Source: www.kremlin.ru

The venerated first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) will expire on December 5, 2009. The importance of this treaty lies not merely in the fact that it reduced the numbers of nuclear warheads and the platforms on which they reside in both the Soviet and US arsenals (later the five weapon holding successor states of the Soviet Union and the US.) Perhaps more important were the unprecedented levels of verification and information exchange incorporated into the Treaty- a codification of President Reagan’s often quoted “trust, but verify” line.

Currently, negotiations are underway to replace the expiring START. Reports indicate that there are two major outstanding bones of contention. The first involves the issue of ground-based mobile launchers, which the Russians have but the US does not. The US would apparently like to see more control over them, but the Russians object to what they see as a unilateral concession. This may be a gambit in search of a concession on the US side. The second issue deals with the details of the allowable numbers of various weapon platforms.

There has been talk in the US Senate of extending START I six months because, even if a new treaty is concluded in the next three weeks, it won’t be ratified and enter into force until much later.

In the Fall of 2002  I drafted an essay that became a Cato Institute Policy Analysis paper on why invading Iraq was a bad idea. In essence, the paper used rational actor theory to propose that there were better ways to address the threat to US security interests posed by Iraq, to the extent such threats existed, than by going to war. Now, seven years later, it is interesting to revisit the subject.

What made me think about this the recent discussion about a surge for Afghanistan. General McChrystal’s suggestion that 40,000 additional troops need to be introduced into the theatre raised quite a stir in the news. However, there seems to be a widespread opinion among military leaders that the 40,000 could not begin to be introduced until the new year, and could not fully be in place until late next year (presuming that they would all come from the US.) Perhaps President Obama’s delayed response is due to an attempt to figure out where they could get these troops in a reasonable timeframe. It is telling that despite a budget of over half a trillion dollars (not counting supplementals) and a military of over three million people when all branches and reserves are included, we cannot come up with 40,000 troops. Of course, few of the three million are relevant to the task at hand (i.e. sending F-16 mechanics or submariner firemen to Afghanistan is not that useful), but this raises a question for another day about why our military seems to be so ill-tailored to the wars it fights. However, the point to note here is that we can’t come up with 40,000 troops because many of the relevant troops are either in Iraq, already in Afghanistan, or are momentarily  rotated out of one of our two war zones long enough to keep their private lives in order and their sanity intact.

Let me acknowledge first that I, at least, was as fooled as anyone about the likelihood that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and /or programs for WMD. Readers of past posts will note that I place little stock in the ability to know or predict behavior absent first-hand knowledge. Despite the sound advice of Sun Tzu that we cannot know an enemy’s capabilities (much less their intentions) without first-hand information (e.g. through spies) and that such knowledge cannot be derived from oracles, humanity still thinks it can – except our oracles are probabilistic risk models. That said, in the absence of certain knowledge one is forced to make a best guess based on a reasonable reading of past actions and the available  indicators. I maintain that, given the uncertainty, it was not unreasonable to think that Iraq had WMD, and, at any rate, the advice given was optimal whether Iraq had WMD or not. The fact that Hussein did not have WMD by no means invalidates but rather bolsters the core message of the paper that (even believing that there were chemical weapons or worse) the threat to US security interests was overblown, and, to the extent these threats existed, they could be handled more effectively without force.

The question at hand here is whether we are better off having attacked Iraq, and I would maintain that we are certainly not at the moment. If, unlikely as it may be, we are threatened tomorrow by an actual threat to our existence or fundamental strategic interests we would be slow and hard-pressed to respond because we are stretched thin by the war in Iraq. True, there is one less dictator in the world. Nice as that may sound, as long as that dictator is not ruling the US, it is not a good measure of whether US interests are improved.

One issue to consider is the threat posed by the perception of the US as a “high capability – low will” state. I don’t suspect we have any enemies that think the capability of the US military is anything but extremely high. Our military is technologically without peer, and is, at best, matched by few in terms of the level of training and morale of forces (I would contend that an all-voluntary military is a force-multiplier unto itself, particularly after spending so much time studying the Russian system and its influence on combat-effectiveness when I was a graduate student .) However, there is also a perception that the US has a limited stomach for warfare, and will not see its engagements through to the end. This problem is created when a country is a little too fast-and-loose in going to war. Its danger is that it decreases the perception of other states of the cost of conflict with America and makes them more likely to engage in activities that may be viewed as threatening.

Frankly, I am astounded at the relatively slow erosion of support for conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that is, I presume, a mix of the influence of the 9-11 events on the national psyche and a detachment of the average American to these distant wars. The erosion is present none-the-less. It is not unreasonable that American support for the war in Iraq has diminished. The outcome of the conflict fundamentally affects the way people in Iraq live but not substantially how Americans live, and so it is a given that people over there will be willing to fight long after our will wanes. You may remember hearing a line during the political debates to the effect that ”Timelines to withdraw would be a boon to insurgents and radical elements”. I hate to break it to those critics, but whether we leave now, next year, or in 20 years, some radical element will be around to claim victory. 

The US needs to look at war more like it looks at nuclear war. In other words, it is an extreme action against dire attacks against the national existence or critical national interests and should not be engaged in lightly, and that, having made the decision, we will fully accept the consequences of war and see the conflict through to a definitive end. War as a means to reach limited objectives such as tweaking the world into a more palatable form – as I would suggest was the case in Iraq – is a dangerous game. 

Unfortunately, we are really only mid-course in the conflict in Iraq, so knowing the degree to which we will be better or worse off after than before the war remains unclear. If our government (both the Bush and Obama administrations) is correct in its prevailing presumption that we can leave an Iraq that is democratic, stable, and friendly to the US we may end up better off. However, we live in a world where uncertainty is inexorable, and there are other scenarios, that we cannot accurately judge the likelihood of, that may make us worse off. The most prominent of these alternative scenarios is that the Shia majority takes control and reciprocates against a minority that oppressed them for decades. Under this scenario, we will have essentially built an Iraq – Iran alliance that will make any involvement we have in the Persian Gulf region more challenging and may shake up regional stability.

Iran’s President Ahmedinejad has a lot to keep straight. When he’s inside Iran, the Holocaust didn’t happen, but when abroad it did happen (no, may have happened?) – but is irrelevant to today’s world. Is it any wonder that it would have slipped his mind to mention to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran was building another uranium enrichment facility until, once again, Tehran was caught with its hand in the cookie jar.

This does answer a question that I’ve asked many times, which is how Iran intended to get from its current position to having a nuclear weapon without the intervening event of having its offending nuclear infrastructure bombed to smithereens. There were essentially two paths available to an Iran bent on having the bomb. The first was to build yet another covert facility (which is apparently what Tehran chose to do.) The second, and this is the one I’ve never heard a convincing explanation of the process by which it could succeed, would be a “strategic breakout” of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) regime. The idea of strategic breakout is to get all your ducks in a row, and then withdraw from the NPT and kick inspectors out of the country / remove surveillance equipment. The problem with this is that it is essentially saying “we’d like to build our atomic bomb now, please leave us in peace.” While it is true that they could get a lot of their affairs in order, there would seem to be plenty of time between their announcement and the production and machining of the requisite material to allow a country to bomb the facilities into oblivion, perhaps even with a Security Council resolution in hand.  The second covert facility was the only path I’ve ever suspected was workable, though there have been proponents of a strategic breakout scenario.

This building of covert facilities only to have them discovered has got to get prohibitively expensive at some point. I’m not saying Allah is trying to send you a message, Mr. Ahmedinejad, but maybe you should consider it a hint. Allah might just find an Iran with a nuclear weapon to be as disturbing a prospect as the rest of us do.

Last week the National Academies Press released a symposium report entitled: Avoiding Technology Surprise for Tomorrow’s Warfighter. (see:  www.nap.edu/catalog/12735.html) This is part of an ongoing project of the National Research Council’s Air Force Studies Board. While it is certainly a laudable goal to try to minimize the degree to which one is caught off guard by the technological developments of other states (and, more dauntingly, how those new technologies will be used), the report revives my concern about whether we are fooling ourselves about our ability to make accurate predictions in the domain of social activity.  It is interesting that the report notes, as suggested above, that predicting the technologies that will develop is not the hard part, but rather determining how they will be used. The latter has a lot to do with behavior and human decision-making, which are subjects humanity seems to have much less of a handle upon than that of modeling the physical world (spoken by someone whose education is in Economics and Political Science.) We still don’t have a definite answer to the most fundamental question relevent to this discussion- does free will exist?

This is not to say that we are outstanding at getting the technology piece right. There are many hilarious examples of both over- and under-prediction of technology development. With respect to over-prediction, Alex Lewyt, president of a vacuum company, said in 1955  that “Nuclear powered vacuum cleaners probably be a reality in ten years.” On the under-prediction front, there is, of course, the famous Ken Olson quote that “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.”

It seems to me that we (as a society through tax money) have spent tons of money on forecasting models that don’t work. We do this because nothing scares humanity like uncertainty.  I think we may be more terrified of what we cannot know than any certain calamity imaginable. I’m not an anthropologist or a geneticist, but I would guess that this visceral fear of the unknown is probably evolutionarily hard-wired into us. At any rate, it is certainly engrained.

I have seen at least two or three different papers that were all essentially probabilistic models of the likelihood that we will suffer a nuclear terrorist attack withing “x” years. At the risk of creating  more enemies than my al-Megrahi release post, these papers are complete crap. Mathematically they are invariably sound as they are usually fairly simple and straightforward  probabilistic models. However,  when the authors pluck probability figures from the air to insert into the model, they are just making a smooth-running garbage-in garbage-out machine. 

I am not saying that we should give up on developing a better predictive ability, but I scratch my head at the fact that we keep paying to have people misapply the same methods to similar problems. I am also by no means a critic of probabilistic and statistical models, we just need to know what problems they work for, and which they don’t. Even with all the popular works about the limitations of probabilistic models (perhaps most famously Nassim Taleb’s Black Swan), we are still enamored of applying these methods to problems for which they lack utility.

Unfortunately, I think that we will continue to give big grants to people to build fallacious predictive models, and will probably continue to spend far too little on models of how to achieve an optimal outcome where uncertainty is a given. The former give people a measure of comfort, and policymakers can readily understand the output of such models. Just as policymakers would usually rather throw money at an activity that gives  [false] hope of preventing calamity than management of the consequence of a disaster that has already transpired. I think there is little support for activities that work from the assumption that things are going to happen that catch us off guard, and we need to minimize this impact.

Two news stories this morning highlight the bold independent-mindedness of a couple of South Asian scientists, and how they might yet manage to get tens of millions of people killed.

The first story involves the complete unshackling of Abdul Qadeer Khan from the last “official” vestiges of restriction on his movement. [I say "official" because he probably can't leave the country without being abducted for interrogation - there remains a great deal that is unknown about the extent of his proliferation network and who it gave what.] Better known in the West as A.Q. Khan, this Pakistani national hero is responsible for spreading the technology and knowledge necessary to build nuclear bombs to anyone willing and able to pay. Among most well-known customers are / were Iran, North Korea, and Libya. While Libya has since verifiably disarmed of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the technologies used to produce them and is in such good stead that they are now being handed back their brutal terrorists from decades past, Iran and North Korea are probably both much closer to a working nuclear weapon than they would have been without the “Johnny Appleseed of Nuclear Weapons”, Khan. While Islamists love to portray Khan as a great equilizer who has helped spread nuclear weapons technology in the Islamic world, they forget that North Korea, whose position on religion is that it is the opiate of the masses and should either be brutally crushed or usurped by the party, was also a customer. This makes Khan more of a greedy bastard who is willing to put the whole world in peril to make some cash than any kind of hero to Islam.

The other story involves Indian scientist, K Santhanam, who claims that his country’s 1998 test of a thermonuclear device was actually a dud. Santhanam goes on to state that because of this unexpectedly low yeild, that India needs to conduct further testing in order to have a reliable nuclear deterrent. The Indian government and high-ranking military officers have dismissed this suggestion. Why might a citizen of India shout from the roof-tops that his country’s strategic forces are defective? [If you were worried that a criminal had entered your house, would you shout out that you didn't have a gun?] A prevailing theory is that not only do Santhanam and a few others want more tests to be conducted, they want to put the kibosh on any momentum toward India’s signing and ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The CTBT will have a profound impact on nonproliferation because members that don’t have nuclear weapons won’t be able to develop any sophisticated weapons while complying with the treaty, and states that do have nuclear weapons will not be able to build new models.

Love it, hate it, or satire it hilariously (ala. Dr. Strangelove), it is hard to argue that there isn’t a satisfying elegance to the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). By satisfying, I mean that there is a clearly defined logic that results in unambiguous policy prescriptions. If two countries each have the “absolute weapon” [i.e. weaponized thermonuclear warheads], and can retain the ability to blow the hell out of each other, they won’t go to war. It is as simple as that. It is true that the policy prescriptions often sound completely daft at worst or faintly fortune-cookie-esque at best, as in: “defending yourself increases your danger”, or “targeting cities is less belligerent than targeting missile silos.” 

If you take a positive view of MAD, and turn the words around to “increases your danger, defending yourself does”, it sounds sage – like something Yoda might say. However, for those opposed to MAD,  it sounds like the kind of thing you might hear a crazy homeless person mumble to themselves as they push their shopping cart down the street, just like “I get drunk to think clearly”, “I built this city from pudding and matchsticks”, or “buying up mortgage-back securities,…how could I lose?” However, the Zen koan-like quality of the policy prescriptions aside, it is a pleasant rarity to not have counter-veiling forces pulling policy in multiple directions. ”Cash for clunkers” results in a lot of energy and material being expended on vehicles that might not otherwise be built, and may result in people going through more vehicles than they otherwise would (i.e. the environmental laudableness of the program is not as patently clear as it first seems.)  Increasing minimum wages will, under most conditions, increase unemployment. Subsidizing farmers results in more grain production and depressed grain prices (exacerbating the condition that led to the policy in the first place.) In short, the realm of policy-making is rife with catch-22s, but MAD seems, ironically, straight forward.

 The challenge before us is to find an equally compelling logic of strategic stability in a world disarmed of nuclear weapons. It may require taking the most brilliant people in the country and shipping them off to someplace like Santa Monica for a few years (just like the formation of RAND after Word War II, whose eminent scholars were largely responsible for MAD), but I’m confident there is a way.

India’s first indigenously-built nuclear reactor-propelled submarine today begins a two year shake-down that, if successful, will result in its addition to the fleet of the Indian Navy. It is interesting to consider the potential strategic ramifications of the sub. It should be noted that this is not India’s first submarine (it has purchased from other countries in the past – notably Russia, who was credited in assisting in this project as well) and that, as mentioned, it’s launch ceremony is not synonymous with it entering service because it is still untried.

In general, nuclear submarines have a mixed influence on strategic stability. A  sub’s ability to hide beneath the seas and to operate there exceptionally quietly for extended periods, means that it is a weapons platform whose survivability is high. This is consistent with deterrence theory. A state needs survivable weapons so that the enemy knows that massive retaliation to an attack is imminent, and that there is no use in trying to swamp an enemy’s deterrent capability.

On the other hand, submarines make the opponent exceedingly concerned about the sub owner’s intentions. Because a sub can pop up off-shore and launch along varying azimuths relatively close and without warning, there is a fear that they will be used to eliminate the enemy’s retaliatory capability as part of a plan to negate the opposition’s deterrent. Both China and Pakistan have small arsenals, and are, therefore, theoretically vulnerable to having their deterrent destroyed by a first strike. In reality China’s deterrent is apparently heavily fortified by being built into a mountain and is not so tiny as to make an opponent confident about knocking it out.

It should be noted that Prime Minister Singh emphasized during the launch speach that India did not have agressive intentions with the new weapon system . Of course, talk is cheap, and whether Pakistan and China believe the rhetoric will be determined by more than word choice. It will be interesting to see what effect, if any, the new system has on regional stability.

Yesterday the New York Timesreported that the Obama administration had judged that there was a high likelihood that the North Korean freighter, Kang Nam, was probably just leading the US on a wild goose chase. In other words, that the rusty ship probably had no illicit cargo onboard, and was hoping that it could draw the US or one of America’s allies into the embarrasing position of searching the boat only to find no booty. (See: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/01/world/asia/01sanger.html?hp)

The US Navy has been tracking and monitoring the ship’s movements since it left North Korean waters, and it had earlier been speculated that the ship might contain a small arms shipment for Burma. The question has been whether UN Security Council Resolution 1874 that encourages states to board and search North Korean vessels suspected of violating the arms export embargo would be put to the test. The DPRK had said it would consider such a search a violation of its sovereignty, and an act of war.  (See: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sc9679.doc.htm)

The latest news seems to be that the Kang Nam has turned around, and, for the moment, is headed back in the direction of North Korea. (See: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-tc-nw-briefs-0630-07014jul01,0,3444662.story)

There has been speculation about the rationale for making such a jaunt, but it seems to be a quite beneficial test for the DPRK. I think the little vessel’s voyage is disconcerting. If North Korea wants to ship missiles in order to earn some funds, one of the few ways it is able to, then it would not send those missiles out on the first voyage. Rather, conducting a test is a win – win for the Kim’s. If they don’t get searched, they gain confidence that they won’t be searched in the future – as long as the level of intelligence remains the same. If they had been boarded, they would have also made it hard for the US to repeat the venture in the future without a much higher standard of intelligence. It is true that they would have had to deal with the fact that they had said such a search would be an act of war, but since the Korean War is not legally over, the Kim’s could worm their way out of that threat at low-cost manner.  The question of the day is what happens if the next time the Kang Nam goes out (or the third time or the sixth time) it does have missiles on it. We can’t count on having better information, so at best there is the lucky guess possibility. For those who want to dismiss the Kim dynasty leaders as irrational and incompetent (and I, myself, have certainly had trouble accounting for some behaviors with motives other than childishness or narcissism), consider the masterstroke of this gambit.

In the past I have always found the Central News Agency of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) (see: http://www.kcna.co.jp/index-e.htm) to be less than compelling and rarely worthy of examination. The stories are generally about how such-and-such Sub-Saharan African dictator sent congratulations to Kim Jong Il, or how the North Korean People wished to pay their respects to such-and-such nation. In essence, it was not only propaganda, but propaganda of the dullest and most mundane sort imaginable.

However, in recent weeks it is becoming increasingly worthwhile to visit the Agency’s site. Oh, it is still wild propaganda, but it is entertaining propaganda. Consider some of the current headlines:

“US Wild Ambition to Dominate Whole of Korea Can Never Come True”

“US Termed Chief Culprit of Nuclear Proliferation”

“Japanese Reactionaries Urged to Stop Their Rash Acts”

This last one is particularly amusing. It essentially rebukes elements inside Japan who would like that country to develop nuclear weapons. The irony is, of course, that the only way the Japanese will be sufficiently motivated to make major changes in their law as required to build a nuclear arsenal is in response to the continued provocations of their nutty newly nuclear neighbor who is constantly shooting missile tests across their bow lately.

Today the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) passed sanctions against North Korea consisting primarily of a complete arms export embargo and a partial arms import embargo. The big news seems to be China’s support for these efforts. While Chinese diplomats were careful to state that inspections must be carried out in accordance with international law, and, therefore, the sanctions did not equate to open season on DPRK shipping, they did go along with the provisions as stipulated. The Chinese don’t want a nuclear armed Japan any more than the North Koreans do. The difference is that the Chinese recognize that the way to avoid a Japan with nuclear weapons is a sane and stable North Korea.

Besides the long-range missile test that was earlier estimated would take place early next week, it will be interesting to see of what the North Korean response consists. As I have mentioned before, when you go as provocative as nuclear weapons tests, it is hard to up the ante without risking war. While the North Korean rhetoric is harsh, it is difficult to imagine what North Korea can do besides the same old bag of tricks it has been playing.

It may be true that there isn’t any reason to expect that Iran’s position on its fuel cycle facility policy will change  regardless of who wins tomorrow’s election. After all, the Ayatollah Khamenei is the Supreme Leader, and does dictate policy on issues at that strategic a level. However, with Mr. Mousavi holding his own, we may yet see what can happen without the Howard Stern of heads of state in the Presidency of Iran.

It may, in fact, be a test case for the role of harsh rhetoric in international diplomacy. Are acrimonious words just for the benefit of domestic consumption and devoid of any influence on foreign policy outcomes. Or, on the other hand, can less vitriol translate into gains at the negotiating table? With both a US and Iranian leadership that is less prone to engage in harsh language, will we see progress toward reduction of the threat or not?