 

could certainly be programmed to perform the same tasks (attack 

preplanned targets or return to base) in the same situation. Moreover, 

the “recall” capability simply reduces the amount of time in which no 

recall is possible from the 15- to 30-minute transit time of a ballistic 

missile to the minute or two it takes for a bomb to detonate after it 

leaves an aircraft. Providing the president with an extra 13 to 28 

minutes of “dither time” is not a compelling reason for the nation to 

spend tens of billions of dollars on a new bomber, whether it is 

manned or unmanned.

If we assume that the cultural and communications issues are surmounted, what utility would an unmanned nuclear-capable bomber 

enjoy versus major powers and lesser adversaries? With respect to 

major powers, the Air Force states that SIOP, for Single Integrated 

Operational Plan, missions—for example, nuclear operations against 

a major power after deterrence has failed—“usually strike fixed, highvalue targets.”40 In such a scenario, presidential micromanagement of 

individual aircraft is hardly possible, and the ability to recall aircraft 
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 261

is essentially irrelevant, if not actually harmful. (The ability to recall a 

nuclear attack after it is launched undermines deterrence because the 

possibility that you can change your mind allows the enemy to think 

you might actually do so.) An unmanned aircraft could certainly be 

programmed to attack specific, previously identified fixed targets 

with nuclear weapons just as a manned bomber could. UASs would 

provide the critical persistent surveillance needed to find enemy mobile 

ballistic missiles, but attacking such targets would not necessarily require arming the UAS with nuclear weapons. The UAS could attack 

with conventional munitions or cue an attack from a manned nucleararmed bomber. An unmanned bomber would force the adversary to 

devote considerable effort to air defense; but manned bombers, cruise 

missiles, and even unmanned nonnuclear-capable aircraft also 

achieve this effect.

Against regional adversaries most strategic target classes would require conventional attack. Those that required nuclear attack, such as 

hardened, deeply buried facilities, would generally not be mobile or 

time-critical. Nuclear-armed UASs would only be useful against the 

very small number of targets that were mobile, not vulnerable to conventional munitions, important enough to require nuclear attack, 

and urgent enough to require immediate attack with nuclear gravity 

bombs rather than waiting 15 to 30 minutes for a ballistic missile 

warhead to arrive. The only mission that likely qualifies is preemption of a nuclear missile or certain other classes of WMD attacks, and 

arguably conventional precision strike may even suffice for this mission. Such conventional strikes would destroy the delivery systems, 

even if they did not destroy the weapon itself. A 2009 Defense Science 

Board study considered a scenario in which a regional power with a 

limited number of ICBMs threatened to strike the United States or 

one of its allies. The study argued that conventional SLBM and cruise 

missile attacks could defeat this threat and noted that stealthy cruise 

missiles offered “both penetrability without detection and hard target 

disruption capability.” Curiously, this study did not focus on UASs as 

strike platforms in any detail, even though time-critical conventional 

strike is what stealthy UASs do best. The study did, however, recommend, “USD (ATL) [that is Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

Technology and Logistics], with support from the Air Force and 

DARPA, perform a study to evaluate the relative performance, cost 

and risk for a next generation remote, time critical, conventional 
262 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

strike capability based on loitering or penetrating unmanned air 

breathing weapons.”41

UASs could support a largely, if not entirely, nonnuclear damagelimitation strategy in order to deter or defeat nuclear-armed regional 

adversaries with relatively limited geographic territories and missile 

arsenals. This would be consistent with the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review’s goals of employing advanced conventional strike capabilities 

to assure allies and dissuade, deter, and defeat adversaries:

Systems capable of striking a wide range of targets throughout an adversary’s 

territory may dissuade a potential adversary from pursuing threatening capabilities. . . .

Defenses can make it more arduous and costly for an adversary to compete 

militarily with or wage war against the United States. The demonstration of a 

range of technologies and systems for missile defense can have a dissuasive 

effect on potential adversaries. The problem of countering missile defenses, 

especially defensive systems with multiple layers, presents a potential adversary 

with the prospect of a difficult, time-consuming and expensive undertaking. . . .

[Missile] defense of U.S. territory and power projection forces, including U.S 

forces abroad, combined with the certainty of U.S. ability to strike in response, 

can bring into better balance U.S. stakes and risks in a regional confrontation 

and thus reinforce the credibility of U.S. guarantees designed to deter attacks 

on allies and friends. . . .

Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element 

of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of 

military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities 

may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation.42

The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review notes the importance of 

“strengthening regional deterrence while reducing the role and 

numbers of nuclear weapons.”43 Conventionally armed UASs acquired 

in sufficient numbers would support a strategy of strengthening the 

nonnuclear elements of regional security, particularly because they 

would be “capable of fighting limited and large-scale conflicts in antiaccess environments,” which the report considers critical to credible 

deterrence.44 Conventionally armed UASs would also support two of 

the “key initiatives” for strengthening regional deterrence mentioned 

in the report:

Develop non-nuclear prompt global strike capabilities. These capabilities may 

be particularly valuable for the defeat of time-urgent regional threats.

Develop and deploy, over the next decade, more effective capabilities for realtime intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities.45
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 263

On the whole very little additional operational utility or deterrent 

effect appears to emerge from making an unmanned bomber nuclearcapable. I have argued that, contrary to the opinions of some authors, 

a nuclear-capable UAS could conduct limited nuclear strikes against 

authoritarian regimes with small WMD arsenals if that capability was 

desired. However, this scenario is not terribly plausible or likely to 

occur, and thus the need for any kind of aircraft, manned or unmanned, to fill this specific capability gap is highly questionable. The 

Air Force probably should not pursue the option of a nuclear-capable 

UAS, especially given that cruise missiles remain a relatively cheap, 

accurate, difficult-to-defend against, and politically accepted airbreathing nuclear threat. Nonnuclear-capable UASs are best employed to support all types of strategic strikes by providing persistent 

surveillance to cue other systems, including nuclear delivery systems, 

and conventional precision attacks. The shortfall in penetrating, persistent surveillance, and high-volume global strike capability amply 

justifies the development of a stealthy, unmanned bomber, and making this bomber nuclear-capable would only generate political controversy that would delay its development.46 Even an unmanned 

bomber that could not deliver nuclear weapons should, however, be 

hardened for operations in nuclear environments in order to prevent 

adversaries from using electromagnetic pulse attacks to defeat the system.47

UASs and the Deterrence of Nonstate Actors

Whether or not UASs can “deter” people from joining an insurgency or terrorist group remains an open question. The question of 

deterring terrorism is larger than simply deterring terrorist groups 

themselves. If one could not deter terrorist “frontline” leaders or 

fighters directly, one might nevertheless seek to apply the principles 

of deterrence to the “less motivated” elements of the terrorist network, such as financiers, state sponsors, or the supporting population.48 Broadly speaking, while there is no technological “quick fix” to 

the problems of terrorism and insurgency, unmanned aircraft could 

provide the persistent surveillance and attack capability needed as 

part of any comprehensive strategy to counter these nonstate challenges.

Some analysts argue that forcing the enemy to risk his life to fight 

machines, with no hope of killing a human enemy in return, and covering the battlespace with seemingly omnipresent UASs that can strike 
264 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

without warning, demoralizes the enemy, and deters people from 

joining an insurgency.49 Others claim that the enemy regards the employment of UASs with contempt, because UASs show that the United 

States is afraid to put its soldiers in harm’s way.50 In a recent controversy over the ongoing “drone war” in Pakistan and Afghanistan, 

some observers contended that the employment of UASs was positively counterproductive, because the unmanned strikes generated 

outrage and provoked people to join the insurgency.51 Former CIA 

Director, Gen Michael Hayden, took a contrary view:

By making a safe haven feel less safe, we keep al-Qaeda guessing. We make 

them doubt their allies, question their methods, their plans, even their priorities. Most importantly, we force them to spend more time and resources on 

self-preservation. And that distracts them, at least partially and at least for a 

time, from laying the groundwork for the next attack.52

His successor, Leon Panetta, argued that UAS strikes were not only 

“very effective” but were also “the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al-Qaeda leadership.”53 This is inarguably true, and thus UAS strikes will likely continue because they 

are the “least bad” option, whether or not they deter people from 

joining al-Qaeda or encourage them to do so.

One author argues that the United States should form, in conjunction with partner nations, a global counterterrorism network to deter 

and defeat terrorist groups. Over time,

This network will become so expansive and dense that transnational terrorist 

groups will no longer be able to operate effectively. The underlying goal is to 

increase dramatically the anticipated costs of conducting terrorist acts, convincing would-be terrorists that the probability of successfully orchestrating a 

major plot is very low, while punishment would be painful, swift, and certain. 

In theory, by influencing the cost-benefit calculus associated with terrorists, 

the [network] will deter terrorists from acting—and in the event deterrence 

fails, it will effectively disrupt terrorist plots before they are hatched.54

The backbone of such a network would be human intelligence. Nevertheless, the 2006 QDR notes that “persistent surveillance to find and 

precisely target enemy capabilities in denied areas” and “prompt global 

strike to attack fleeting enemy targets rapidly” are critical capabilities 

for defeating terrorist networks.55 Unmanned combat air systems provide these capabilities and complement manned aircraft and troops on 

the ground. For example, Predator UASs watched terrorist leader Abu 

Musab al-Zarqawi for 600 hours before an F-16 attack killed him.56 The 

United States should therefore increase the capability and capacity of 
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 265

its fleet of UASs employed in irregular warfare. The United States needs 

not only nonstealthy, “low end,” and relatively short-legged UASs such 

as the Predator and Reaper, but also stealthy UASs suitable for operations in denied areas:

A major capability shortfall of the proposed hunter-killer fleet is that neither 

the Predator nor the Reaper is stealthy. For conducting surveillance and, in 

some cases, strike missions in denied areas (e.g., Iran) and sensitive areas (e.g., 

countries with which the United States is not at war, and which possess modern 

air surveillance systems), it would be highly desirable to have a stealthy, longendurance [unmanned combat air systems]. While this is admittedly a niche 

capability in the war against transnational terrorist groups, it could be a critical 

one in many plausible contingencies. As air defense systems proliferate and 

become more capable over the course of the coming decade, the need for 

stealthy [unmanned combat air systems] will grow more pressing. This requirement, moreover, overlaps with the need to develop and field a stealthy, 

persistent surveillance-strike capability to hedge against the rise of China as a 

military competitor.57

Stealthy, long-range UASs could have a particularly important role 

in preventing states and terrorist groups from acquiring or using 

WMDs. States seeking to acquire WMDs might not have the antiaccess capabilities described earlier in this paper, but still might have 

sufficiently capable air defenses to deny their airspace to nonstealthy 

airborne platforms. Moreover, the United States might be reluctant to 

risk the death or capture of aircrews in order to conduct surveillance 

of such a state’s WMD programs on a routine basis. Stealthy UASs 

could provide a means to “detect, identify, locate, tag and track key 

WMD assets and development infrastructure in hostile or denied areas 

and to interdict WMD, their delivery systems, and related materials 

in transit” without risking aircrew loss.58 Stealthy UASs could also 

support special operations forces in their efforts to collect intelligence 

on WMD programs, interdict WMD movements, and “render safe” 

loose weapons or materials.59 Similar considerations would prevail if 

a time-critical target (such as a terrorist meeting or a terrorist team 

with WMD) emerged on the territory “neutral” state. In such scenarios, stealthy UASs would provide persistent, covert surveillance 

and attack capability that could support other forms of strategic strike 

or execute strikes themselves.60
266 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

Conclusion

Stealthy, long-range UASs offer a cost-effective means to provide 

the persistent surveillance and attack needed to find and attack mobile 

targets at long range in the face of enemy antiaccess capabilities. The 

ability of stealthy, long-range UASs to counter antiaccess strategies 

should deter rational adversaries and dissuade them from acquiring 

threatening military capabilities. Furthermore, such UASs should 

help to assure America’s regional allies that we can protect them in 

the event of conflict. Stealthy, long-range UASs can contribute to nuclear 

deterrence principally by providing targeting information to other 

strike systems, though UASs could also conduct conventional strikes 

against enemy strategic systems and defend against enemy ballistic 

missile launches with air-launched interceptors. UASs can provide 

persistent surveillance and attack capability that may deter terrorists 

and insurgents from acting, and defeat them if they do. Of course, 

UASs are not a “stand-alone” solution to the problems of terrorism 

and insurgency, but must be part of a comprehensive strategy for the 

defeat of these nonstate challenges.

Notes

1. National Defense Panel, Transforming Defense, 12–13.

2. Ibid.

3. Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 

Report, 30 September 2001, 30.

4. OSD, QDR Report, 6 February 2006, 30–31, 34, 45.

5. Stillion and Orletsky, Airbase Vulnerability to Conventional Cruise-Missile and 

Ballistic-Missile Attacks. 

6. Chandler, Tomorrow’s War, discusses WMD attacks on theater ports and airbases. Regarding ground attacks on airbases, see Vick, Snakes in the Eagle’s Nest.

7. OSD, QDR Report, 30 September 2001, 31.

8. For example, OSD, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China, 2009, 20–25.

9. Department of Defense (DOD), Final Report of the Defense Science Board 

[DSB], 25.

10. See Lambeth, Air Power against Terror, for a discussion of political constraints on access during Operation Enduring Freedom.

11. OSD, QDR Report, 6 February 2006, 45.

12. The ability to refuel in flight is critical to achieving the full persistence benefits 

of the unmanned revolution. Achieving long organic range without aerial refueling 

capability requires a much larger aircraft that is more expensive and—in the case of 

naval unmanned aircraft—is not carrier-suitable. Aerial refueling of an unmanned aircraft with a short organic range would still be useful, but the tankers would have to fly 
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 267

closer to enemy territory, and would thus be more vulnerable. More importantly, the 

unmanned aircraft’s ability to persist over enemy territory would be reduced.

13. Watts, Moving Forward on Long-Range Strike, 21.

14. Xinjiang, the point on Earth farthest from any ocean, is about 1,500 nm from 

the nearest ocean.

15. The “kill chain” is the colloquial term for the process used to prosecute “dynamic” targets (i.e., targets outside the normal tasking cycle). The kill chain has six 

phases: find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess (F2T2EA). See Air Force Doctrine 

Document 3–60, Targeting, 49.

16. Watts, Long-Range Strike, 68–70.

17. Grant, The Radar Game, is the basis for this discussion of stealth.

18. Ibid., 31. These aircraft have what Grant calls the “Pacman” or “Bowtie” signature.

19. See the discussion in ibid., 40–46.

20. Ibid., 30. These aircraft have the closest real-world approximation to what Grant 

calls the “Fuzzball” signature. See also Grant’s discussion of survivability in heavily defended airspace, ibid., 40–42.

21. Cockpits are transparent to radar energy and are filled with radar-reflecting surfaces like the ejection seat and the pilot’s helmet. Cockpits thus greatly increase the radar 

signature of an aircraft, and mitigating this problem is a critical issue in stealth aircraft 

design. See Richardson, Stealth Warplanes, 38–39. While the F-117, B-2, F-22, and other 

manned platforms are stealthy, unmanned platforms of equivalent size and shape to these 

aircraft, but without a cockpit, would be much stealthier than the manned version. This 

was understood even in the late 1970s. See Rich, Skunk Works, 65.

22. Bowie, The Anti-Access Threat and Theater Air Bases, 11–13.

23. Ibid., 14.

24. Ibid., 15. Keep in mind that manned aircraft would have to be based far closer to 

the target area to conduct persistent operations against mobile targets than they would to 

conduct “in and out” strikes on fixed targets.

25. Cruise missiles are about 100 times more expensive than direct-attack munitions 

like JDAM. Watts, Long-Range Strike, 71.

26. Ten hours is a very generous assumption. See Bowie, The Anti-Access Threat 

and Theater Air Bases, 11–13, for a good discussion of this point.

27. This number was arbitrarily selected and is conservative. Other complex 

variables have been simplified, such as mission planning and management, mission 

survivability, and mission availability. No crew ratio limits are assumed for manned 

aircraft, and maintenance turnaround time is two hours for both types of aircraft.

28. DOD, Findings of the Nuclear Posture Review, 9 January 2002, slide 12.

29. See OSD, QDR Report, 6 February 2006, 27–32; and Krepinevich and Martinage, 

Dissuasion Strategy, viii–x. 

30. In principle, a sufficiently large land-based UAS could carry penetrating 

weapons capable of defeating even hardened and deeply buried targets.

31. See Krepinevich and Martinage, Dissuasion Strategy, 39–40.

32. OSD, QDR Report, 6 February 2006, 30.

33. Ibid., 31.

34. Watts, Case for Long-Range Strike, 44.

35. As noted above, due to the time-of-flight problem armed UASs are a superior 

alternative to ballistic missiles for prompt conventional strikes against mobile targets. 
268 │ UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE

Time-of-flight is a less compelling argument against ballistic missiles for nuclear strikes. 

A mobile target is unlikely to get outside the envelope of lethal nuclear effects before the 

ballistic missile warhead arrives. More importantly, nuclear strikes are most likely to be 

directed against fixed targets, and against such targets the 15–30 minute time-of-flight of 

a ballistic missile is probably acceptable.

36. A study of accidents involving US nuclear weapons from 1950 to 1980 notes that 

most accidents occurred during logistic/ferry missions and during the airborne alerts that 

were discontinued in 1968. Hypothetical nuclear-armed UAS need not fly such missions. 

See DOD, “Narrative Studies of Accidents Involving U.S. Nuclear Weapons, 1950–1980.”

37. DOD, FY2009–2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, 92–93. See also 

OSD, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, appendices F and H.

38. The 2005 UAS Roadmap shows that UAS cost is linearly related to weight. If 

deemed desirable, an unmanned nonnuclear bomber would be large, and thus would 

not be cheap. This point is often lost on those who think UAS should be “cheap” simply 

because small, disposable UAS are relatively inexpensive. An unmanned bomber 

would have to be sufficiently reliable to preserve an asset bought in limited numbers 

and used for critical missions. OSD, Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 57.

39. Watts, Case for Long-Range Strike, 49.

40. Secretary of the Air Force, US Air Force White Paper on Long Range Bombers, 17.

41. DSB, Time Critical Conventional Strike from Strategic Standoff, 5–6, 81–84.

42. “Nuclear Posture Review Report [Reconstructed]. The cover page states: “Excerpts 

of the Nuclear Posture Review Report were first made available at http://www.global

security.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm. In order to better illustrate the structure of 

the report and how much of it that remains classified, this reconstruction reinstates the 

leaked excerpts to their respective pages. Reconstruction by Hans M. Kristensen, Director 

Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists.” 

43. DOD, Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010, 32.

44. Ibid., 33.

45. Ibid., 34.

46. One DSB study noted, “Using persistent surveillance and strike to deny sanctuary 

is a key objective of US forces. Current and planned forces cannot achieve this in the presence of modern air defenses. A near-term approach for achieving persistent surveillance/

strike throughout moderately defended battlespace is to develop and deploy a family of 

stealthy, refuelable, subsonic, unmanned, global surveillance/strike systems (UGSSS).” 

UGSSS would have a 6,000-nm range, advanced stealth, aerial refueling capability for 

100-hour sorties, multi-INT sensors, and a 20,000-pound payload. In the author’s view, 

the case for such a system remains strong. DSB, Future Strategic Strike Forces, 5-12, 5-13.

47. On electromagnetic pulse, see the web site of the Commission to Assess the 

Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse.

48. Trager and Zagorcheva, “Deterring Terrorism: It Can Be Done.” In particular, 

states that sponsor or host terrorists have assets that airpower can hold at risk. Deterrence should, in principle, function against these states.

49. Hsu, “Real Soldiers Love Their Robot Brethren.”

50. Mazzetti, “The Downside of Letting Robots Do the Bombing.”

51. Kilcullen and Exum, “Death from Above.” Also Coll, “In Search of Success.”

52. Schifrin, “US Drone Strikes with Deadly Accuracy.”

53. “US Airstrikes in Pakistan Called ‘Very Effective’,” CNN.
UNMANNED AIR SYSTEMS AND DETERRENCE │ 269

54. Martinage, Special Operations Forces, 27. See also Olson, “The Terror Threat,” 8–9.

55. OSD, QDR Report, 6 February 2006, 23–24. The 2010 QDR noted the “invaluable” role of long-dwell UAS for counterinsurgency and counterterrorism, and 

called for an expansion of such systems. OSD, QDR Report, 12 February 2010, 22.

56. Bowman, “Predator Pilots Engage in Remote Control Combat.”

57. Martinage, Dissuasion Strategy, 70, 77–78. A “moderately stealthy” UAS, the 

RQ-170, has operated in Afghanistan, though its precise role is unclear. Fulghum 

and Sweetman, “Stealth over Afghanistan.”

58. OSD, QDR Report, 6 February 2006, 34. Also ibid., 35. “Preventing state or 

nonstate actors from acquiring or using WMD highlights the need for . . . persistent 

surveillance over wide areas to locate WMD capabilities or hostile forces.” UAS excel 

at providing persistent surveillance over wide areas.

59. Martinage, Dissuasion Strategy, xiii, 37–38.

60. These scenarios are described in DSB, Time Critical Conventional Strike from 

Strategic Standoff, 69–80.

Abbreviations

AFRI Air Force Research Institute

ASAT antisatellite

BCP business continuity planning

BW biological weapons

CITS Combat Information Transport System

COA course of action

COIN counterinsurgency

COMMSAT communication satellite

COOP continuity of operations planning

CSIS Center for Strategic and International Studies

DOD Department of Defense

DOJOC DOD Deterrence Operations Joint Operating

 Concept

DSCS Defense Satellite Communication System

EELV expendable launch vehicle

ESA European Space Agency

EU European Union

F2T2EA kill chain phases: find, fix, track, target,

 engage, and assess

GAO Government Accountability Office

GEO geosynchronous Earth orbit

GIG Global Information Grid

GPS Global Positioning System

ICBM intercontinental ballistic missile

ISR intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance

IT information technology

JAXA Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency

JFC joint force commander

ktas knots true airspeed

MEF mission-essential functions

MOPP mission-oriented protective posture

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NASDA National Space Development Agency (Japan)

NCTC National Counterterrorism Center

NGO nongovernmental organizations

nm nautical miles

NSS National Security Strategy
272 │ ABBREVIATIONS

NW nuclear weapons

ORC operationally responsive cyberspace

ORS operationally responsive space

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review

RDT&E research, development, test, and evaluation

RPA remotely piloted aircraft

RRSC Rapid Response Space Center

SAB Air Force Scientific Advisory Board

SAM surface-to-air missile

SLBM submarine launched ballistic missiles

SLV space launch vehicle

TSL tanker safe line

UGSSS unmanned, global surveillance/strike systems

UK United Kingdom

USCYBERCOM US Cyber Command

USSR Soviet Union

USSTRATCOM US Strategic Command

WGS Wideband Global System

WMD weapons of mass destruction
Bibliography

Adler, Emanuel, and Michael Barnett, eds. Security Communities. 

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

“An Agreement between the AEC [Atomic Energy Commission] and 

the DOD [Department of Defense] for the Development, Production, and Standardization of Atomic Weapons,” 21 March 1953.

Air Force Doctrine Document 1-2. Air Force Glossary, 11 January 2007.

Air Force Doctrine Document 3-60. Targeting, 8 June 2006.

Air Force Nuclear Task Force. Reinvigorating the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise. Washington, DC: Headquarters USAF, 24 October 2008.

Air Force Research Laboratory. Proactive and Predictive Cyber Indications and Warnings (P2CIW). AFRL-IF-RS-TR-2006-226. July 2006.

———. Information Directorate. Integrated Cyber Defense and Support 

Technologies. BAA-08-08-RIKA. 14 October 2008. https://www

.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e72854d6e3c1a

044038563ef1e0fdfa6&tab=core&tabmode=list&=.

———. Rome Research Site. “Polymorphic Cyber Defense—Active 

Repositioning in Cyberspace.” Award notice, 13 March 2009. 

https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF/AFMC/AFRLRRS/Awards

/FA875009C0051.html.

“Airpower in Operation Desert Storm.” Air Force Fact Sheets. http://us

military.about.com/library/milinfo/affacts/blairpowerinoperation

desertstorm.htm.

Alberts, David S. Defensive Information Warfare. Washington, DC: 

National Defense University Press, 1996.

Allison, Graham T. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile 

Crisis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1971.

“Al Maliki Defiant in Face of Regime’s Opponents.” Arizona Daily Star, 

13 March 2011. http://azstarnet.com/news/world/article_2c6247ac

-573d-54d7-8fbb-aa5567a88841.html.

Altheide, David. Terrorism and the Politics of Fear. Lanham, MD: AltaMira 

Press, 2006.

Amuzegar, Jahangir. “Iran’s Crumbling Revolution.” Foreign Affairs 82, 

no. 1 (January/February 2003): 44–57.

Angell, Norman. The Great Illusion. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s 

Sons, 1913.
274 │ Bibliography

Astore, William. “The New American Isolationism.” Nation, 1 November 

2010. http://www.thenation.com/article/155725/new-american-isola

tionism.

Augustine. City of God. Translated by H. Bettenson. New York: Penguin Books, 1972.

Bahgat, Gawdat. “Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Case 

of Libya.” International Relations 22, no. 1 (March 2008): 105–26.

Battilega, John A. “Soviet Views of Nuclear Warfare: The Post-Cold War 

Interviews.” In Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, 

Its Origins and Practice, edited by Henry D. Sokolski, 151–164. Carlisle 

Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), US Army War College, 

November 2004. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdf

files/PUB585.pdf.

Beeker, Kevin R., Robert F. Mills, and Michael R. Grimaila. “Applying 

Deterrence in Cyberspace.” IO [International Organization] Journal, 

February 2010, 21–27. http://www.crows.org/images/stories/IO

_Journal_1st_QTR_2010.pdf?phpMyAdmin=8fb0f1471e1062f3cc

758f323e70b775.

Belasco, Amy. The Cost of Afghanistan, Iraq and Other Global War on 

Terror Operations since 9/11. Washington, DC: Congressional 

Research Service, 2009.

Bell, William C., and Cham Dallas. “Vulnerability of Populations and the 

Urban Health Care Systems to Nuclear Weapon Attack—Examples 

from Four American Cities.” International Journal of Health Geographics 6, no. 5 (28 February 2007). http://www.ij-healthgeographics

.com/contents/6/1/5.

Berman, Iian I., Kenneth Katzman, and James Phillips. “Iran’s Nuclear 

Threat: The Day After.” Heritage Foundation Special Report no. 53, 

4 June 2009. http://www.heritage.org/events/2009/06/irans-nuclear

-threat-the-day-after.

Biddle, Stephen. American Grand Strategy after 9/11: An Assessment. 

Carlisle, PA: Army War College, 2005.

Bildt, Carl, Jean Peyrelevade, and Lothar Spath. Towards a Space Agency 

for the European Union, Report to the ESA Director General, November 2000, 9. http://esamultimedia.esa.int/docs/annex2_wisemen

.pdf.

Blackwill, Robert D., and Jeffrey W. Legro. “Constraining Ground Force 

Exercises of NATO and the Warsaw Pact.” International Security 13, 

no. 3 (Winter 1989/90): 68–98.
Bibliography │ 275

Blanchard, Christopher. Al Qaeda: Statements and Evolving Ideology. 

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2007.

“Bodies Found in Cosmodrome Debris.” BBC News, 13 May 2002. 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1983638.stm.

Bolden, Charles. “NASA Administrator Bolden Defends Future Manned 

Space Flight Program.” Orlando Sentinel, 1 July 2011. http://blogs

.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2011/07/nasa

-administrator-bolden-defends-future-manned-space-flight-plans.

html. 

Bowie, Christopher J. The Anti-Access Threat and Theater Air Bases. 

Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA), 2002.

Bowman, Tom. “Predator Pilots Engage in Remote Control Combat.” 

National Public Radio, 4 September 2007. http://www.npr.org

/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14162045.

Brodie, Bernard. The Anatomy of Deterrence. RM-2218. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 23 July 1958. 

———. “The Atom Bomb as Policy Maker.” Foreign Affairs 27, no. 1 

(October 1948): 17–33.

———.

. “Implications for Military Policy.” In The Absolute Weapon: 

Atomic Power and World Order, edited by Bernard Brodie, 70–110. 

New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1946.

———.Strategy in the Missile Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press, 1959. 

Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, Alastair Smith, Randolph M. Siverson, 

and James D. Morrow. The Logic of Political Survival. Cambridge, 

MA: MIT Press, 2003.

Bulé, David J. “Congress, Presidential Approval, and U.S. Dispute Initiation.” Foreign Policy Analysis 4, no. 4 (October 2008): 349–70.

Burki, Shireen. “Ceding the Ideological Battlefield to Al Qaeda: The 

Absence of an Effective U.S. Information Warfare Strategy.” Comparative Strategy 28, no. 4 (September/October 2009): 349–66.

Byman, Daniel. “Do Targeted Killings Work?” Foreign Affairs 85, no. 

2 (March/April 2006): 96, 105–6.

Byman, Daniel, and Matthew Waxman. The Dynamics of Coercion: 

American Foreign Policy and the Limits of Military Might. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

Byman, Daniel, Shahram Chubin, Anoushiravan Ehteshami, and Jerrold 

Green. Iran’s Security Policy in the Post-Revolutionary Era. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001.
276 │ Bibliography

Caldwell, Christopher. Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West. New York: Doubleday, 2009.

Campbell, Kurt M., Robert J. Einhorn, and Mitchell Reiss, eds. The 

Nuclear Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider Their Nuclear 

Choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2004.

Carr, Caleb. The Lessons of Terror. New York: Random House, 2003.

Carter, Ashton, Michael May, and William Perry. “The Day After: Action Following a Nuclear Blast in a U.S. City.” Washington Quarterly 30, no. 4 (Autumn 2007): 23–27.

Carter, Jimmy. Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. New York: Simon & 

Schuster, 2006.

Carus, W. Seth. Bioterrorism and Biocrimes: The Illicit Use of Biological Agents since 1900. Washington, DC: National Defense University, 2001.

Castel, Charles-Irénée, abbe de Saint-Pierre. A Project for Settling an 

Everlasting Peace in Europe. 1714. Reprint, Farmington Hills, MI: 

Gale ECCO, 2010.

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). Securing Cyberspace 

for the 44th Presidency. Washington, DC: CSIS, December 2008. http://

www.carlisle.army.mil/DIME/documents/CSISCyber%20Report%20

Final.pdf.

Chandler, Robert W. Tomorrow’s War, Today’s Decisions. McLean, VA: 

Amcoda Press, 1996. 

Chang, Kenneth. “Obama Calls for End to NASA’s Moon Program.” New 

York Times, 1 February 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02

/science/02nasa.html.

Chilton, Kevin P. “Cyberspace Leadership: Toward New Culture, 

Conduct, and Capabilities.” Air & Space Power Journal 23, no. 3 

(Fall 2009): 5–10. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles

/apj/apj09/fal09/chilton.html.

Chino, Keiko. “Need for Japanese Manned Spacecraft Suddenly Argued.” The Yomiuri Shinbun, 23 January 2002. http://www.plane

tary.or.jp/en/colum/20020123.html.

Choe, Sang-Hun, and David E. Sanger. “Rocket Failure May Be Test of 

North Korean Leader’s Power.” New York Times.com, 13 April 2012. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/14/world/asia/international

-condemnation-follows-north-koreas-failed-rocket-launch.html

?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120414&pagewanted=all. 

Chubin, Shahram. “The Iranian Nuclear Riddle after June 12.” Washington Quarterly 33, no. 1 (January 2010): 163–72.
Bibliography │ 277

Cohen, Craig, Joseph S. Nye Jr., and Richard L. Armitage. A Smarter, 

More Secure America. Washington, DC: CSIS, 2007. http://csis

.org/publication/smarter-more-secure-america.

Coll, Steve. “In Search of Success.” New Yorker, 25 May 2009.

Collina, Tom Z. “News Analysis: What Is a ‘New’ Nuclear Weapon?” 

Arms Control Today, April 2010. http://www.armscontrol.org

/act/2010_04/NewsAnalysis.

The Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy. Discriminate 

Deterrence. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office 

(GPO), 1988.

The Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack website. http://www.empcom

mission.org/.

The Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic, and Social Committee of the Regions. Toward a 

Space Strategy for the European Union That Benefits Its Citizens, 4 

April 2011. http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/files/policy

/comm_native_com_2011_0152_6_communication_en.pdf.

“Congressional Hearing Testimony for the Under Secretary of the Air 

Force the Honorable Peter B. Teets.” National Reconnaissance Office, 

25 February 2004. http://www.nro.gov/news/testimony/2004/2004-02

.pdf.

Coolsaet, Rik. Jihadi Terrorism and the Radicalization Challenge in 

Europe. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008.

Copeland, Dale C. The Origins of Major War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press, 2000.

Craig, Gordon, and Alexander George. Force and Statecraft: Diplomatic Problems of Our Time, 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.

Creveld, Martin van. The Culture of War. New York: Ballantine Books, 

2008.

———. The Rise and Decline of the State. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 1999.

Cronin, Audrey Kurth. How Terrorism Ends. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press, 2011.

Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species. 1859. Reprint, New York: New 

American Library, 1958.

David, Leonard. “China’s Anti-Satellite Test: Worrisome Debris 

Cloud Circles Earth.” SPACE.com, February 2007. http://www

.space.com/news/070202_china_spacedebris.html.
278 │ Bibliography

Davidson, William A., administrative assistant to the Secretary of the 

Air Force. Letter, subject: Organizational Stand-Up of Executive 

Agent for Space, 12 April 2002.

Davies, Graeme A. M. “Inside Out or Outside In: Domestic and International Factors Affecting Iranian Foreign Policy towards the 

United States 1990–2004.” Foreign Policy Analysis 4, no. 3 (July 

2008): 209–25.

Davis, Jay C. “The Attribution of WMD Events.” Journal of Homeland 

Security, April 2003. http://www.homelandsecurity.org/journal

/Articles/Davis.html.

Davis, Paul, and Brian Michael Jenkins. Deterrence and Influence in 

Counter-Terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2002.

Dawson, Chester. “Japan Launches Space Cargo Push.” Wall Street 

Journal, 17 May 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424

052702303879604577409933903286576.html.

The Defense Science Board (DSB). Challenges to Military Operations 

in Support of US Interests. Vol. 2, Main Report. Washington, DC: 

DOD, December 2008.

———. Future Strategic Strike Forces, February 2004. http://www.fas

.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/fssf.pdf.

———.Time Critical Conventional Strike from Strategic Standoff, March 

2009. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA498403.pdf.

Delpech, Thérèse. Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons 

from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, 2012.

Department of Defense. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.

Washington, DC: DOD, 2010. http://www.defense.gov/pubs

/pdfs/2010_CMPR_Final.pdf.

———. Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept, Version 2.0. 

Washington, DC: DOD, December 2006. http://www.dtic.mil

/futurejointwarfare/concepts/do_joc_v20.doc.

———. Final Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Globalization and Security, December 1999. http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2

/ADA371887.

———.Findings of the Nuclear Posture Review, 9 January 2002. http://

www.defenselink.mil/dodcmsshare/briefingslide/120/020109

-D-6570C-001.pdf.

———.FY2009-2034 Unmanned Systems Integrated Roadmap, 6 April 2009. 

http://www.acq.osd.mil/psa/docs/UMSIntegratedRoadmap2009.pdf.
Bibliography │ 279

———. “Narrative Studies of Accidents Involving U.S. Nuclear Weapons, 

1950-1980.” http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/operation_and_plans

/NuclearChemicalBiologicalMatters/635.pdf.

———. Nuclear Posture Review Report, April 2010. http://www.defense

.gov/npr/docs/2010%20Nuclear%20Posture%20Review%20Report.

pdf.

———. Strategic Communication Joint Integrating Concept, v. 0.5. 

Washington, DC: DOD, 25 April 2008.

———.Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap 2005–2030, 4 August 2005. 

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav_roadmap2005.pdf.

———. Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, 

and Logistics. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on 

Nuclear Deterrence Skills. Washington DC: DOD, September 2008. 

http://www.defense.gov/npr/docs/DSB%20Nuclear%20Deter

rence%20Skills%20Chiles.pdf.

Department of Defense Directive 3020.40. DOD Policy and Responsibility for Critical Infrastructure, 14 January 2010.

Department of Defense Directive 3100.10. Space Policy, 9 July 1999. 

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/defense/d310010p.htm.

Department of Energy (DOE). FY [Fiscal Year] 2011 Congressional 

Budget Request, National Nuclear Security Administration. 

“Weapons Activities: Advanced Simulation and Computing 

Campaign.” http://fire.pppl.gov/fy11_doe_nnsa_details.pdf.

———. FY 2011 Congressional Budget Request, National Nuclear Security Administration. “Weapons Activities: Overview.” http://fire

.pppl.gov/fy11_doe_nnsa_details.pdf.

———. “Weapons Activities: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition 

and High Yield Campaign.” http://fire.pppl.gov/fy11_doe_nnsa

_details.pdf and http://fire.pppl.gov/fy11_doe_icf_details.pdf.

———. “Weapons Activities: Overview.” http://fire.pppl.gov/fy11_doe

_nnsa_details.pdf.

———. Office of Inspector General. Audit Report DOE-IG-0699: The 

Los Alamos National Laboratory Hydrodynamic Test Program. 

“Introductory Letter,” 16 September 2005.

———. Secretary of Energy Advisory Board. Interim Report of the National 

Ignition Facility Laser System Task Force. Washington, DC: DOE, 

10 January 2000. https://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nif/seab0110.pdf.

Department of Homeland Security. National Infrastructure Protection 

Plan: Partnering to Enhance Protection and Resiliency, 2009. 

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NIPP_Plan.pdf.
280 │ Bibliography

Department of State, International Security Advisory Board. Report 

on Discouraging a Cascade of Nuclear Weapons States. Washington, DC: Department of State, 19 October 2007.

Department of the Air Force. Defense Industrial Base Assessment: U.S. 

Space Industry, Final Report. Dayton, OH: 31 August 2007. http://

www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarket

researchrpts/exportcontrolfinalreport08-31-07master_3

—bis-net-link-version—101707-receipt-from-afrl.pdf.

Deutsch, Karl W., Sidney A. Burrell, Robert A. Kann Jr., and Maurice 

Lee. Political Community and the North Atlantic Area: International Organization in the Light of Historical Experience. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press, 1957.

Doenecke, Justus. “American Isolationism, 1939–1941.” Journal of 

Libertarian Studies 6, nos. 3–4 (Summer/Fall 1982), 201–17.

“Dragon Overview.” Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. 

http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php.

Drell, S., et al. Science Based Stockpile Stewardship. JSR-94-345. Mclean, 

VA: JASON Project, MITRE Corporation, November 1994. http://

www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/sbss.pdf.

Dror, Yehezkel. “High-Intensity Aggressive Ideologies as an International Threat.” Jerusalem Journal of International Relations 9, 

no. 1 (March 1987): 153–72.

Dutter, Lee, and Ofira Seliktar. “To Martyr or Not to Martyr: Jihad Is 

the Question, What Policy Is the Answer?” Studies in Conflict 

and Terrorism 30, no. 5 (May 2007): 429–43.

Ehrman, John. The Rise of Neoconservatism. New Haven, CT: Yale 

University Press, 1995.

Eisenstadt, Michael. “Deter and Contain: Dealing with a Nuclear 

Iran.” In Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, edited by Henry 

Sokolski and Patrick Lawson, 225–56. Carlisle, PA: SSI, US Army 

War College, October 2005. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute

.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf.

———. “Living with a Nuclear Iran?” Survival 41, no. 3 (Autumn 

1999): 124–48. http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis

/view/living-with-a-nuclear-iran.

Elliott, TSgt Scott. “Partnership Will Guide Military, Civilian Space 

Activities.” Air Force News Link, 17 October 2002, 13. http://www

.af.mil/news/Oct2002/101702364.shtml.
Bibliography │ 281

———. “SECAF: Space Forces Have Become Indispensable.” Air Force News 

Link, 24 September 2002. http://www.af.mil/news /Sep2002/92402411 

.shtml.

Ellsberg, Daniel. “The Crude Analysis of Strategy Choices.” American 

Economic Review 51, no. 2 (May 1961): 472–78.

European Commission. Space, European Space Policy, 28 June 2012. 

http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/space/esp/index_en.htm.

European Space Agency (ESA). “ESA and the European Union Adopt 

a Common Strategy for Space.” ESA press release, 16 November 

2000. http://www.esa.int/export/csaCP/Pr_74_2000_p_EN.html.

———. “ESA’s Purpose.” http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/About_ESA

/SEMSN26LARE_0.html.

———. “Funding.” 10 January 2012. http://www.esa.int/esaMI/About

_ESA/SEMNQ4FVL2F_0.html.

———. “Galileo IOV [In-Orbit Validation],” 29 June 2012. http://www

.esa.int/SPECIALS/Galileo_IOV/SEMNDEITPQG_0.html.

———. “New Member States.” http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/About

_ESA/SEMP936LARE_0.html.

———. “Shaping the Future of Europe in Space: Which Programmes, 

Which Needs?” ESA press release, 21 April 1999. http://www.esa

.int/export/csaCP/Pr_6_1999_i_EN.html.

Falk, Ophir, and Henry Morgenstern. Suicide Terror: Understanding 

and Confronting the Threat. New York: Wiley, 2009.

Federation of American Scientists Space Policy Project. “Baikonur 

Cosmodrome.” In World Space Guide. http://www.fas.org/spp

/guide/russia/facility/baikonur.htm.

———. “Russian and Soviet Space Agencies.” In World Space Guide. 

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/russia/agency/index.html.

Fetter, Steve. “Nuclear Strategy and Targeting Doctrine.” In The Nuclear 

Turning Point, edited by Harold A. Feiveson, 45–59. Washington, 

DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1999.

Fink, Harry J., and Rita M. Fink. Dirty Harry. Screenplay, 1971.

Fischer, Hannah. U.S. Military Casualty Statistics: Operation New 

Dawn, Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation Enduring Freedom. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010.

Fitzpatrick, A., and I. Oelrich. “The Stockpile Stewardship Program: 

Fifteen Years On.” FAS [Federation of American Scientists] Occasional Paper, April 2007. http://www.fas.org/2007/nuke/Stock

pile_Stewardship_Paper.pdf.
282 │ Bibliography

Fitzpatrick, Anne. “From Behind the Fence: Threading the Labyrinths of Classified Historical Research.” In The Historiography of 

Contemporary Science, Technology, and Medicine: Writing Recent 

Science, edited by Ronald E. Doel and Thomas Soderqvist, 67–80. 

New York: Routledge, 2006.

Forest, James, ed. Countering Terrorism and Insurgency in the 21st 

Century. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2007.

Frederick, Lorina A. “Deterrence and Space-Based Missile Defense.” 

Air & Space Power Journal 23, no. 3 (Fall 2009): 107–18. http://

www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/fal09/frederick

.html.

Freedman, Lawrence. Deterrence. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2004.

———. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 

1989.

———. “Strategic Coercion.” In Strategic Coercion: Concepts and Cases, 

edited by Lawrence Freedman, 15–36.

 New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Fukuyama, Francis. The End of History and the Last Man. New York: 

Avon Books, 1992.

Fulghum, David A., and Bill Sweetman. “Stealth over Afghanistan.” 

Aviation Week and Space Technology, 14 December 2009, 26–31.

Gaddis, John Lewis. Strategies of Containment. Oxford, UK: Oxford 

University Press, 2005.

———. “Toward the Post–Cold War World.” Foreign Affairs 70, no. 2 

(Spring 1991): 102–22.

Galula, David. Counterinsurgency Warfare. Westport, CT: Praeger 

Security International, 2006.

Ganor, Boaz. The Counter-Terrorism Puzzle. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 2005.

Gareau, Frederick. State Terrorism and the United States. Atlanta, GA: 

Clarity Press, 2004.

Garthoff, Raymond L. Soviet Military Doctrine. New York: Free Press, 

1953.

Gates, Robert. Quadrennial Defense Review Report. Washington, DC: 

DOD, 2010.

Geipel, Gary. “Urban Terrorists in Continental Europe after 1970: 

Implications for Deterrence and Defeat of Violent Nonstate Actors.” 

Comparative Strategy 26, no. 5 (October 2007): 439–67.

Geltzer, Joshua Alexander. US Counterterrorism Strategy and al Qaeda. 

New York: Routledge, 2010.
Bibliography │ 283

George, Alexander L. “The Case for Multiple Advocacy in Making 

Foreign Policy.” American Political Science Review 66, no. 3 (September 1972): 751–85.

———. “The Need for Influence Theory and Actor-Specific Behavioral 

Models of Adversaries.” Comparative Strategy 22, no. 5 (December 

2003): 463–87.

George, Alexander, and Richard Smoke. Deterrence in American Foreign 

Policy: Theory and Practice. New York: Columbia University 

Press, 1974.

Gerecht, Reuel Marc. “Mirror-Imaging the Mullahs: Our Islamic Interlocutors.” World Affairs 170, no. 3 (Winter 2008): 91–100.

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. 1776. 

Reprint, London: Penguin Press, 1994.

Giles, Gregory F. “The Crucible of Radical Islam: Iran’s Leaders and 

Strategic Culture.” In Know Thy Enemy: Profiles of Adversary 

Leaders and Their Strategic Cultures, edited by Barry R. Schneider 

and Jerrold M. Post, 141–62. 2nd ed. Maxwell AFB, AL: USAF 

Counterproliferation Center, July 2003. http://www.au.af.mil/au

/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/know_thy_enemy/giles.pdf.

Gilpin, Robert. Global Political Economy: Understanding the International Economic Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press, 2001.

———.War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 1981.

Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy Commission. Modernizing U.S. Nuclear Strategy. http://www.ndr.de/info/programm/sendungen

/streitkraefte_und_strategien/globalzeroreport101.pdf.

Goldgeier, J. M., and P. E. Tetlock. “Psychology and International Relations Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 4, no. 1 (1 June 

2003): 67–92.

Gould, Joe. “Pfc. Faces 22 New Charges in Wikileaks Case.” Army 

Times 71, no. 35 (14 March 2011): 28.

Government Accountability Office (GAO). House Subcommittee on 

National Security and Foreign Affairs, Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform, Testimony of Cristina T. Chaplain, Director 

Acquisition and Sourcing Management, Global Positioning System: 

Significant Challenges in Sustaining and Upgrading Widely Used 

Capabilities. GAO-09-670T. Washington, DC: GAO, 7 May 2009. 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09670t.pdf.
284 │ Bibliography

———.Internet Infrastructure—Challenges in Developing a Public/Private 

Recovery Plan. GAO-06-1100T, 13 September 2006.

———. Nuclear Weapons: Status of Planning for Stockpile Life Extension. GAO-02-146R, 7 December 2001. http://www.gao.gov/new

.items/d02146r.pdf.

———.Report to the Subcommittee on Military Procurement, Committee 

on Armed Services, House of Representatives: National Ignition Facility: 

Management and Oversight Failures Caused Major Cost Overruns 

and Schedule Delays, 8 August 2000. http://www.gao.gov/new

.items/rc00271.pdf.

Grant, Rebecca. The Radar Game. Arlington, VA: IRIS Research, 

1998.

Gray, Colin S. “SALT II: The Real Debate.” Policy Review 10 (Fall 

1979): 7–22.

———. Missiles against War: The ICBM Debate Today. Fairfax, VA: 

National Institute for Public Policy, 1985.

Grigerenzer, Gerd, and Daniel G. Goldstein. “Reasoning the Fast and 

Frugal Way: Models of Bounded Rationality.” Psychological Review 103, no. 4 (1996): 650–69.

Gurney, D. H. “Executive Summary.” Joint Force Quarterly 51 (4th 

Quarter 2008): 5–7. http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/jfq-51/JFQ

-51.pdf. 

Gurr, Ted Robert. Why Men Rebel. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.

Gusterson, Hugh. Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory at the End of 

the Cold War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998.

———. People of the Bomb: Portraits of America’s Nuclear Complex. 

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004.

Guthe, Kurt. “Implications of a Dynamic Strategic Environment.” In 

Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Arms 

Control, vol. 2, edited by Keith Payne et al., 64–69. Fairfax, VA: 

National Institute for Public Policy, 2001.

———.Ten Continuities in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, Strategy, Plans 

and Forces. Fairfax, VA: National Institute for Public Policy, 2008.

Hale, Brian, Michael Grimaila, Robert Mills, Michael Haas, and Phillip 

Maynard. “Communicating Potential Mission Impact Using 

Shared Mission Representations.” Proceedings of the 2010 International Conference on Information Warfare and Security, 

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, 8–9 April 2010, 120–27.
Bibliography │ 285

Hammer, David A., Lars Bildsten, et al. NIF Ignition. JSR-05-340. 

Mclean, VA: JASON Program, MITRE Corporation, 29 June 

2005. http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/nif.pdf.

Harknett, Richard J. “To Deter or Not to Deter, That Is the Cyber 

Dilemma.” Paper presented at AFEI [Association for Enterprise 

Information] Strategic Cyber Deterrence Conference, Washington, DC, 1–2 November 2007.

Hart, Paul. “Preventing Groupthink Revisited: Evaluating and Reforming Groups in Government.” Organizational Behavior and 

Human Decision Processes 73, nos. 2/3 (February/March 1998): 

306–26.

Hays, Lt Col Peter L. United States Military Space: Into the TwentyFirst Century. USAF INSS Occasional Paper 42. US Air Force 

Academy, CO: USAF Institute for National Security Studies, September 2002.

Hegel, Georg W. F. The Philosophy of History, translated by J. Sibree. 

New York: Dover, 1953.

Helton, Jon C. Sandia Report: Conceptual and Computational Basis 

for the Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties, SAND2009-

3055. Sandia National Laboratories, June 2009. http://energy

.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/Uncertainty.pdf.

Herz, John H. “Idealist Internationalism and Security Dilemma.” 

World Politics 2 (1950): 157–80.

Hines, John G., Ellis M. Mishulovich, and John F. Shulle. Soviet Intentions 1965–1985. McLean, VA: BDM Federal, 1995.

Hirschman, Albert O. The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism before Its Triumph. Princeton, NJ: Princeton 

University Press, 1977.

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Reprint, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Hodge, Nathan, and Sharon Weinberger. “A Nuclear Family Vacation.” 

Slate,13 July 2005. http://slate.msn.com/id/2122382/entry/2122493/.

Hoffman, Bruce. “A Counterterrorism Strategy for the Obama Administration.” Terrorism and Political Violence 21, no. 3 (July 

2009): 359–77.

———.Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press, 2006.

Holmes, Erik. “Lab to Build Special Order Satellites in Days.” Air 

Force Times, 20 February 2009. http://www.airforcetimes.com

/news/2009/02/af_satellites_space_022009/.
286 │ Bibliography

Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr. “The Soldier’s Faith.” Address to the graduating class of Harvard University on Memorial Day. Cambridge, MA, 

30 May 1895. http://people.virginia.edu/~mmd5f/holmesfa.htm.

House. Hearings on Cyber Security: Beyond the Maginot Line before 

the House Science Committee. 107th Cong., 1st sess., 2001. http://

www.nae.edu/News/SpeechesandRemarks/CyberSecurity

BeyondtheMaginotLine.aspx. (Statement of William A. Wulf.) 

———.National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. 107th 

Cong., 2nd sess., 2002, H. R. 107.

Howard, Michael. “Reassurance and Deterrence.” Foreign Affairs 61, 

no. 2 (Winter 1982/1983): 309–24.

Hsu, Jeremy. “Real Soldiers Love Their Robot Brethren.” LiveScience, 

21 May 2009. http://www.livescience.com/5432-real-soldiers-love

-robot-brethren.html.

Hume, David. Essays Moral, Political, and Literary. 1742. Reprint, Indianapolis, IN: Liberty, 1987.

Hunt, Carl, Jeffrey R. Bowes, and Doug Gardner. “Net Force Maneuver.” 

In Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] Workshop on Information Assurance and Security. 

West Point, NY: US Military Academy, 2005, 419–23.

Huntington, Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of 

World Order. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1996.

———. “No Exit: The Errors of Endism.” National Interest 17 (Fall 

1989): 3–11.

———. “Why International Primacy Matters.” International Security

17, no. 4 (Spring 1993): 71–82.

Huth, Paul, and Bruce Russett. “Testing Deterrence Theory: Rigor 

Makes A Difference.” World Politics 42, no. 4 (July 1990): 466–501.

———. “What Makes Deterrence Work? Cases from 1900 to 1980.” 

World Politics 36, no. 4 (July 1984): 496–526.

Hyten, Col John E. “A Sea of Peace or a Theater of War? Dealing with 

the Inevitable Conflict in Space.” Air & Space Power Journal 16, 

no. 3 (Fall 2002): 78–92.

“India Launches Its First Weather Satellite.” CNN.com. 12 September 

2002. http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/09/12/india.satellite

.reut/index.html.

Information Office of the State Council, People’s Republic of China. 

“China’s Space Activities,” 22 November 2000. http://www.fas

.org/spp/guide/china/wp112200.html.
Bibliography │ 287

———. “The Day of Carrier Space Flight of China Is Not Far Off,” 21 November 1999. http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/news/20021112002e.htm.

———. “Development of China’s Aerospace Industry during the 10th 

Five Year Plan.” 12 March 2001. http://www.fas.org/spp/guide

/china/bjb031201.html.

Ismail, Salwa. Rethinking Islamist Politics: Culture, the State and Islamism. 

London: I. B. Taurus, 2006.

“Israel to Destroy Attacker’s Home.” BBC News, 4 July 2008. http://

news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/middle_east/7490212.stm.

Israeli Space Agency. “Israel Space Agency History: ISA Foundation 

and the Israeli Space Age.” http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral

/5150/isahist.htm.

Jabbour, Kamal. “The Science and Technology of Cyber Operations.” 

High Frontier 5, no. 3 (May 2009): 11–15.

Jackson, Brian, David R. Frelinger, Michael J. Lostumbo, and Robert 

W. Button. Evaluating Novel Threats to the Homeland. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies. CNS Resources on North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Program: The 31 August 1998 North Korean Satellite 

Launch: Factsheet. http://cns.miis.edu/archive/country_north_korea

/factsht.htm.

Janis, Irving L. Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions 

and Fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982.

Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency. “JAXA Vision-JAXA 2025.” 

http://www.jaxa.jp/about/2025/index_e.html.

“Japanese Rocket Blasts Off.” BBC News, 29 August 2001. http://news

.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1514468.htm.

Jenkins, Brian Michael. American Foreign Policy in a New Era. New 

York: Routledge, 2005.

———. Unconquerable Nation: Knowing Our Enemy, Strengthening 

Ourselves. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006.

Jervis, Robert. American Foreign Policy in a New Era. New York: 

Routledge, 2005.

———.The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 

University Press, 1984.

———.Perception and Misperception in International Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.

Jervis, Robert, Ned Lebow, and Janice Gross Stein. Psychology and 

Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1985.
288 │ Bibliography

Johannes, Laura, and Marc Champion. “Aftermath: Investigation and 

Mobilization: Irish Nationalists May Feel US’s Funding Squeeze.” 

Wall Street Journal, 27 September 2001, A.9.

Joint Publication 1-02. Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, 

12 April 2001 (as amended through 19 August 2009).

Joint Publication 2-0. Joint Intelligence, 22 June 2007.

Jones, Morris. “China’s Space Program Accelerates.” SpaceDaily, 29 June 

2012. http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Chinas_Space_Program

_Accelerates_999.html.

Jones, Seth G., and Martin C. Libicki. How Terrorist Groups End: Lessons for Countering al Qa’ida. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2008.

Joseph, Robert. Countering WMD: The Libyan Experience. Fairfax, 

VA: National Institute Press, 2009.

Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. New York: Penguin Press, 2005.

Kahn, Herman. On Thermonuclear War. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1960.

Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler. “Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias.” 

Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, no. 1 (Winter 1991): 193–206.

Kalantari, Behrooz. “Herbert A. Simon on Making Decisions: Enduring Insights and Bounded Rationality.” Journal of Management 

History 16, no. 4 (September 2010): 509–20.

Kalman, Matthew. “Israeli Fence Puts ‘Cage’ on Villagers: More Palestinians Scrambling to Keep Barrier from Going up.” San Francisco Chronicle, 9 March 2004. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin

/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/09/MNGIP5H0IL1

.DTL.

Kant, Immanuel. Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay. Translated 

by M. Campbell Smith. London: George Allen and Unwin, 1917. 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/357.

Kaplan, Fred. The Wizards of Armageddon. New York: Simon & 

Schuster, 1983.

Kaufmann, William W. The Evolution of Deterrence 1945–1958. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1958. 

———. “Limited Warfare.” In Military Policy and National Security, edited 

by William W. Kaufmann, 102–36. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat 

Press, 1956.
Bibliography │ 289

———. “The Requirements of Deterrence.” In Military Policy and National 

Security, edited by William W. Kaufmann, 12–38. Port Washington, NY: Kennikat Press, 1956.

Keegan, John. A History of Warfare. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993.

Keeley, Lawrence H. War before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful 

Savage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Kelly, Henry. “Arms Control: Where Now?” FAS Public Interest Report

55, no. 1 (January/February 2002). http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002 

/v55n1/control.htm.

Kennan, George F. “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.” Foreign Affairs

65, no. 4 (Spring 1987): 852–68.

———. “Toward Peace on Two Fronts.” Christianity and Crisis, 13 December 1982, 398–402.

Kennedy, Paul. The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers. New York: Vintage Books, 1987.

Kent, Glenn A., and David E. Thaler. First-Strike Stability: A Methodology for Evaluating Strategic Forces. R-3765-AF. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, August 1989.

———. First-Strike Stability and Strategic Defenses: Part II of a Methodology for Evaluating Strategic Forces. R-3918-AF. Santa Monica, 

CA: RAND Corporation, October 1990.

Kent, Glenn A., Randall J. DeValt, and David E. Thaler. A Calculus of 

First-Strike Stability (A Criterion for Evaluating Strategic Forces). 

N-2526-AF. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, June 1988.

Kershaw, Ian. Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World, 

1940–1941. New York: Penguin Press, 2007.

Khaldun, Ibn., The Muqaddimah: An Introduction to History. Translated by F. Rosenthal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 

1967.

Kilcullen, David, and Andrew Exum., “Death from Above, Outrage 

from Below.” The New York Times, 17 May 2009, WK.13. 

Kissinger, Henry A.. Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy. New York: 

Harper & Brothers, 1957.

———.White House Years. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1979.

———.A World Restored: The Politics of Conservatism in a Revolutionary 

Age. New York: Grossett and Dunlap, 1964.

Koloski, Andrew W., and John S. Kolasheski. “Thickening the Lines: 

Sons of Iraq, A Combat Multiplier.” Military Review 89, no. 1 

(January/February 2009): 41–53.
290 │ Bibliography

Korb, Lawrence J., Alex Rothman, and Laura Conley. “Defensible Budget Cuts.” Center for American Progress, 13 April 2011. http://

www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/04/korb_obama.html.

Krepinevich, Andrew F., and Robert C. Martinage. Dissuasion Strategy. 

Washington, DC: CSBA, 2008. 

Kristensen, Hans. “Testing the No-New-Nuclear-Weapons Pledge.” FAS 

Security Blog, 9 March 2010. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2010/03

/newnukes.php#more-2784.

Kristensen, Hans, and Ivan Oelrich. “JASON and Replacement Warheads.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, 20 November 2009. http://

www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2009/11/jason.php#more-2256.

Kristol, Irving. “The Neoconservative Persuasion.” On the Issues, September 2003, 1–3.

Kugler, Richard. “Dissuasion as a Strategic Concept.” Strategic Forum

196 (December 2002): 1–8.

Lake, Eli. “Iran’s Space Launch Turns Clock Back.” Washington Times, 25 

Jun 2009. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/04/iran

-hails-30-year-old-regime-50-year-old-space-te/.

Lambeth, Benjamin S. Air Power against Terror. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 2005.

Landry, Brett J. L., and M. Scott Koger. “Dispelling 10 Common Disaster Recovery Myths: Lessons Learned from Hurricane Katrina and 

Other Disasters.” ACM [Association for Computing Machinery] 

Journal on Educational Resources in Computing 6, no. 4 (December 

2006): 1–14. http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1248453.1248459.

Langdon, Lisa, Alexander J. Sarapu, and Matthew Wells. “Targeting 

the Leadership of Terrorist and Insurgent Movements: Historical 

Lessons for Contemporary Policy Makers.” Journal of Public and 

International Affairs, 15 (Spring 2004): 59–78.

Lawrence, Bruce, ed. Message to the World: The Statements of Osama 

bin Laden. New York: Verso Press, 2005.

Lebovic, James. Deterring International Terrorism and Rogue States. 

New York: Routledge, 2007.

Lebow, Richard Ned. Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1981.

Lebow, Richard Ned, and Janice Gross Stein. “Beyond Deterrence.” 

Journal of Social Issues 43, no. 4 (1987): 5–71.

———. “Deterrence: The Elusive Dependent Variable.” World Politics

42, no. 3 (April 1990): 336–69.
Bibliography │ 291

———. “Rational Deterrence Theory: I Think, Therefore I Deter.” 

World Politics 41, no. 2 (January 1989): 143–69.

———.We All Lost the Cold War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press, 1994.

Ledeen, Michael A. The Iranian Time Bomb: The Mullah Zealots’ 

Quest for Destruction. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 2007.

Lee Kuan Yew. From Third World to First—The Singapore Story: 1965–

2000. New York: Harper Collins, 2000.

Lesser, Ian, Bruce Hoffman, John Arquilla, David Ronfeldt, and Michele Zanini. Countering the New Terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 1999.

Levy, Jack S. “The Diversionary Theory of War: A Critique.” In The 

Handbook of War Studies, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, 259–88.

Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1989.

———. “Misperception and the Causes of War: Theoretical Linkages 

and Analytical Problems.” World Politics 36, no. 1 (October 1983): 

76–99.

Levy, Jack S., and William R. Thompson. Causes of War. Chichester, 

UK: Wiley Blackwell, 2010.

Lewis, Jeffrey. “After the Reliable Replacement Warhead: What’s Next 

for the U.S. Nuclear Arsenal?” Arms Control Today, December 

2008. http://www.armscontrol.org/print/3463.

Liberman, Peter. Does Conquest Pay? The Exploitation of Occupied Industrial Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 

1996.

Libicki, Martin C. “Deterrence in Cyberspace.” High Frontier 5, no. 3 

(May 2009): 11–15.

Lichbach, Mark Irving. The Rebel’s Dilemma. Ann Arbor: University 

of Michigan Press, 1998.

Lichtblau, Eric. “U.S. Indicts Head of Islamic Charity in al Qaeda Financing.” New York Times, 10 October 2002, A.1.

Lifetime Extension Program (LEP). JSR-09-334E. Mclean, VA: MITRE 

Corporation, JASON Program office, 9 September 2009. 

Likanen, Erkki. “Aerospace and the Evolution of Europe.” European 

Union press release, 4 October 2002. http:europa.eu.int/rapid

/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=SPEECH/02/456.

Lindley, Dan, and Ryan Schildkraut. “Is War Rational? The Extent of 

Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War.” In Conference Papers—International Studies Association. Tucson, AZ: International Studies Association, 2006.
292 │ Bibliography

Logsdon, John M. “A Security Space Capability for Europe? Implications 

for US Policy.” Remarks. Symposium on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the French Space Agency CNES [Centre national 

d’études spatiales], Washington, DC, Space Policy Institute, Elliott 

School of International Affairs, George Washington University, 18 

December 2001.

Lowry, John. “An Initial Foray into Understanding Adversary Planning and Courses of Action.” In DARPA Information Survivability 

Conference and Exposition II, 2001 (DISCEX’01) Proceedings, Vol. 

1, June 2001, 123–33. http://www.bbn.com/resources/pdf/Adversary

_CoA.pdf.

Luan Enjie. “Chinese Space Undertakings toward the 21st Century.” 

World Space Week News, 4 October 2000. http://www.cnsa/gov

.cn/wsw/read-news_e.asp?mc=News&tmjz=24&xsyh=01.

Luttwak, Edward. Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace. Cambridge, 

MA: Belknap Press, 2003.

Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Discourses, translated by L. J. Walker. London: 

Penguin Books, 1970.

MacKenzie, Donald, with Graham Spinardi. “Tacit Knowledge and the 

Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons.” In Knowing Machines: Essays 

on Technical Change, edited by Donald MacKenzie, 215–60. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.

Mainwaring, Max. A Contemporary Challenge to State Sovereignty: 

Gangs and Other Illicit Transnational Criminal Organizations in 

Central America, El Salvador, Mexico, Jamaica, and Brazil. Carlisle, 

PA: SSI, US Army War College, 2007.

———.Deterrence in the 21st Century. New York: Frank Cass, 2001.

Mandeville, Bernard. The Fable of the Bees and Other Writings. 1705. 

Reprint, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1997.

Mao Tse-tung. On Guerilla Warfare. Translated by Samuel Griffith II. 

Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1961.

Marine Corps Doctrinal Publication 1. Warfighting, 1997.

Martinage, Robert. Special Operations Forces: Future Challenges and 

Opportunities. Washington, DC: CSBA, 2008. 

Mazetti, Mark. “The Downside of Letting Robots Do the Bombing.” New 

York Times, 21 March 2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22

/weekinreview/15MAZZETTI.html.

McCartney, Forrest, et al. National Security Space Launch Report. Santa 

Monica: RAND Corporation, 2006. http://www.rand.org/content

/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG503.pdf.
Bibliography │ 293

McDougall, Walter A. The Heavens and the Earth: A Political History of 

the Space Age. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

McNamara, Laura A. “TRUTH Is Generated HERE: Knowledge Loss 

and the Production of Nuclear Confidence in the Post-Cold War 

Era.” In Nuclear Legacies: Communication, Controversy, and the US 

Nuclear Weapons Complex, edited by Bryan C. Taylor, William J. 

Kinsella, Stephen P. Depoe, Maribeth S. Metzler, Jennifer Duffield 

Hamilton, Jason N. Krupar, Laura A. McNamara, Eric L. Morgan, 

Jay Mullen, and Tarla Rai Peterson, 167–98. New York: Lexington 

Books, 2007.

———. “Ways of Knowing about Weapons: The Cold War’s End at the 

Los Alamos National Laboratory.” PhD diss., University of New 

Mexico, May 2001.

Meade, Walter Russell. “The Bush Administration and the New World 

Order.” World Policy Journal 8, no. 3 (Summer 1991): 375–420.

Mearsheimer, John J. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: 

W. W. Norton, 2001.

Medalia, Jonathan. “Bunker Busters”: Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Issues, FY2005–FY2007. Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report 

for Congress RL32347. Washington, DC: CRS, 21 February 2006.

———.“Bunker Busters”: Sources of Confusion in the Robust Nuclear 

Earth Penetrator Debate. CRS Report for Congress RL325599. 

Washington, DC: CRS, 22 September 2004.

Menthe, Darrel. “Jurisdiction in Cyberspace: A Theory of International 

Spaces.” Michigan Telecommunication Technical Law Review 4 

(1998): 69–103. http://www.mttlr.org/volfour/menthe.html.

Miller, Benjamin. “Explaining Changes in U.S. Grand Strategy: 9/11, 

the Rise of Offensive Liberalism, and the War in Iraq.” Security 

Studies 19, no. 1 (2010): 26–65.

Moghadam, Assaf. The Roots of Terrorism. New York: Chelsea House, 

2006.

Montesquieu. Considerations on the Causes of the Greatness of the Romans and Their Decline. Translated by D. Lowenthal. Indianapolis, 

IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1965.

Morgan, Patrick M. Deterrence Now. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 2003.

Morgenthau, Hans. “The Fallacy of Thinking Conventionally about 

Nuclear Weapons.” In Arms Control and Technological Innovation, edited by David Carlton and Carlo Schaerf, 256–64. New 

York: Wiley, 1976.
294 │ Bibliography

———.Politics among Nations. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948.

———.Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 5th 

ed. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978.

Moskowitz, Clara. “Are Russia’s Recent Space Woes a Sign of Larger 

Problems?” SPACE.com, 15 February 2012. http://www.space

.com/14588-russian-space-failures-larger-problems.html.

Moustakis, Fotios, and Rudra Chaudhuri. “The Rumsfeld Doctrine 

and the Cost of US Unilateralism: Lessons Learned.” Defence 

Studies 7, no. 3 (November 2007): 358–75.

Mowthorpe, Mathew J. “The United States Approach to Military 

Space during the Cold War.” Air & Space Power Chronicles, 8 

March 2001. http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles

/cc/mowthorpe.html.

Mueller, John. The Remnants of War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University 

Press, 2004.

———.Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War. New 

York: Basic Books, 1989.

Mulaj, Klejda. Violent Non-State Actors. New York: Columbia University Press, 2009.

Murdock, Clark A. The Department of Defense and the Nuclear Mission in the 21st Century: A Beyond–Goldwater-Nichols Phase 4 

Report. Washington, DC: CSIS, March 2008.

Myers, Christopher, and Jonathan Ball. “Space Transportation.” Space 

Web, 2. http://home.att.net/-SpaceWeb/SPSM5900/Nat_Pol.htm.

Naim, Moises. “The Five Wars of Globalization.” Foreign Policy, January

/February 2003, 29–36.

Nance, Malcolm. An End to Al Qaeda: Destroying bin Laden’s Jihad 

and Restoring America’s Honor. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 

2010.

Narain, Sanjay, Gary Levin, Sharad Malik, and Vikram Kaul. “Declarative Infrastructure Configuration Synthesis and Debugging.” 

Journal of Network and Systems Management 16, no. 3 (September 2008): 235–58.

Nardon, Laurence. Satellite Imagery Control: An American Dilemma. 

Paris: French Center on the United States, March 2002.

Naroll, Raoul, Vern L. Bullough, and Frada Naroll. Military Deterrence in History: A Pilot Cross-Historical Survey. Albany, NY: 

State University of New York Press, 1974.
Bibliography │ 295

The National Aeronautics Space Development Association. “To a New 

Phase of Japanese Rocket Development.” NASDA Report No. 51, 

September 1996. http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/nasda-news/1996/09

/series_e.html.

“National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2003 Report (Excerpts 

Regarding NASA).” SpaceRef. http://www.spaceref.com/news

/viewsr.html?pid=5539. 

The National Defense Panel. Transforming Defense: National Security 

in the 21st Century, December 1997. http://www.fas.org/man

/docs/ndp/toc.htm.

The National Intelligence Council. Mapping the Global Future: Report 

of the National Intelligence Council’s 2020 Project. Undated, unclassified briefing. 

The National Research Council. Evaluation of Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties Methodology for Assessing and Certifying 

the Reliability of the Nuclear Stockpile. Washington, DC: National 

Academies Press, 2008.

National Space Technology Council. “Fact Sheet, National Space Policy,” 

19 September 1996. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/sep96.htm.

———. “National Space Policy Review, Fact Sheet,” 28 June 2002. 

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-15.htm.

Neumann, John von, and Oskar Morgenstern. The Theory of Games 

and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press, 1944.

Nichols, Thomas. Eve of Destruction: The Coming Age of Preventive 

War. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Nincic, Miroslav. “Loss Aversion and the Domestic Context of Military Intervention.” Political Research Quarterly 50, no. 1 (March 

1997): 97–120.

“Nuclear Posture Review Report [Reconstructed] Submitted to Congress 

on 31 December 2001.” Federation of American Scientists, 8 January 

2002. http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/united_states/NPR2001re.pdf. 

Nuclear Weapons Council. “Procedural Guidelines for the Phase 6.X 

Process,” 19 April 2000.

Obama, Pres. Barak. “Securing Our Nation’s Cyber Infrastructure.” 

Remarks. The White House, Washington, DC, 29 May 2009. 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the

-President-on-Securing-Our-Nations-Cyber-Infrastructure/.

Odom, William E. “Whither the Soviet Union?” Washington Quarterly 4 (Spring 1981): 30–49.
296 │ Bibliography

Odom, William E., and Robert Dujarric. America’s Inadvertent Empire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004.

Odom, William, et al. The Emerging Ballistic Missile Threat to the 

United States: Report of the Proliferation Study Team. Fairfax, VA: 

National Institute for Public Policy, February 1993. http://www

.dod.mil/pubs/foi/Science_and_Technology/Other/481.pdf.

Oelrich, Ivan. “Congressional Commission and Nuclear ‘Requirements.’ ” FAS Strategic Security Blog, 6 May 2009. http://www.fas

.org/blog/ssp/2009/05/1280.php#more-1280.

———. Missions for Nuclear Weapons after the Cold War. FAS Occasional Paper no. 3, January 2005. http://www.fas.org/pubs

/_docs/01282005175922.pdf.

———. “A Response to Congresswoman Tauscher’s Article on Nonproliferation Review.” FAS Strategic Security Blog, 29 October 2007. http://

www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/10/a_response_to_congresswoman

_ta.php.

Office of Science and Technology. “Fact Sheet, US National Space Policy,” 

31 August 2006. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/whitehouse 

/ostp_space_policy06.pdf.

Office of the Secretary of Defense. Military Power of the People’s Republic 

of China, 2009. http://www.defense.gov/pubs/pdfs/China_Military

_Power_Report_2009.pdf.

———. Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Report, 30 September 

2001. http://history.defense.gov/resources/QDR2001.pdf.

———. Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 6 February 2006. http://

history.defense.gov/resources/QDR2006.pdf.

———.Quadrennial Defense Review Report, January 2009. http://history

.defense.gov/resources/QDR2009.pdf.

———.Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 12 February 2010. http://

www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf.

———.Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 2005–2030, 4 August 2005. 

https://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/uav_roadmap2005.pdf.

Olson, Adm Eric T. “The Terror Threat: What It Will Take to Deter, 

Disrupt, and Defeat It.” Speech. The Center for a New American 

Security, 3 March 2008. http://www.cnas.org/files/multimedia

/documents/AdmOlson_CNAS_Transcript.pdf.

Omilecheva, Mariya. Counter-Terrorism Policies in Central Asia. New 

York: Routledge, 2011.
Bibliography │ 297

“The Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm Timeline.” American 

Forces Press Service. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle

.aspx?id=45404.

“Pak’s N-bomb Prevented India from Attacking It after 26/11.” Press 

Trust of India, 9 March 2009.

Paone, Chuck. “CITS [Combat Information Transport System] Key to 

Air Force Cyber Superiority Goal.” 66th Air Base Wing Public Affairs, 28 May 2009. http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123151424.

Pape, Robert. “Coercion and Military Strategy: Why Denial Works 

and Punishment Doesn’t.” Journal of Strategic Studies 15, no. 4 

(1992): 423–75.

———. “Suicide Terrorism and Democracy: What We’ve Learned 

since 9/11.” Policy Analysis no. 582 (1 November 2006): 1–18.

Parker, Geoffrey. The Cambridge Illustrated History of Warfare. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Patterson, Thomas, J. Garry Clifford, Shane J. Maddock, Deborah 

Kisatsky, and Kenneth Hagan. American Foreign Relations: Since 

1895. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999, 133–35.

Payne, Keith B. Deterrence in the Second Nuclear Age. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1996.

———.The Great American Gamble: Deterrence Theory and Practice 

from the Cold War to the Twenty-First Century. Fairfax, VA: National 

Institute Press, 2008.

———. “The Schlesinger Shift: Return to Rationality.” In Nuclear Strategy: 

Flexibility and Stability, edited by Keith B. Payne, C. Johnston 

Conover, and Bruce Bennett, 1–48. Santa Monica, CA: California 

Seminar on Arms Control and Foreign Policy, March 1979. 

Payne, Keith B., et al. Planning the Future U.S. Nuclear Force. 2 vols. 

Fairfax, VA: National Institute Press, 2009.

———.Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Arms 

Control. Fairfax, VA: National Institute for Public Policy, 2001.

Payne, Keith, Kathleen Bailey, Colin Gray, Kurt Guthe, Robert Joseph, 

and Frederic Leykam. Bioterrorism and a Strategy of Concomitant 

Deterrence. Fairfax, VA: National Institute for Public Policy, September 2007.
298 │ Bibliography

Pena, Charles V. “US Commercial Space Programs: Future Priorities 

and Implications for National Security.” In Future Security in 

Space: Commercial, Military, and Arms Control Trade-Offs, edited 

by James Clay Moltz, 8–10. Southhampton, UK: Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Mountbatten Centre for International 

Studies, University of Southampton, July 2002.

Peters, Anne, Lucy Koechlin, Till Förster, and Gretta Fenner Zinkernagel. 

Non-State Actors as Standard Setters. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge 

University Press, 2009.

Phillips, Matthew. “Uncertain Justice for Nuclear Terror: Deterrence 

of Anonymous Attacks through Attribution.” Orbis 51, no. 3 

(Summer 2007): 429–46.

Pickering, Sharon, Jude McCulloch, and David Wright-Neville. 

Counter-Terrorism Policing. New York: Springer, 2008.

Pinker, Steven. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has 

Declined. New York: Penguin Press, 2011. 

Pipes, Richard. “Militarism and the Soviet State.” Daedalus 109, no. 4 

(Fall 1980): 1–12.

———. Survival Is Not Enough: Soviet Realities and America’s Future. 

New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

Plato. The Republic. Translated by T. Griffith. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Pollack, Kenneth M. The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict between Iran 

and America. New York: Random House, 2004.

Polybius. The Rise of the Roman Empire. Translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert. 

London: Penguin Books, 1979.

“Polymorphic Cyber Defense—Active Repositioning in Cyberspace.” 

Award notice, 13 March 2009. https://www.fbo.gov/spg/USAF

/AFMC/AFRLRRS/Awards/FA875009C0051.html.

Posen, Barry R. A Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Difficult but not Impossible 

Policy Problem. New York: Century Foundation, 2006.

Post, Douglas. “Lessons Learned from ASCI [Advanced Strategic 

Computing Initiative].” Los Alamos National Laboratory, 30 

March 2004. Abridged at http://www.csm.ornl.gov/meetings

/SCNEworkshop/Post-IV.pdf. 

Post, Jerrold M. “Deterrence in an Age of Asymmetric Rivals.” In Understanding the Bush Doctrine: Psychology and Strategy in an Age of 

Terrorism, edited by Stanley A. Renshon and Peter Suedfeld, 

153–74.New York: Routledge, 2007.
Bibliography │ 299

Preserving Nuclear Weapons Information. Lawrence Livermore Nuclear 

Weapons Information Project. https://www.llnl.gov/str/Lowns.html.

“Presidential Directive on National Space Policy, Fact Sheet,” 11 February 1988. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/policy88.htm.

Press, Daryl G. Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military 

Threats. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005.

Rabasa, Angel, Peter Chalk, Kim Cragin, Sara A. Daly, Heather S. 

Gregg, Theodore W. Karasik, Kevin A. O’Brien, and William 

Rosenau. Beyond al Qaeda, Part 2: The Outer Ring of the Terrorist 

Universe. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006.

Reif, Kingston. “Nuclear Weapons: The Modernization Myth.” Bulletin 

of the Atomic Scientists, 21 December 2009. http://thebulletin.org

/web-edition/features/nuclear-weapons-the-modernization-myth.

Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security, 

Space Management and Organization. Chapter 6, “Organizing 

and Managing the Future,” May 2001. http://space.au.af.mil

/space_commission/chapters/chapter6.pdf.

———. Chapter 7, “Conclusions of the Committee,” May 2001. http://

space.au.af.mil/space_commission/chapters/chapter7.pdf.

———. “Executive Summary,” May 2001. http://space.au.af.mil/space

_commission/executive_summary.pdf.

Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons 

Management, Phase II: Review of the DoD Nuclear Mission. Washington, DC: DOD, September 2008.

Report of The United States House of Representatives Select Committee 

on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with 

the People’s Republic of China, volume 2, chapter 5, Satellite 

Launches in the PRC: Hughes, May 1999. http://www.house.gov

/coxreport/pdf/ch5.pdf.

Rhodes, Richard. Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. New 

York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.

———.The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster, 

1986. 

Ricardo, David. On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. 

London: John Murray, 1817.

Rich, Ben. Skunk Works. Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1994.

Richards, James. Transnational Criminal Organizations, Cybercrime, and 

Money Laundering: A Handbook for Law Enforcement Officers, Auditors, and Financial Investigators. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1999.
300 │ Bibliography

Richardson, Doug. Stealth Warplanes. Minneapolis, MN: Zenith 

Press, 2001. 

Ricks, Thomas. The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, 2006–2008. New York: Penguin 

Press, 2009.

Roberts, Brad. “Deterrence and WMD Terrorism: Calibrating Its Potential 

Contributions to Risk Reduction.” In Jihadists and Weapons of Mass 

Destruction, edited by Gary Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, 259–

284. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2009.

Robinson, Kristopher K., Edward M. Crenshaw, and J. Craig Jenkins. 

“Ideologies of Violence: The Social Origins of Islamist and Leftist 

Transnational Terrorism.” Social Forces 84, no. 4 (June 2006): 

2009–26.

Rosecrance, Richard. The Rise of the Trading State. New York: Basic 

Books, 1986.

Rubin, Barry. “The Containment Conundrum: How Dangerous Is a 

Nuclear Iran? The Right Kind of Containment.” Foreign Affairs

89, no. 4 (July-August 2010): 160–68.

“Russia and Australia Working toward Space.” SpatialSource.com, 15 

March 2011. http://www.spatialsource.com.au/2011/03/15/article

/PDFHLZULDP.html.

Sagan, Scott D. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.

Sageman, Marc. Understanding Terror Networks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004.

Sanger, David E., and Thom Shanker. “White House Is Rethinking 

Nuclear Policy.” New York Times, 1 March 2010, 1.

Schaffer, Yehuda. “Detecting Terrorist Financing through Financial 

Intelligence: The Role of FIUs [Financial Intelligence Units].” In 

Countering Terrorist Financing, edited by Mark Pieth, Daniel 

Thelesklaf, and Radha Ivory, 41–55. Bern: Peter Lang, 2009.

Schaub, Gary, Jr. “Deterrence, Compellence, and Rational Decision 

Making.” PhD diss., University of Pittsburgh, 2003.

Schelling, Thomas C. Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966.

———.The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University 

Press, 1960.

Schifrin, Nick. “US Drone Strikes with Deadly Accuracy.” ABC News, 

19 November 2008. http://a.abcnews.com/print?id=6289748.
Bibliography │ 301

Schlesinger, James R. European Security and the Nuclear Threat since 

1945. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1967.

Schroeder, Paul W. “Does the History of International Politics Go 

Anywhere?” In Systems, Stability, and Statecraft: Essays on the International History of Modern Europe, edited by Paul W. Schroeder, 

David Wetzel, Robert Jervis, and Jack S. Levy, 277–84. New York: 

Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.

Schumpeter, Joseph. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New 

York: Harper Perennial, 1962. 

———. Imperialism and Social Classes. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing, 1955. 

Schwartz, Gen Norton. “National Security Space and the Air Force.” 

Address. Twenty-Eighth National Space Symposium, Colorado 

Springs, CO. 19 April 2012. http://www.af.mil/shared/media

/document/AFD-120419-049.pdf.

Schweller, Randall L. “Bandwagoning for Profit: Bringing the Revisionist State Back In.” International Security 19, no. 1 (Summer 

1994): 72–107.

———. “Neorealism’s Status Quo Bias: What Security Dilemma?” In 

Realism: Restatements and Renewal, edited by Benjamin Frankel, 

90–121. London: Frank Cass, 1996.

Seay, Douglas. “What Are the Soviets’ Objectives in Their Foreign, 

Military, and Arms Control Policies?” In Nuclear Arguments: Understanding the Strategic Nuclear Arms and Arms Control Debates, 

edited by Lynn Eden and Steven E. Miller, 47–108. Ithaca, NY: 

Cornell University Press, 1989.

Secretary of defense to the president. Draft memorandum, 6 December 1963, I-21–22. Document has been redacted and declassified.

———. Draft memorandum, 3 December 1964. Document has been 

redacted and declassified.

———. Draft memorandum, 1 November 1965. Document has been 

redacted and declassified.

———. Draft memorandum, 15 January 1968. Document has been redacted and declassified.

Secretary of the Air Force. US Air Force White Paper on Long Range 

Bombers. 1 March 1999. http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber

/bmap99.pdf.

Seidel, Robert W. “Books on the Bomb.” Isis 81, no. 3 (September 

1990): 519–37.
302 │ Bibliography

Seiler, Capt George J. Strategic Nuclear Force Requirements and Issues. 

Research Report no. AU-ARI-82-1. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, February 1983.

Selding, Peter B. de. “Europeans Blame US Government for Galileo 

Delay.” SPACENEWS International 13, no. 3 (21 January 2002): 6.

Senate. The Continuing Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction: 

Hearings before the Armed Services Committee. Appendix C: “Biological Agents.” 104th Congress, 2nd sess., 1996. https://www.cia

.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/1996/go_appendixc 

_032796.html. (Statement of Dr. Gordon Oehler, Director, Nonproliferation Center.) 

———.Hearings on MX Missile Basing System and Related Issues. 98th 

Cong., 1st sess., 1983. (Statement of Harold Brown, Secretary of 

Defense.)

———.Hearings on Nuclear Terrorism: Confronting the Challenges of the 

Day After. 110th Congress, 2nd sess., 2008. (Written statement of Dr. 

Cham Dallas, “Impact of Small Nuclear Weapons on Washington, 

DC: Outcomes and Emergency Response Recommendations.”)

———.The Safety and Reliability of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent: Hearings 

before Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, 

Proliferation and Federal Services. 105th Congress, 1st sess., 1997. 

(Statement of Vic Reis.)

———. Testing and Operation Requirements for the B-2 Bomber: Hearings 

on the Safety and Reliability of the U.S. Nuclear Deterrent, Hearings 

before the Committee on Armed Services. 101st Cong., 1st sess., 1989. 

(Statement of Gen. John T. Chain, Jr., USAF, Commander-In-Chief, 

Strategic Air Command.)

Sengupta, Somini. “India Launches Unmanned Orbiter to Moon.” 

New York Times.com, 21 October 2008. http://www.nytimes

.com/2008/10/22/world/asia/22indiamoon.html?oref=slogin

&_r=0.

Sewall, Sarah. “Introduction to the University of Chicago Press Edition: A Radical Field Manual.” In The U.S. Army/Marine Corps 

Counterinsurgency Field Manual, xxi–xliii.. Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press, 2007.

Shaud, John A. “In Service to the Nation: Air Force Research Institute 

Strategic Concept for 2018–2023.” Strategic Studies Quarterly 2, 

no. 4 (Winter 2008): 14–42.

Sheehan, James J. Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The Transformation of Modern Europe. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2008.
Bibliography │ 303

Sheehan, Michael. The Balance of Power: History & Theory. New York: 

Routledge, 1996.

Shultz, Richard, and Andrea Dew. Insurgents, Terrorists, and Militias: 

The Warriors of Contemporary Combat. New York: Columbia 

University Press, 2006.

Siegfried, Charlene Haddock. “The Dangers of Unilateralism.” NWSA 

[National Women’s Studies Association] Journal 18, no. 3 (Fall 

2006): 20–32.http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/nwsa_journal

/v018/18.3seigfried.pdf.

Siemens PLM Software. “Case Study, SpaceX Delivers Outer Space at 

Bargain Rates,” September 2010. http://www.plm.automation

.siemens.com/en_us/about_us/success/case_study.cfm?Component

=30328&ComponentTemplate=1481.

Simes, Dmitri K. “Assessing Soviet National Security Strategy.” In Understanding U.S. Strategy: A Reader, edited by Terry L. Heynes, 210–

12. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1983.

Simon, Herbert A. Administrative Behavior: A Study of DecisionMaking Process in Administrative Organization. 3rd ed. 1945. Reprint, New York: Free Press, 1976.

Slackman, Michael. Target: Pearl Harbor. Honolulu: University of 

Hawaii Press, 1990.

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of 

Nations. 1776. Reprint, Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1991.

Snow, Donald. Uncivil Wars: International Security and the New Internal 

Conflicts. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reiner Publishers, 1996.

Snow, Donald, and Dennis Drew. Making Twenty-First-Century Strategy. 

Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 2006.

Snow, Nancy. Information War. Toronto: Hushion House, 2003.

Snyder, Glenn. Deterrence and Defense: Toward a Theory of National 

Security. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961.

Snyder, Robert S. “The U.S. and Third World Revolutionary States: 

Understanding the Breakdown in Relations.” International Studies 

Quarterly 43, no. 2 (June 1999): 265–90.

“Spacelift: Spacelift Australia—SS-25 Missile.” SpaceDaily, August 

1999. http://www.spacedaily.com/news/aust-99e.html.

The Space Report: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity, 

2011. Colorado Springs: The Space Foundation, 2011. 

SPOT Image Corporation. Website. http://www.spot.com/.

Steed, Brian. Piercing the Fog of War. Minneapolis, MN: Zenith Press, 2009.
304 │ Bibliography

Stenger, Richard. “Armadillo, Romanians Join $10 Million Space 

Race.” CNN.com, 17 October 2002. http://www.cnn.com/2002

/TECH/space/10/17/xprize.contest/indes.html.

Stiglitz, Joseph. Globalization and Its Discontents. New York: W. W. 

Norton, 2002.

Stillion, John, and David Orletsky. Airbase Vulnerability to Conventional Cruise-Missile and Ballistic-Missile Attacks: Technology, 

Scenarios, and US Air Force Responses. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation, 1999. 

“Study Finds U.S. Not Ready for Nuke Hit.” Washington Times, 21 

March 2007, A-3. 

Takeyh, Ray. Guardians of the Revolution: Iran and the World in the 

Age of the Ayatollahs. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.

Taylor, Ian. “A Competitive Space.” Parliamentary Monitor Magazine, 

August 1999. http://www.political.co.uk/iantaylor/articles%20

0899.htm.

Thompson, William R. Causes of War. Chichester, UK: Wiley Blackwell, 

2010.

Thucydides., The Peloponnesian War. Translated by Rex Warner. London: Penguin Books, 1972.

Timmerman, Kenneth R. “The Day After Iran Gets the Bomb.” in 

Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran, edited by Henry Sokolski 

and Patrick Lawson, 113–29. Carlisle, PA: SSI, US Army War 

College, October 2005. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army

.mil/pdffiles/PUB629.pdf.

Tinnel, Laura S., O. S. Saydjari, and Joshua W. Haines. “An Integrated 

Cyber Panel System.” In Proceedings of the 2003 DARPA Information Survivability Conference and Exposition, vol. 2, 32–34. http://

ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1194906.

Tirenin, Walt, and Don Faatz. “A Concept for Strategic Cyber Defense.” In 

Military Communications (MILCOM) Conference Proceedings, 1999, 

458–63. http://www.argreenhouse.com/society/TaCom/papers 

99/16_1.pdf.

Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy in America. Translated by Harvey 

C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Chicago: University of Chicago 

Press, 2000.

Tolbert, Julian. Crony Attack: Strategic Attack’s Silver Bullet? Maxwell 

AFB, AL: School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, 2003.
Bibliography │ 305

“Top Official Deplores Decline of Russian Space Program.” Sydney 

Morning Herald, 12 December 2002. http://www.smh.com.au

/articles/2002/12/11/1039379887168.html.

Toynbee, Arnold J. A Study of History. Oxford: Oxford University 

Press, 1934–61.

Trager, Robert F., and Dessislava P. Zagorcheva., “Deterring Terrorism: 

It Can Be Done.” International Security, Winter 2005/2006, 96–98. 

Turner, Marlene E., and Anthony R. Pratkanis. “Theoretical Perspectives on Groupthink: A Twenty-Fifth Anniversary Appraisal.” 

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 73, nos. 

2/3 (February/March 1998): 103–4.

Ucko, David. The New Counter-Insurgency Era. Washington, DC: 

Georgetown University Press, 2009.

US Air Force Public Affairs. “Communications Airmen Meet to Discuss Career Field’s Transformation,” 9 June 2009. http://www

.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123153203.

US Air Force Scientific Advisory Board., Defending and Operating in 

a Contested Cyber Domain., SAB-TR-08-01, August 2008.

US Air Force Strategic Environmental Assessment, 2010–2030. Washington, DC: US Air Force, 2011.

“US Airstrikes in Pakistan Called ‘Very Effective.’ ” CNN, 18 May 

2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/18/cia.pakistan

.airstrikes/.

US Strategic Command. Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept. 

Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2006.

———. Policy, Doctrine and International Affairs Division. “Strategic 

Deterrence (SD) Joint Operating Concept (JOC) Version 2.0.” 

PowerPoint presentation. http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare

/strategic/sd_joc.ppt.

Vaisse, Justin. Neoconservatism: The Biography of a Movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010.

Vijayan, Jaikumar. “Data Security Risks Missing from Disaster Recovery 

Plans.” Computer World. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article

/105272/Data_security_risks_missing_from_disaster_recovery 

_plans.

Vick, Alan J. Snakes in the Eagle’s Nest. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation, 1995.

Wade, Nicholas. Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our 

Ancestors. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.
306 │ Bibliography

Waltz, Kenneth. Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley, 1979.

Ward, Colin. Anarchism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Warnke, Paul C. “Apes on a Treadmill.,” Foreign Policy 18 (Spring 

1975): 12–29.

Watts, Barry D. The Case for Long Range Strike: 21st Century Scenarios.

Washington, DC: CSBA, 31 December 2008.

———. Long Range Strike: Imperatives, Urgency, and Options. Washington, DC: CSBA, April 2005.

———. Moving Forward On Long-Range Strike. Washington, DC: 

CSBA, 27 September 2004.

Wehrey, Frederick, David E. Thaler, Nora Bensahel, Kim Cragin, Jerrold 

D. Green, Dalia Dassa Kaye, Nadia Oweidat, and Jennifer Li. 

Dangerous but Not Omnipotent: Exploring the Reach and Limitations of Iranian Power in the Middle East. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 2009.

Wendt, Alexander. Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge, 

UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

White, George. Nation, State, and Territory. Lanham, MD: Rowman 

and Littlefield, 2007.

Whitehouse, David. “Japan’s Uncertain Space Future.,” BBC News, 29 August 2001. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1515095.stm.

The White House. Cyberspace Policy Review: Assuring a Trusted and 

Resilient Information and Communications Infrastructure, May 

2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/Cyberspace

_Policy_Review_final.pdf.

———. National Security Strategy, May 2010. http://www.whitehouse

.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf.

———. The National Security Strategy for a New Century, October 

1999. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nss/nssr-1098.pdf.

———. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, 

September 2002. http://nssarchive.us/NSSR/2002.pdf.

Wilkinson, Kate. “Japan’s Evolving Space Program.” The National Bureau 

of Asian Research, 9 September 2012. http://www.nbr.org/research

/activity.aspx?id=173.

Wilkinson, Paul. Terrorism versus Democracy. New York: Routledge, 2006.

Windrem, Robert, and Alan Boyle. “China Space Shot Has Military Implications.” MSNBC.com, 23 November 1999. http://www.msnbc

.com/news/211770.asp?cp1=1.
Bibliography │ 307

Wohlstetter, Albert. The Delicate Balance of Terror. P-1472. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1958.

———. “How Much Is Enough? How Mad Is MAD?” In Pacem in Terris 

III, vol. 2, The Military Dimensions of Foreign Policy, edited by 

Fred Warner Neal and Mary Kersey Harvey, 37–43. Washington, 

DC: Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, 1974.

———. “Sin and Games in America.,” In Game Theory and Related Approaches to Social Behavior: Selections, edited by Martin Shubik, 

209–25. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964.

Wohlstetter, Roberta. “Cuba and Pearl Harbor: Hindsight and Foresight.” Foreign Affairs 43, no. 4 (July 1965): 691–707.

Wolf, Barry. When the Weak Attack the Strong: Failures of Deterrence. 

Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1991.

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative (ASCI), 122, 133

Advanced Simulation and Computing 

Program (ASC), 122–24

Afghanistan, 3, 179, 196, 204, 205, 207, 

213, 214, 220, 223, 238, 251, 264, 

269

airpower, 35, 221, 250, 257, 268

al-Qaeda, 205, 214, 215, 264

ambiguity, 10

ambiguous, 10

ambiguously, 165

annihilate, 52

annihilation, 10

antisatellite (ASAT), 24, 218, 240

arsenal, 13, 76, 82, 93, 158, 160, 163, 

291

assurance, 13, 17, 18, 20, 28, 29, 34, 

38–40, 86–91, 93, 137, 157, 257

avoidance, 38–40, 145, 163

ballistic missile defense (BMD), 142, 

161, 165, 185, 218, 259

bipolar, 60, 197, 198, 235

Brodie, Bernard, 3, 177, 189

China, 58, 63–65, 67, 70, 74, 76, 85, 86, 

89, 91, 142, 143, 185, 225, 226, 228–

30, 236, 237, 239, 245–47, 265, 266

Long-March vehicle, 225, 228, 236, 

 237, 246

coercion, 54, 60, 67, 70, 99, 173, 185, 

186, 190, 203, 205, 213, 250, 258

Cold War, 3–9, 11–15, 44, 51, 52, 60, 

61, 64, 68–70, 73, 75–78, 82–86, 90, 

93, 94, 101, 103, 113, 114, 119, 121, 

125, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 138, 

140, 141, 156, 158, 162, 164, 169, 

175, 176, 187, 188, 195, 196, 198, 

205, 210, 217, 218, 222–24, 226, 

228, 245, 259

compellence, 190, 200, 300

Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban 

Treaty (CTBT), 122

conventional ballistic missiles, 255

conventional deterrence, 12, 14, 167, 

198

cooperation, 57, 72, 97, 175, 180, 212, 

214, 222, 228, 230, 231, 233, 235, 

239

counterinsurgency, 51, 185, 210, 214, 

215, 269

counterterrorism, 51, 115, 214, 215, 

264, 269

course of action, 99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 

106, 109–11, 117, 120, 170, 184

credible threat, 3, 44, 67–69, 189, 197

cyber deterrence, 12, 17, 18, 40, 42, 43

cyberspace, 1, 12, 17–21, 24–35, 37–47, 

95, 238

attacks, 20, 35

infrastructure, 17, 24–28, 30, 31

operations, 25, 37–42, 44

superiority, 18

cyber warfare, 8

decision calculus, 96–98, 100, 102, 104, 

108, 111, 112, 157

decision makers, 3, 9, 11, 66, 80, 114, 

138, 141

Defense Science Board Task Force, 

125, 134, 136

defensive strategy, 37, 38

democratic governments, 61

democratization, 3, 7, 57

Department of Energy (DOE), 122–25, 

133, 134

deterrence by denial, 45, 198, 199, 208, 

211

deterrence by dissuasion, 198, 199, 

206, 210

deterrence by threat, 44, 198–200, 209, 

211

deterrence failure, 79, 81, 83, 90, 98, 

105

deterrence policies, 6, 8, 9, 34, 211

deterrence strategy, 8, 10, 11, 14, 18, 

19, 35, 37–39, 43, 80, 94, 97, 98, 

100, 101, 103–6, 111, 112, 181, 197, 

198, 200, 206–8, 212, 238, 244, 251

Index
310 │ index

Deterrence Operations Joint Operating 

Concept (DOJOC), 13, 14, 19, 20, 

35, 95, 96, 102, 116, 117, 170, 173, 

183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 192, 198, 

213

diplomatic, information, military, economic, financial, intelligence, and 

law enforcement (DIMEFIL), 98

dominance, 18, 21, 52, 59, 60, 67, 73, 

226, 232

Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test (DARHT), 122–24

economic interdependence, 57, 68

Europe, 56, 58–65, 67, 69, 72–74, 87, 

176, 198, 214, 219, 225, 226, 232, 

233, 236, 239, 246

European Space Agency (ESA), 219, 

224, 225, 231–36, 239, 245, 246

European Union (EU), 219, 231–33, 

235, 239, 246

foreign internal defense, 211

Germany, 54, 55, 60, 61, 66, 67, 72, 73, 

113, 181, 202, 231, 232, 245

global commons, 41, 42

Global Information Grid (GIG), 27, 37

globalization, 3, 4, 7, 13, 195, 196, 209, 

213–15

Global Positioning System (GPS), 218, 

221, 219, 232, 239

global security environment, 5

great-power conflicts, 58

hegemon, 53, 54, 59

information technology (IT), 21, 26, 

28, 29, 37

insurgencies, 6, 9, 192–93, 201–5, 207–12, 

214–15, 241, 243, 251, 263–64, 266

intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), 14, 218, 238, 259, 

262

intercontinental ballistic missile 

(ICBM), 159–61, 234, 241, 243, 259

international criminal organizations, 

201, 205

International Space Station, 217, 226, 

228, 231, 234, 235, 239

Iran, 18, 63, 70, 113, 142, 143, 169, 

178–83, 185, 188, 191, 192, 233–35, 

245, 246, 265

space program, 234–35

Iraq, 3, 9, 10, 18, 102, 106, 110, 113, 

179, 186, 196, 204, 205, 207, 213, 

214, 251

Islamic fundamentalism, 7

Islamic fundamentalists, 6, 200

Israel, 109, 113, 142, 143, 180, 182, 185, 

192, 225, 233, 234, 245, 246

space program, 234

Japan, 11, 55, 56, 72, 87, 113, 137, 142, 

225, 226, 229, 230, 235, 239, 245, 

246

National Space Development 

Agency (NASDA), 229, 230

Joint Chiefs of Staff, 21, 114

joint force commander (JFC), 21, 170

Joint Forces Command, 170

Kennan, George, 175, 177

kinetic force, 7, 8

Laden, Osama bin, 10

low observability, 252, 254, 255

Mediterranean, 63

Middle East, 64, 88, 179, 180, 182, 202, 

211, 212

misperception, 10, 31, 79, 190, 193

mission-essential functions (MEF), 39, 

45

mutually assured destruction (MAD), 

44, 71, 154–58, 162, 164, 191, 244

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), 221, 222, 

224–27, 240, 245

National Nuclear Security Administration 

(NNSA), 123, 124, 126, 134, 135

National Security Strategy (NSS), 190, 

214, 222, 223, 242, 245

NATO, 61, 69, 74, 87, 93, 113, 115, 196

neorealism, 65, 74, 189

net force maneuver, 25, 31, 32, 34, 35

New Look Policy, 195

next generation, 120, 261

nonstate actor, 6, 197, 200, 205–7, 209

North Korea, 70, 103, 142, 208, 233–

35, 246
index │ 311

space program, 234

nuclear deterrence, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 46, 

49, 51–53, 58, 68, 69, 76, 80, 81, 87, 

97, 100, 119, 121, 125, 128–30, 133, 

134, 136, 138, 155, 158, 159, 163, 

164, 189, 195, 197, 244, 258, 266

nuclear forces, 12, 18, 52, 56, 60, 73, 

75–94, 95–117, 130, 137–65, 222, 

250, 257, 262, 268

Nuclear Posture Review, 126, 134, 162, 

257, 262, 267, 268

nuclear proliferation, 4–6, 8, 11, 13, 70, 

87, 88, 95–117, 131, 135, 140, 141, 

175, 203, 224, 225, 233, 236, 237

nuclear strategy, 3, 11, 69, 70, 74, 75–

94, 137–65

nuclear weapons, 5, 6, 8, 13, 20, 39, 

51–53, 56–58, 64, 66–72, 74–76, 78, 

80–82, 87–89, 92–97, 100–7, 109–

13, 117, 119–38, 140–42, 156, 159, 

160, 162, 175, 180, 181, 189, 195, 

197, 218, 204, 240, 258, 259, 261–

63, 268

Obama, Pres. Barack, 224

operationally responsive cyberspace 

(ORC), 12, 17, 19, 24–27, 30–34

operationally responsive space (ORS), 

17, 18, 21–27, 32, 34, 241–43

Operation Enduring Freedom, 204, 

266, 281

orbit, 21, 217, 218, 222, 225, 228, 229, 

233–36, 240–43, 256, 257

geosynchronous, 236, 241

high-earth, 217, 241 

low-earth, 217, 218, 222, 225, 229,

 233, 234, 240, 241

near-earth, 217, 227, 228

Peace of Westphalia, 200

peer competitor, 7, 197

Persian Gulf, 179

persistent surveillance, 258, 261, 263–

66, 268, 269

policy makers, 4, 5, 11, 34, 46, 99, 169–

72, 174, 187, 195, 197, 210, 220, 

234–38

post–Cold War, 3, 5, 52, 90, 101, 114, 

119, 132, 162, 222, 223

psychological effect, 197

Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), 

250, 252, 258, 264, 266, 267, 269

range of military operations, 171

Rapid Response Space Center (RRSC), 

22

realists, 65, 196

reliable replacement warhead (RRW), 

126, 134, 135

resiliency, 29, 31–33, 242, 243

rogue regimes, 7, 8, 12, 14

Russia, 58, 60, 63, 70, 76, 89, 91, 93, 

140, 143, 175, 177, 178, 225–27, 

233, 235, 236, 239, 245, 246

Science Based Stockpile Stewardship 

Program (SBSS), 122, 280

smart power, 13, 95, 98, 99, 116

Soviet Union, 3, 6, 11, 51, 61, 73, 85, 

86, 113, 137, 139, 142, 156, 169, 

175, 176, 178, 188, 191, 195, 198, 

202, 221, 224, 226, 227

space-based infrared system (SBIRS), 

243

Space Commission, 220, 221, 223, 245

space deterrence, 12, 14, 19, 217

space launch vehicle (SLV), 225, 234

space situational awareness, 241

Special Operations Forces, 250, 265, 

269

Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP), 

122-124, 130, 133

strategic challenges, 3, 13, 95

superiority, 9, 17, 18, 35, 37, 42, 70, 

217, 218, 220, 238, 239, 241, 244

surface-to-air missile (SAM), 254

tanker safe line (TSL), 256

targeting, 69, 93, 140, 142, 144, 145, 

159–61, 193, 208, 218, 251–53, 255, 

259, 266, 267

technological domain, 41, 44

terrorists, 6, 202, 203, 205, 208, 209, 

212, 214, 249, 250, 264, 266, 268

United Nations, 195, 228

US Air Force, 29, 35, 47, 189, 218, 221, 

242, 243, 268

US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM), 26–28, 34
312 │ index

US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM), 14, 21, 22, 26, 34, 35, 134, 

170, 198, 213

unmanned air systems (UAS), 14, 249, 

255, 257, 259–61, 263, 264, 267–69

weapons of mass destruction (WMD), 

6, 8, 80, 81, 84, 85, 89, 91, 93, 95, 

101–3, 106, 108, 111–13, 117, 213, 

250, 261, 263, 265, 266, 268, 269