The Death of Deterrence

[rangerrebew]

The Death of Deterrence
By Carlo J.V. Caro
October 11, 2024
 
The Death of Deterrence: How Biden’s Public Signals Are Undermining Global Security

Since April, President Biden’s public assurances—stating that the United States would not join Israel in a military response to the initial Iranian aerial attacks, and more recently his statements that he would not support an Israeli counterattack on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure—mark a critical departure from the core principles of deterrence. Deterrence is not merely about wielding overwhelming force but about creating an environment of uncertainty and fear in the minds of adversaries. Historically, successful deterrence has thrived on ambiguity—the calculated uncertainty that prevents enemies from predicting the consequences of their actions. Yet, under Biden’s administration, this essential principle is eroding through public declarations, particularly toward Iran. This shift threatens to dismantle a carefully maintained balance, with potentially far-reaching consequences for the U.S., Israel, and the global order.

The Middle East, a region historically fraught with sectarian rivalries, territorial disputes, and the constant specter of conflict, has long relied on a delicate balance of power maintained by external actors, primarily the United States. For decades, U.S. ambiguity regarding its military involvement in the region served as a check on Tehran's nuclear ambitions. This ambiguity kept Iran in a perpetual state of caution, never quite certain how the U.S. or Israel might respond to further nuclear development.


Without the fear of U.S. intervention, Iran faces a clearer path to accelerate its nuclear ambitions and regional powers like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt may feel compelled to develop their own nuclear programs, creating a new and highly volatile dynamic in an already unstable region. The breakdown of deterrence here is reminiscent of the fall of ancient empires like Assyria, which failed to recognize the rising threats around them. The collapse of Assyria was not due to military defeat but to complacency in its dominance, allowing adversaries like Babylon to gain strength unchecked. In much the same way, Iran’s ambitions may grow unhindered, pushing the region toward a tipping point.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2024/10/11/the_death_of_deterrence_1064436.html

[catfish1957]

What used to be interpreted as incompetence, has turned out to be massive sabotage.   How much of our plight is due to Chicom payments to "The Big Guy"'s bank accounts.

[Smokin Joe]

The whole deterrence concept depends on the other guy(s) believing there is a good chance that, if attacked, you will respond with everything you have, or at least enough to make it really, really hurt.

M.A.D. was born of that, and it worked.

The other thing necessary for it to work is for the other side believing you have the capability to make it happen. Our tech isn't in question, even if out software may be(come) a problem with all the lack of security that seems to be going around.

Given that, it all comes down to leadership, to people who will perform tasks as ordered and turn the key and push the button.

Here, too, we have demonstrated weakness (Milley telling the Chinese he'd give them a half hour heads up before passing the order down, something which should have bought him a ticket to Leavenworth, if not Gitmo.)

That he was not removed from his position, not tried under the UCMJ or even civilian law, but allowed to retire with full honors and benefits displays a lack of will on the part of the JCS and the Administration to uphold their part if attacked. If they can't clean their own house, how are they going to clean the enemy's clock?

(ICBM transpolar transit time is about 30 minutes, less if launched at sea.)

So the Biden Administration and deep state perfidy has left us looking weak, Afghanistan only exacerbated that, and failing latest generation weapons systems only undercut faith in our ability to respond, conventionally or otherwise.

That isn't saying once the bugs get worked out these systems aren't gee whiz, almost sci-fi stuff, but they are expensive, we're running low on recruits who seem able to step into either combatant or support roles, and desperately need to quit the social experiments and get back on task.

Lack of security may well negate the ability of our weapons systems to dominate the battlespace as well.

The fundamental purpose of Armed Forces is to present a deterrent, and if the deterrent fails, to back it up by breaking things and killing our enemies, not to get all hung up on pronouns or 'equity' or any of that other stuff.

You want 'equity', well everyone is equal under fire, and either you survive the experience, or meet the greatest equalizer of all.