Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios for the - PowerPoint Presentation

Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios for the
Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios for the

Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios for the - Description


Second Nuclear Age Andrew Krepinevich Jacob Cohn 1 Click to edit Master title style Presentation Roadmap Project Overview Why Scenarios Five Scenarios Selected Observations and Insights ID: 690023 Download Presentation

Tags

title nuclear master style nuclear title style master edit click scenarios strategic selected economic factors scenario control insights crisis

Download Section

Please download the presentation from below link :


Download Presentation - The PPT/PDF document "Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.

Embed / Share - Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios for the


Presentation on theme: "Rethinking Armageddon Planning Scenarios for the"— Presentation transcript


Slide1

Rethinking Armageddon

Planning Scenarios for theSecond Nuclear AgeAndrew KrepinevichJacob Cohn

1Slide2

Click to edit Master title style

Presentation Roadmap

Project Overview

Why Scenarios?

Five Scenarios

Selected Observations and Insights

Next Steps

2Slide3

Project Overview

3Slide4

Click to edit Master title style

Project Objectives

How can scenarios support efforts to craft policies designed to

reduce the chances of nuclear use

?

What would constitute a

representative set of scenarios that are characteristic of the Second Nuclear Age

, rather than the preceding age? Given these scenarios, what are some of the

first-order implications they raise with respect to nuclear policy, strategy, and force posture?

4Slide5

Why Scenarios?

5Slide6

Click to edit Master title style

Scenarios

Scenarios

: A tool for helping us plan in an uncertain world; an antidote to “willful

ignorance”

A need

for

effective strategic

thinking is most obvious in times of accelerated

changeWhile the future is fundamentally unpredictable; it is not wholly uncertain

6Slide7

Click to edit Master title style

Why Scenarios?

 

Do not “predict” the future; rather, they help us to think about the future

 

Help

identify what factors will most shape the future

Understand

how the environment might changeRecognize

when the environment is changingKnow how to

respond

when change is detected

7Slide8

Click to edit Master title style

“Drivers”

Geostrategic: Multipolar regional and global competitions

Geopolitical: Regime characteristics; external sources of influence

Geographic: Proximity and “interspersing

Cultural: The Human Condition; differing perspectives on cost, benefit and risk

8Slide9

Click to edit Master title style

“Drivers”

Military-Technical:

Advanced design nuclear weapons

The maturation of the precision-guided weapons regime

Advanced air and missile defenses

Cyber munitions

Military Capabilities: Size and composition of

strategic

forces

Proliferation Dynamics: Static, linear or non-linear?

Temporal: Mobilization, early warning, command-and-control

9Slide10

Five Scenarios

10Slide11

Click to edit Master title style

Scenarios

Iran, Israel and the Crisis Neither Sought

An “N-Player” Middle East Confrontation

Russia’s “Escalate to De-escalate” threat

North

Korea’s “Rational” Option

China and the Long-Term Great Power Competition

11Slide12

Middle EastSlide13

Click to edit Master title style

Iran and Israel to the Brink

13

Scenario (2016 – 2020)

Economic:

Joint Agreement unfreezes Iranian assets and ends many economic sanctions

Proxies:

Tehran’s “slow squeeze” of Saudi Arabia, the GCC, and Israel

Crisis:

Third Lebanon War expands to direct conflict between Israel and Iran; both sides concerned about preemptive nuclear attack

Destabilizing Factors

Geographic proximity and limits of Early Warning/C2

Predelegation of authority

Nuclear doctrineSlide14

Click to edit Master title style

The “N-Player” Problem

14

Scenario (2016 – 2020)

Excursion from previous scenario focusing on the “N-Player” problem

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and the UAE expect same nuclear freedom as granted to Iran

Saudi Arabia jumpstarts nuclear program with Pakistan’s assistance

September 2018, Pakistan deploys nuclear IRBMs to Saudi Arabia

Destabilizing Factors

Attribution problem

Will the U.S. protect its allies equally?Slide15

Eastern EuropeSlide16

Click to edit Master title style

Sub-Conventional Aggression in Latvia

16

Destabilizing Factors

Alliance management

Deterring the “escalate to deescalate” threat

Ability of non-nuclear weapons to fill nuclear missions

Gaps

in the escalation ladder

Scenario (2016 – 2018)

Economic:

Falling oil and gas

prices,

continued economic

sanctions

Security:

Increasing

insecurity as

ISIS attributed terror

attacks

mount

Timing

:

Low

domestic approval and weakening internal control

near election

Crisis

:

Creeping aggression in Latvia, incorrectly assuming NATO would not intervene, Russia backed into a losing conventional positionSlide17

North KoreaSlide18

Click to edit Master title style

North Korea

18

Destabilizing Factors

(Mis)perceptions of leaders

Alliance management

Vulnerability of missile defenses to Haystack tactic

Vulnerability of small arsenals to missile defense

Scenario (2016 –

2021)

Economic

:

Economic reform backfires, by 2019 the situation is desperate

Nuclear:

Believed to have nuclear capable Taepodong-3s and Nodongs

Arms Control:

Concessions viewed as a path to regime change

Crisis

:

Nuclear strike on Japan as last ditch effort to stave off regime collapseSlide19

Long-Term Competition with China and RussiaSlide20

Click to edit Master title style

Long-Term Multipolar Competition

20

Scenario (

2017

2020)

Economic:

Economic slowdown leaves regime reliant on nationalism

Geopolitical:

Setbacks in South China Sea/East China Sea stress last pillar

Military-Technical:

U.S. CPGS development and Russian violation of INF treaty raises concerns over vertical escalation vulnerability

Nuclear

:

Fissile material is the principal near-term barrier to growing China’s arsenal; decision made to seek balance with U.S. and Russia

Destabilizing Factors

What force structure is needed for a multipolar competition?

Avoiding an arms race & the role of arms control

Effect of geographic proximity – nuclear overflightSlide21

Selected Insights

and Observations21Slide22

Click to edit Master title style

Selected Insights and Observations

The “Nuclear Balance” is now the “Strategic Balance”

Wide range of capabilities; many non-nuclear

New vertical and horizontal escalation ladders

The Bipolar structure is transitioning to a Multipolar structure

Global and regional competitions

Strategies for deterring one rival may weaken deterrence with another

A nuclear “great game”

Potential for non-nuclear powers to play

22Slide23

Click to edit Master title style

Selected Insights and Observations

The Challenge of Extended Deterrence

What is reassuring for one may not be for another

Need to review along with revised escalation

ladders

The Death of “Rational Strategic Man”

Single, rational unitary actor model long discredited

Crises lead to thinking “fast,” not “slow”Prospect Theory suggests coercion strategies may be a “dead end”

23Slide24

Click to edit Master title style

Selected Insights and Observations

The Erosion of Crisis Stability

Geographic Proximity, Early Warning, Command-and-Control, Pre-delegation Authority and Human Cognitive Limitations

Cyber Munitions and Catalytic War

Problems with Prompt Attribution

Blurring of Strategic and Non-Strategic Strikes

Undeclared Arsenals

Multiple Extended Deterrence CommitmentsHaystack Attacks1914 Redux: The Mobilization of Missile Defenses

24Slide25

Click to edit Master title style

Selected Insights and Observations

Arms Control

From New START to the Washington Naval Treaty

“Multidimensional” Problems

“Multipolar” Problems

Enforcement and Verification

Challenges

Implications for the U.S. Strategic PostureOld metrics may no longer applyMore options needed

Position matters in a mobilization racePotential gap between commitments and capabilities (extended deterrence)Which scenarios

are accorded priority?

A need to think long term

25Slide26

Next Steps

26Slide27

Click to edit Master title style

Selected Next Steps

Undertake Strategic Net Assessments on global, regional and functional aspects of the competition

Comparative assessment of strategic doctrines

Identify strategic planning issues that emerge

across

scenarios

Develop a set of the “missing” scenarios (e.g.; India-Pakistan; nuclear war termination)

27Slide28

Click to edit Master title style

Selected Next Steps

D

evelop a revised set of metrics to guide efforts to assess the strategic force balance(s)

Update horizontal and vertical escalation ladders

Assess prospects for regulating the strategic

c

ompetition (such as a contemporary version of the Washington Naval Treaty)

Examine ongoing efforts among the competitors to enhance their strategic forces, identifying major asymmetries in doctrine, forces and their implications

28Slide29

Questions?

29

Shom More....