"Mutual Assured Destruction:" Antiquated Doctrine or Viable Military Strategy?

"Mutual Assured Destruction:" Antiquated Doctrine or Viable Military Strategy?

Author: Elena Sakelaris

Mutual assured destruction (“MAD”) is a military strategy doctrine in which a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by two (or more) opposing sides would bring about the complete destruction of both the attacker and responder.  During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union relied upon the MAD doctrine.   MAD ultimately plays out as a standstill of sorts. Both sides are equally armed and capable of total destruction of the other—neither side has the incentive to initiate conflict nor disarm.  While there were times the United States and Soviet Union were on the brink of nuclear war, and at some points in the conflict tensions were much more escalated such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, it never reached the point of actual launch.  Rather than utilizing nuclear weapons for their destructive purpose, both sides used them for political leverage during the Cold War.  Nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the character of war; the question is no longer one of victory or loss, but rather survival or total annihilation. However, rational leaders in the United States and Soviet Union remained unwilling to bring about the total destruction of mankind.

It has now been almost 26 years since the official end of the Cold War in December of 1991; however we find ourselves yet again facing the potential risks of nuclear war. A nuclear strike by North Korea or the United States would constitute an act of war.  In response to recent threats against the United States and its allies from North Korea, President Trump stated in his speech at the UN that the United States would respond with force and “totally destroy” North Korea if necessary.  This extreme speech is not new, since the tensions have escalated between the United States, both leaders have respectively issued hyper-aggressive statements.  Since February of this year, North Korea has launched 11 missiles.  What concerns many people is the perceived—whether it is true or not is not the subject of this post—instability of both men. Individuals who tend to be more rash will generally respond faster and more aggressively than others might have. The appropriate response to the threats from North Korea is also not the topic of discussion here. I would argue a response is necessary because Kim Jong Un has become emboldened and the threats against the United States and its allies cannot be ignored.

However the point of interest here is that this is a conflict between two nuclear-armed nations. Unlike the Cold War, the degree of nuclear capabilities is not remotely close. The United States has a nuclear arsenal incomparable to that of North Korea’s arsenal.  This raises the question of whether is this truly a MAD situation?  However, the strength of the arsenal compared to North Korea’s does not diminish the devastation a nuclear attack against the United States would have. The ability to respond ten, twenty, fifty times stronger does not mean there will be no suffering in the United States or among our allies.

Accordingly, the question remains whether MAD is simply an antiquated principle or can still be effective in preventing nuclear war?  In order for MAD’s deterrence to be effective, a nation’s abilities and powers must be believable. Deterrence is only effective if other hostile nations do not doubt one’s willingness to use nuclear weapons if necessary. Nixon’s Foreign Policy Advisor Kissinger presented to Nixon the “madman” theory which essentially argued that the President could not be totally predictable: “If everyone knew that the president would never initiate a nuclear war, then there was no need to take his nuclear posturing seriously.”[1]  President Ronald Reagan famously said before a radio address in 1984, “My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”  While this was a joke, Reagan was well aware of what he was doing and what he was saying.  Some have suggested that this is what President Trump is imitating now and his boisterous speech is a rhetorical tool embracing Kissinger’s theory.

MAD is an effective deterrent if both countries are rational and are not truly seeking self-destruction. While Kim Jong Un may not be seeking self-destruction, it is unclear whether he is fully against it.  This increases the element of fear and instability, North Korea could be utilizing nuclear weapons to bolster its position internationally or it could truly be seeking their use. On balance, it is not clear if President Trump is attempting the “madman” theory or if he is going beyond the use of nuclear weapons as a bargaining tool as well. MAD will remain a relevant military strategy so long as neither side is suicidal.

 

---

[1] Suri, Jeremi, “Nuclear Weapons and the Escalation of Global Conflict since 1945”;

Canadian International Council 63, no. 4 (2008): 13.

The Legality of Mercenaries in International Conflicts

Mercenaries are Here to Stay: Time Now for International Law to Provide a Set of Rules

At the end of August, Blackwater’s founder Erik Prince gave a candid interview about advice he gave to the White House. The White House meeting arose after he posted a May op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal advocating for a private mercenary force to handle the on-going conflict in Afghanistan. Prince advocates that by using private contracted soldiers alongside U.S. Special Forces, the cost of the Afghanistan campaign can be reduced to just 7% percent of the current overhead. In addition to the economic benefits, Prince further argues there is a strategic advantage to using mercenaries as well.  

But one cannot help but mention Blackwater’s Nisour Square massacre, where seventeen Iraqi civilians were killed through the course of a U.S. Embassy escort. How exactly would mercenaries be legally accountable in the same manner as members of a nation’s armed force? This question becomes more important given that the Nisour Square murder convictions were overturned at the start of August on technicalities.

The idea of private contractors and war is not new, and mercenaries played a huge role during medieval times. However, the international laws and protections afforded to traditional soldiers do not extend to mercenaries. International law specifically denies a mercenary the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war (APl I, Art. 47). This means that all mercenaries, regardless of national contract, are unlawful combatants. In other words, mercenaries are murderers as defined by the laws of war and subject to a controlling party’s domestic laws (and technicalities of law as seen above with Blackwater). As such, mercenaries have no legal standing to operate in international law. But we know that they do, so how do you know if a combatant you have is a mercenary?

According to the Geneva Conventions, all captured soldiers must be treated as lawful combatants with POW status until facing a competent tribunal deciding otherwise (GC III Art. 5). Depending on the holding nation, the United Nations Mercenary Convention might apply, defining a mercenary slightly different than AP I, Art. 47. Further complicating the matter is the legal attachment of private military companies and civilian logistical support staff in military units (GC III, Art. 4.1.4). Private individuals legally can support war operations, and be protected by the rules of war. The distinction would need to be determined by a competent tribunal. But all this probably does not matter given the nature of today’s wars.

All over the world mercenaries are currently participating in armed conflict such as in Syria and Yemen. Their lack of accountability seems to be their main selling point. Mercenaries can be whisked in and out (much like Blackwater did) in the event of mistakes and abuses. There is no responsibility on the country employing mercenaries to enforce discipline as they would with the traditional military force. And most countries employ a “self-monitoring” system. Any accountability comes only in the face of publicity, and only under the domestic laws. While the international community has recourse for addressing mistakes and abuses by armed forces, none exist (absent physically capturing the individuals) for mercenaries. And, given the amorphous nature of today’s armed conflict, they have major appeal as an option against insurgent groups like ISIS.

All these factors speak towards the need internationally to readdress the status and expectation of mercenary forces. Today, NGOs (who frequently act and address problems traditionally overseen by nations) are employing private military companies to provide security and support. These relationships have further cemented mercenaries as a permanent feature in the international community. Addressing the laws and expectations surrounding mercenary forces is critical to ensure accountability. Further, as more and more nations use mercenary forces as a screen to prevent the outbreak of international armed conflicts, countries will continue to abandon their responsibilities under the law of war. This undermines the fundamental purpose of humanitarian law. Until mercenaries are addressed more comprehensively under international law, the laws of war can be avoided. Mercenaries are here to stay—the international community must get serious about making sure they play by a set of rules.

Author: Matthew Goepfrich

What’s happening in Syria?

On April 4, in the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhun, poison fell from the sky. The Syrian Army (although President Bashar al-Assad denies any wrongdoing) used chemical weapons on its citizens in the most recent atrocity committed in the course of a long civil war. As hundreds were rushed to hospitals, officials began to suspect that Syria used some form of sarin gas (the use of sarin has been confirmed). This chemical pushes neurotransmitters into hyper-drive, so your body then starts to overproduce and excrete bodily fluids.

This sickening reality of chemical weapons is why the world has long banned the use of them. Officially, the U.N. General Assembly approved the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prevents the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Syria became party to this treaty in September 2013.

U.S. ambassador to the United Nation, Nikki Haley, quickly condemned the attacks and asked for the U.N. to take concrete action, while criticizing Russia for their continued support of the Assad regime. Haley closed her remarks by stating that, “[w]hen the United Nations consistently fails in its duty to act collectively, there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action.”

The United States followed through with their ‘own action’ on April 6. President Trump made the call to launch 59 Tomahawk missiles, their target, the Al-Shayrat airfield in Syria. This attack, marked Trump’s largest military maneuver since taking office. Trump stated that he decided to retaliate against Syria to deter future use of chemical weapons.

Many in Congress praised the action, however others criticized Trump for not seeking congressional approval. Moreover, it appears that the U.S. did communicate to Russia that an attack was imminent, which troubled many due to the administrations alleged ties to Russia.

Now many are asking, what does this mean for America’s continued role in the Middle East? It appears that the United States is increasing its military presence in the Middle East. On Tuesday, April 11, the U.S., in a coalition strike against ISIS, conducted a drone strike, accidentally killing 18 ally troops in Syria. Moreover, the U.S. dropped ‘the mother of all bombs’ or GBU-43/B Massive Ordinance Air Blast (MOAB) in Afghanistan against ISIS on Thursday, April 13, killing an estimated 94 ISIS fighters, according to an Afghan official. Three high profile military operations in a short period of time seem to clarify that Trump will prefer using the U.S. military’s capabilities to their fullest and showy capacity versus President Obama’s preferred method of targeted drone strikes. Moreover, is this ramping up of military strikes a sign that the Trump administration will favor bombs over diplomacy? And if so, who’s the next target?