A Lethal Balance.

"Mutually Assured Destruction" is the name given to the underpinnings of the theory of deterrence. Peace activists say it is no joke that its acronym is "MAD;" defence strategists say it has prevented major wars from breaking out for more than half a century. But, U.S. attempts to build a missile defence system puts the theory of deterrence in jeopardy

Since people began fighting one another - and that was certainly before recorded history - there has been a theory of deterrence. When it was just fists, the theory would be expressed as: "If you hit me, I'll hit you back. Now, you decide if it's worth throwing the first punch." Clubs probably came next, then spears, swords, bows and arrows, guns, bigger guns, and, today, nuclear weapons. The theory remains much the same: "If you drop a nuclear bomb on me, I'll drop one, or more, on you." The only difference is that the consequences of launching a nuclear attack are far more serious than getting a whack upside the head.

This is where the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction comes in to play. Retaliation by one of the countries that has nuclear arms would probably mean the complete devastation of a country. The fear of that kind of catastrophe is what has kept nuclear powers from attacking one another.

Here's what nuclear theorist James May says: "Nuclear weapons are not all that is needed to make war obsolete, but they have no real substitute." Because they "cheaply and predictably destroy whatever both sides are fighting for" and "destroy the battlefield as well as the enemy," they "are essential" for the maintenance of global peace.

The likelihood of calamitous destruction deters nations from starting anything. As we've seen it's not a new idea. However, making deterrence a calculated and explicit policy of defence is new; it didn't become a common strategy until the 20th century.

Deterrence works only if the threat to retaliate is believed to be real. This credibility requires both the physical capacity to retaliate and the perceived will to do so. This led strategists to devise ways of making the retaliatory forces invulnerable to a first strike. If one side calculates there is a good chance of wiping out their opponent's weapons in a sneak attack, the whole concept of deterrence is out the window. So, nuclear missiles were put in hardened silos that could withstand a direct hit or hidden on submarines to assure the ability to retaliate.

This balance of terror seemed to keep the superpowers from destroying each other and the rest of us for 50 years. But, the strategists weren't content with this; they always sought to get an edge on one another.

Defence programs begin with a top-secret threat assessment. Then, the bright men and women at the Pentagon sit down and figure out a way of countering that threat. This is how The New York Times described the process in April 2000: "Envisioning threats creates an urgency about finding technologies to defeat them. Thus, the threat of nuclear annihilation led to the `peace shield' -- the Star Wars system on which $60 billion has been spent without a single working system to show for it."

The idea was that the United States would build a defence shield in space against incoming nuclear missiles. It was called the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), but the media dubbed it Star Wars and the name stuck.

U.S. President Ronald Reagan proposed the Star Wars plan in March 1983. This was a time when the distrust and bitterness between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were at their peak. But, if the Americans could develop an impenetrable shield against attack, the principle of deterrence would be undermined. The U.S. could launch a nuclear attack against anybody without fear of retaliation. There would no longer be a balance of terror.

The technology needed to intercept and destroy incoming missiles was at the cutting edge. In simple terms, the challenge is to hit an incoming bullet with another bullet. Such things as space- and ground-based nuclear X-ray lasers, subatomic particle beams, and computer-guided projectiles fired by electromagnetic rail guns - all under the central control of a supercomputer system were part of the plan. A network of space-based sensors and specialized mirrors for directing the laser beams toward targets was also going to be needed. There was no certainty that such a complex defence system would work, despite cost estimates as high as $1 trillion U.S.

Then, in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. The deep-thinking strategists decided Star Wars was no longer a vital concern, so the program was shelved. But, the threat analysts stayed on the job and it wasn't long before they found something new to worry about. North Korea, Iran, and Iraq were known to be trying to build nuclear weapons. They were also developing missile technology. On top of that, each nation was controlled by a dictator, and each had a long history of hostility towards the United States.

So, in 1997, the old Star Wars plan was dusted off and given a new name; it's now the National Missile Defence (NMD). This is not the grand design of the 1980s that would intercept and kill missiles in the thousands. NMD, if it works, would cope with a dozen or two and, so far, funding has been provided only for research.

But, these things take on a life of their own, and the limited $60 billion U.S. program will likely grow. This is especially true as George W. Bush takes over the American presidency. He is on record during the 1999 election campaign as favouring going ahead with the program.

So far, NMD has been an embarrassing failure. During 2000, attempts were made to shoot down missiles; but the target and the interceptor went zooming by each other harmlessly. But, the possibility the Americans will succeed is enough to cause ripples in diplomatic waters.

Russia and China, until recently enemies, have joined together in condemning the NMD. They, in common with many other nations, believe the program will make the world less safe. Their argument is that if the U.S. makes itself bullet-proof it would upset decades of arms-control agreements that have prevented nuclear war.

FACT FILE

A failed test of the U.S. National Missile Defence system in July 2000, cost $100 million U.S.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was negotiated between the United States and Russia (then under the auspices of the Soviet Union), and signed in 1972. Under the ABM Treaty the two states agreed that neither mould build a comprehensive defence against the other's long-range nuclear arms. The United States has asked Russia to amend the ABM to allow the deployment of Son of Star Wars (NMD). Russia has refused on the grounds that NMD mould destabilite the offensive nuclear arms balance. Appoint a group of students to monitor the ABM negotiations and to give periodic reports to the class.

2. Organize a debate around the following: "Be it resolved that Canada, as a nation with a long history of peacemaking, should issue a strong condemnation of the U.S. National Missile Defence initiative."

Websites

Federation of
American Scientists - http://
www.fas.org/spp/starwars/
program/nmd/

The Boeing Company - http://
www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/nmd/

RELATED ARTICLE: MISCALCULATING

Strong nerves are needed to make the theory of deterrence work. Your opponent has to believe that you will carry through with your threat, even if in so doing you risk losing everything. It is possible to miscalculate horribly.

In the early 1900s, Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz of Germany based his naval strategy on deterrence. He believed that Great Britain would not risk its huge naval power in a battle even with Germany's smaller fleet. He was wrong.

On 31 May and 1 June 1916, the British Grand Fleet engaged the German High Seas Fleet off the Danish coast of Jutland. During the Battle of Jutland, the Germans lost 11 ships and took 1,545 casualties. The British losses were greater, but their fleet still heavily outnumbered the German one.

The German High Seas Fleet retreated and took no further part in World War I. The cost of miscalculations in the nuclear era would be much higher.

RELATED ARTICLE: WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE ...

Canada has come under a lot of pressure to support the U.S. National Missile Defence. However, Ottawa has been dragging its feet in getting behind the program.

Canadian reluctance to back Son of Star Wars has annoyed many in the American military. U.S. Vice-Admiral Herbert Browne told a briefing in May 2000 that "we would have absolutely no obligation to defend" Ottawa from attack if Canada is not part of the anti-missile system. To which Canada's Defence Minister Art Eggleton made a huffy response.

"We aren't going to be blackmailed," said Mr. Eggleton. "We are going to make a decision [about whether to join the project] on the basis of what's in the best interests for Canada."