WHAT WASHINGTON GETS WRONG ABOUT DETERRENCE

[rangerrebew]

WHAT WASHINGTON GETS WRONG ABOUT DETERRENCE
RAPHAEL S. COHENMAY 22, 2023
 
Ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine almost 15 months ago, two camps have consistently opposed American military aid. Unsurprisingly, there are the traditional anti-war activists and “restraint” advocates who opposed most American military involvement in foreign wars. While these groups generally condemn Russian aggression, they note that Russia did not directly attack the United States. As such, the costs of long war with Russia and the risks of escalation outweigh the benefits of backing Ukraine.

A second but perhaps more interesting group, though, is the China hawks. While much public attention has been focused on Ukraine, China has ramped up its military pressure on Taiwan and engaged in increasingly caustic rhetoric toward the United States. As a result, some Republican politicians, commentators, and conservative voters have drawn a causal relationship between the two stories. This grafted narrative goes something like this: America’s provision of thousands of pieces of equipment, millions of rounds of ammunition, and tens of billions of dollars in aid to Ukraine has wound up undermining its deterrence vis-à-vis China. A deterrence chit, proponents of this story claim, that has been spent on one region has come at the direct expense of another.
 

Deterrence, however, is not a tangible object. It is instead a psychological state. While deterrence is not entirely divorced from the tangible things like the deployment of platforms and stockpiles of munitions, perceptions tend to matter more than action itself. This basic insight should help us better understand the perceived “trade-off” between deterring China and fighting Russia. From a purely military perspective, Ukraine aid has not harmed efforts to protect Taiwan as much as its critics claim. More importantly, on a psychological dimension, the Ukraine War — and the robust response of the United States and its allies to the challenge — has strengthened the perception of America and its deterrence capabilities.

A Detriment to Deterrence?

https://warontherocks.com/2023/05/what-washington-gets-wrong-about-deterrence/

[DefiantMassRINO]

Deterrence is in the eye of the person people are trying to deter.  It's an exercise in psychology and psyops.  You need to get into the mind of your opponent and identify their Boogeyman - that which makes them hesitate.

Someone with a suicidal messiah complex may not be open to deterrence.

A psychopathic regime with no regard for its people, like China or Russia, may be less susceptible to deterrence because their value systems do not align with their oppenents value system.

Rationally, deterrence is making offensive action a negative value proposition for the enemy.

Irrationally, deterrence is making the continuation of offensive action a negative value proposition to remaining rational influention people around a regime's leaders.

What deters China may be different than what deters Russia, Iran, or North Korea.

The Globalist hopium was that integrating China's economy with those of the West would decrease the likelihood of a military conflict as all sides would have mutual economic interests.  Major fail.

Communists only want "openness" when they realize they are technologically behind, and want to exploit trade, espionage, and theft to catch up.

YOU CANNOT DO BUSINESS WITH COMMINISTS WITHOUT GETTING HANGED.