DOCSLIB.ORG

Nuclear Deterrence in the 21St Century

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21St Century CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that EDUCATION AND THE ARTS helps improve policy and decisionmaking through ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT research and analysis. HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from INFRASTRUCTURE AND www.rand.org as a public service of the RAND TRANSPORTATION Corporation. INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS NATIONAL SECURITY Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Reports & Bookstore Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND Corporation View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. NUCLEAR DETERRENCE IN THE 21ST CENTURY LESSONS FROM THE COLD WAR FOR A NEW ERA OF STRATEGIC PIRACY THÉRÈSE DELPECH C O R P O R A T I O N Funding for this book was made possible by RAND’s Investment in People and Ideas program, which combines philanthropic contributions from individuals, foundations, and private-sector firms with earnings from RAND’s endowment and operations to support innovative research on issues that are crucial to the policy debate but that reach beyond the boundaries of traditional client sponsorship. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-5930-7 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2012 RAND Corporation Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND documents are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND permissions page (http://www.rand.org/ publications/permissions.html). Published 2012 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 4570 Fifth Avenue, Suite 600, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-2665 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] The concept of deterrence has been somewhat neglected in the nearly two decades since the end of the Cold War, particularly after the attacks of September 11, 2001. —Austin Long, Deterrence—From Cold War to Long War: Lessons from Six Decades of RAND Research Like it or not, the language of threat and ultimatum is today . the language of diplomacy. —Daniel Ellsberg, The Theory and Practice of Blackmail Foreword This book grew out of a conversation that Thérèse Delpech had with me on the mar- gins of a conference in 2007. She was among France’s most prominent scholars, ana- lysts, and officials dealing with security issues, especially nuclear weapons. In that conversation, she told me that she had long admired the work on deterrence that was done in the 1950s and 1960s, much of it at RAND in Santa Monica. She lamented the fact that she had not encountered the same level of reflection on today’s deterrence challenges. Of course, those challenges are different, she noted, than those of the time of the U.S.-Soviet nuclear standoff, but that does not necessarily mean that the think- ing from that time is irrelevant. Thus, we hatched the plan for this book. Thérèse was willing to take time from her career in France to come to Santa Monica for weeks at a time to go through RAND’s deterrence literature—a trove of studies that continues to grow today—and to begin to write. She started in Santa Monica, a city she enjoyed, in August 2009. Sadly, she fell ill in the middle of the project. In the early days of her battle with the illness that she never specified, she told me that she was determined to finish the project, working at home in Paris and, if possible, returning to Santa Monica. She did both and she submitted the book for review at RAND in late 2010. She hoped to return in 2011 for the final rewrite, but she was unable to. She finished the rewrite at home a few months before her death. I am both sad and proud that RAND is able to publish what may be her last book. The world has lost a great talent much too young; she had so much more to do. The book is a triumph. Thérèse • spells out the need for revitalization of thinking about nuclear weapons, a chal- lenge that RAND takes seriously • reviews the key concepts of past deterrence thinking and their development up to now • reviews today’s key security challenges and their relation to nuclear weapons • demonstrates that some of the concepts of the past remain relevant today vii viii Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century • urges the new generation of defense and security analysts to turn their attention to nuclear deterrence, much as she did 30 years ago. Not everyone will agree with Thérèse’s analysis of today’s security challenges. But this is no surprise: There are significant differences of opinion in the West regarding what to do about the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs, and the challenges and opportunities posed by the rise of China continue to be debated. But all will learn from this interesting and challenging book. I certainly did. James A. Thomson President and Chief Executive Officer RAND Corporation, 1989–2011 January 2012 Contents Foreword .............................................................................................. vii Acknowledgments .................................................................................. xiii ChApTeR ONe Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 ChApTeR TwO why Is This Subject Important? ................................................................... 9 ChApTeR ThRee Concepts .............................................................................................. 23 The Dominant Concept Under Attack ............................................................. 25 Extended Deterrence: A Concept Revived ........................................................ 28 Self-Deterrence: The Best—and Worst—of Worlds ............................................. 34 Mutual Assured Destruction: An Old- Fashioned Concept ...................................... 35 Stability: The Dream Is Over ........................................................................ 37 Second Strike: A Grand Old Concept with a Bright Future ..................................... 39 Parity: A Confused and Confusing Concept ..................................................... 40 Vulnerable Societies, Invulnerable Weapons: A Paradox ........................................ 42 Credibility: An Increasingly Relevant Concept ................................................... 45 Launch on Warning: A Dangerous Concept ..................................................... 46 Uncertainty: A Concept for Our Time ............................................................ 46 Game Theory: Unreal ............................................................................... 48 Limited Nuclear Wars: Triumph of Hope ......................................................... 49 Old Wine in New Bottles: Five Samples from the Cold War Cellars.......................... 50 1. No First Use ..................................................................................... 50 2. Arms Control ..................................................................................... 51 3. Surprise Attacks .................................................................................. 53 4. Rationality in Deterrence ...................................................................... 54 5. Elimination ....................................................................................... 55 ix x Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century Contemporary Nightmares ......................................................................... 56 Escalation ........................................................................................... 56 Accidental War ...................................................................................... 57 Nuclear Weapons in the Hands of Nonstate Actors ............................................ 58 Adversaries Bent on Gambling .................................................................... 58 Miscalculation and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Albert Wohlstetter's Legacy: the Neo-Cons, Not Carter, Killed
    SPECIAL REPORT: NUCLEAR SABOTAGE ALBERT WOHLSTETTER’S LEGACY Wohlstetter was even stranger than the “Dr. Strangelove” depicted in the 1964 movie of that name. An early draft of the film was titled “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” the same title as Wohlstetter’s best-known unclassified work. Here, a still from the film. tives—Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, and Zalmay Khalilzad, to name a few. In Wohlstetter’s circle of influence were also Ahmed Chalabi (whom Wohlstetter championed), Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson (D-Wash.), Sen. Robert Dole (R- Kan.), and Margaret Thatcher. Wohlstetter himself was a follower of Bertrand Russell, not only in mathematics, but in world outlook. The pseudo-peacenik Russell had called for a preemptive strike against the Soviet Union, after World War II and before the Soviets developed the bomb, as a prelude to his plan for bully- ing nations into a one-world government. Russell, a raving Malthusian, opposed economic development, especially in the Third World. Admirer Jude Wanniski wrote of Wohlstetter in an obituary, “[I]t is no exaggeration, I think, to say that Wohlstetter was the most influential unknown man in the world for the past half century, and easily in the top ten in importance of all men.” “Albert’s decisions were not automat- ically made official policy at the White House,” Wanniski wrote, “but Albert’s The Neo-Cons, Not Carter, genius and his following were such in the places where it counted in the Establishment that if his views were Killed Nuclear Energy resisted for more than a few months, it
    [Show full text]
  • Discriminate Deterrence
    DISCRIMINATE DETERRENCE Report of The Commission On Integrated Long-Term Strategy Co -C. I lairmea: Fred C. lkle and Albert Wohlstetter Moither, Anne L. Annsinmg Andrew l. Goodraster flenry /1 Kissinger Zbign ei Brzezinski fames L. Holloway, Ur Joshua Lederberg William P. Clark Samuel P. Huntington Bernard A. Schriever tV. Graham Ciaytor, John W. Vessey January 1988 COMMISSION ON INTEGRATED LONG-TERM STRATEGY January 11. 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR NATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS We are pleased to present this final report of Our Commission. Pursuant to your initial mandate, the report proposes adjustments to US. military strategy in view of a changing security environment in the decades ahead. Over the last fifteen months the Commission has received valuable counsel from members of Congress, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Service Chiefs. and the Presdent's Science Advisor, Members of the National Security Council Staff, numerous professionals in the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency, and a broad range of specialists outside the government provided unstinting support. We are also indebted to the Commission's hardworking staff. The Commission was supported generously by several specialized study groups that closely analyzed a number of issues, among them: the security environment for the next twenty years, the role of advanced technology in military systems, interactions between offensive and defensive systems on the periphery of the Soviet Union, and the U.S, posture in regional conflicts around the world. Within the next few months, these study groups will publish detailed findings of their own.
    [Show full text]
  • The Erosion of Strategic Stability and the Future of Arms Control in Europe
    Études de l’Ifri Proliferation Papers 60 THE EROSION OF STRATEGIC STABILITY AND THE FUTURE OF ARMS COntrOL IN EUROPE Corentin BRUSTLEIN November 2018 Security Studies Center The Institut français des relations internationales (Ifri) is a research center and a forum for debate on major international political and economic issues. Headed by Thierry de Montbrial since its founding in 1979, Ifri is a non- governmental, non-profit organization. As an independent think tank, Ifri sets its own research agenda, publishing its findings regularly for a global audience. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Ifri brings together political and economic decision-makers, researchers and internationally renowned experts to animate its debate and research activities. The opinions expressed in this text are the responsibility of the author alone. ISBN: 978-2-36567-932-9 © All rights reserved, Ifri, 2018 How to quote this document: Corentin Brustlein, “The Erosion of Strategic Stability and the Future of Arms Control in Europe”, Proliferation Papers, No. 60, November 2018. Ifri 27 rue de la Procession 75740 Paris Cedex 15 – FRANCE Tel.: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 00 – Fax: +33 (0)1 40 61 60 60 Email: [email protected] Website: Ifri.org Author Dr. Corentin Brustlein is the Director of the Security Studies Center at the French Institute of International Relations. His work focuses on nuclear and conventional deterrence, arms control, military balances, and U.S. and French defense policies. Before assuming his current position, he had been a research fellow at Ifri since 2008 and the head of Ifri’s Deterrence and Proliferation Program since 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress
    Order Code RL32114 Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress Updated January 29, 2008 Clay Wilson Specialist in Technology and National Security Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress Summary Cybercrime is becoming more organized and established as a transnational business. High technology online skills are now available for rent to a variety of customers, possibly including nation states, or individuals and groups that could secretly represent terrorist groups. The increased use of automated attack tools by cybercriminals has overwhelmed some current methodologies used for tracking Internet cyberattacks, and vulnerabilities of the U.S. critical infrastructure, which are acknowledged openly in publications, could possibly attract cyberattacks to extort money, or damage the U.S. economy to affect national security. In April and May 2007, NATO and the United States sent computer security experts to Estonia to help that nation recover from cyberattacks directed against government computer systems, and to analyze the methods used and determine the source of the attacks.1 Some security experts suspect that political protestors may have rented the services of cybercriminals, possibly a large network of infected PCs, called a “botnet,” to help disrupt the computer systems of the Estonian government. DOD officials have also indicated that similar cyberattacks from individuals and countries targeting economic,
    [Show full text]
  • Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 97 Article 2 Issue 2 Winter Winter 2007 At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare Susan W. Brenner Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Susan W. Brenner, At Light Speed: Attribution and Response to Cybercrime/Terrorism/Warfare, 97 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 379 (2006-2007) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/07/9702-0379 THE JOURNALOF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 97. No. 2 Copyright 0 2007 by NorthwesternUniversity. Schoolof Low Printedin U.S.A. "AT LIGHT SPEED": ATTRIBUTION AND RESPONSE TO CYBERCRIME/TERRORISM/WARFARE SUSAN W. BRENNER* This Article explains why and how computer technology complicates the related processes of identifying internal (crime and terrorism) and external (war) threats to social order of respondingto those threats. First, it divides the process-attribution-intotwo categories: what-attribution (what kind of attack is this?) and who-attribution (who is responsiblefor this attack?). Then, it analyzes, in detail, how and why our adversaries' use of computer technology blurs the distinctions between what is now cybercrime, cyberterrorism, and cyberwarfare. The Article goes on to analyze how and why computer technology and the blurring of these distinctions erode our ability to mount an effective response to threats of either type.
    [Show full text]
  • Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D
    Confronting the Threat of Nuclear Winter Seth D. Baum Global Catastrophic Risk Institute http://sethbaum.com * http://gcrinstitute.org Futures 72: 69-79. This version 14 October 2015. Abstract Large-scale nuclear war sends large quantities of smoke into the stratosphere, causing severe global environmental effects including surface temperature declines and increased ultraviolet radiation. The temperature decline and the full set of environmental effects are known as nuclear winter. This paper surveys the range of actions that can confront the threat of nuclear winter, both now and in the future. Nuclear winter can be confronted by reducing the probability of nuclear war, reducing the environmental severity of nuclear winter, increasing humanity’s resilience to nuclear winter, and through indirect interventions that enhance these other interventions. While some people may be able to help more than others, many people—perhaps everyone across the world—can make a difference. Likewise, the different opportunities available to different people suggests personalized evaluations of nuclear winter, and of catastrophic threats more generally, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach. Keywords: catastrophic threats, global catastrophic risk, nuclear war, nuclear winter, risk reduction 1. Introduction The explosion of nuclear weapons causes enormous fireballs, burning everything in the vicinity. Most of the ensuing smoke rises past the clouds, into the stratosphere, where it spreads around the world and remains for a time on the order of ten to twenty years. A large enough nuclear war would send up so much smoke that the global environment would be fundamentally altered. Surface temperatures and precipitation would decline, while ultraviolet radiation increases.
    [Show full text]
  • Information Warfare, International Law, and the Changing Battlefield
    ARTICLE INFORMATION WARFARE, INTERNATIONAL LAW, AND THE CHANGING BATTLEFIELD Dr. Waseem Ahmad Qureshi* ABSTRACT The advancement of technology in the contemporary era has facilitated the emergence of information warfare, which includes the deployment of information as a weapon against an adversary. This is done using a numBer of tactics such as the use of media and social media to spread propaganda and disinformation against an adversary as well as the adoption of software hacking techniques to spread viruses and malware into the strategically important computer systems of an adversary either to steal confidential data or to damage the adversary’s security system. Due to the intangible nature of the damage caused By the information warfare operations, it Becomes challenging for international law to regulate the information warfare operations. The unregulated nature of information operations allows information warfare to Be used effectively By states and nonstate actors to gain advantage over their adversaries. Information warfare also enhances the lethality of hyBrid warfare. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to arrange a new convention or devise a new set of rules to regulate the sphere of information warfare to avert the potential damage that it can cause to international peace and security. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................. 901 I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................... 903 II. WHAT IS INFORMATION WARFARE? .............................
    [Show full text]
  • Kahn Used the Metaphor of an 'Escalation Ladder'
    Preventing Nuclear Use: Internationally-Controlled Theater Missile Defenses Among Non- Super-Arsenal States1 Carolyn C. James, PhD University of Missouri, Columbia INTRODUCTION The current debates over missile defenses in the United States all have a common aspect - the systems are meant to provide a defense for US territory, allies, or troops abroad.2 This article proposes a different view with significant security potential. Specifically, theater missile defenses (TMD) should be considered as an international tool to prevent nuclear weapons use among proliferated states.3 Internationally-controlled TMD placed at potential flash points could prevent conflicts and crises from escalating to nuclear levels. These areas include borders with so-called “rogue” states, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, all of whom have seemingly aggressive ballistic missile programs and are embroiled in protracted conflicts with their neighbors.4 Similar to the goal of peacekeeping, reducing and limiting conflict in regions such as the Middle East clearly is in the US national interest. How, then, can nuclear use be prevented? Currently, there are seven declared nuclear weapon states (US, Russia, China, Great Britain, France, Pakistan, India), one non-declared “opaque” nuclear weapon state (Israel), and several states with known or suspected nuclear aspirations (including Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya and Taiwan). Two of these, the US and Russia, have established a legacy of Cold War deterrence policies. Nuclear deterrence, in particular, has been credited with maintaining crisis stability during those years.5 Today, a major debate in the field of security studies surrounds the question: Does nuclear deterrence really work? A common failure in most of these discussions about successful deterrence and avoiding nuclear use is the lack of distinction among nuclear force levels.6 The debate tends to be clarified by asking whether it was nuclear weapons, or mutual assured destruction (MAD), that kept the Cold War cold.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterrence and Extended Deterrence: Key Terms and Definitions
    Deterrence and Extended Deterrence Key Terms and Definitions Jeffrey A. Larsen, Ph.D. Read Ahead Material for PPNT Presentation, UCSD/IGCC, San Diego 23 July 2010 Deterrence Prevention of action by fear of negative consequences A state of mind in one’s adversary, brought about by a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction Credibility = capability + will Purpose: convince a party not to take some action by threatening the destruction of something he considers to be of great value, or by denying him achieving his objectives The opposite of compellence (getting another party to do something they do not want to do) Deterrence by punishment A doctrine used to deter an adversary by threatening the destruction of something he values, such as population centers, key cultural sites, the leadership, or military forces. Deterrence by denial The strategic doctrine used to deter an adversary by denying him the ability to achieve his objectives; this may include a combination of counterforce targeting and active and passive defenses Mutual assured destruction The ability of both sides to guarantee the destruction of the adversary even after suffering from a nuclear first strike. Secure second strike The forces, planning, and basing to ensure that enough offensive striking power remains after a devastating nuclear first strike to still guarantee the destruction of the adversary’s society. Techniques for ensuring a secure second strike may include hardening, dispersal, camouflage, placing forces on alert, or increasing the number of delivery systems. Societal vulnerability The perceived requirement to ensure that both sides’ populations were vulnerable to strategic attack in order to ensure stability between two adversaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversation Number 39-1 Portion of a Telephone Conversation Between
    Conversation Number 39-1 Portion of a telephone conversation between the President and Henry A. Kissinger. This portion was recorded on May 24, 1973 at an unknown time between 1:27 and 1:29 p.m. [This conversation is cross-referenced with conversation 440-35.] The National Archives and Records Administration prepared the following log of this conversation. Watergate -White House response -White Paper -National security Conversation Number 39-4 Portion of a telephone conversation between the President and Hugh Scott. This portion was recorded on May 24, 1973 between 1:36 and 1:38 p.m. [This conversation is cross-referenced with conversation 440-38.] The National Archives and Records Administration prepared the following log of this conversation. Watergate -Scott's actions, May 23 -Ronald L. Ziegler Scott's schedule Watergate -White House response -National security -Effect on United States foreign policy -Scott's possible statement -Scott's statement, May 23 Conversation Number 39-5 Portion of a telephone conversation between the President and Leslie C. Arends. This portion was recorded on May 24, 1973 between 1:39 and 1:40 p.m. [This conversation is cross- referenced with conversation 440-39.] The National Archives and Records Administration prepared the following log of this conversation. Watergate -Republican congressmen's morale -White House response -White Paper -National security -Effect on United States foreign policy Conversation Number 39-16 Portions of a telephone conversation between the President and Alexander M. Haig, Jr. These portions were recorded on May 25, 1973 at an unknown time between 12:58 and 1:25 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency's Civil Liberties
    112 Harvard National Security Journal / Vol. 6 ARTICLE Intelligence Legalism and the National Security Agency’s Civil Liberties Gap __________________________ Margo Schlanger* * Henry M. Butzel Professor of Law, University of Michigan. I have greatly benefited from conversations with John DeLong, Mort Halperin, Alex Joel, David Kris, Marty Lederman, Nancy Libin, Rick Perlstein, Becky Richards, and several officials who prefer not to be named, all of whom generously spent time with me, discussing the issues in this article, and many of whom also helped again after reading the piece in draft. I would also like to extend thanks to Sam Bagenstos, Rick Lempert, Daphna Renan, Alex Rossmiller, Adrian Vermeule, Steve Vladeck, Marcy Wheeler, Shirin Sinnar and other participants in the 7th Annual National Security Law Workshop, participants at the University of Iowa law faculty workshop, and my colleagues at the University of Michigan Legal Theory Workshop and governance group lunch, who offered me extremely helpful feedback. Jennifer Gitter and Lauren Dayton provided able research assistance. All errors are, of course, my responsibility. Copyright © 2015 by the Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College and Margo Schlanger. 2015 / Intelligence Legalism and the NSA’s Civil Liberties Gaps 113 Abstract Since June 2013, we have seen unprecedented security breaches and disclosures relating to American electronic surveillance. The nearly daily drip, and occasional gush, of once-secret policy and operational information makes it possible to analyze and understand National Security Agency activities, including the organizations and processes inside and outside the NSA that are supposed to safeguard American’s civil liberties as the agency goes about its intelligence gathering business.
    [Show full text]
  • Omnicide “Here Is What We Now Know: the United States and Russia Each Have an Actual Doomsday Machine.”
    Omnicide “Here is what we now know: the United States and Russia each have an actual Doomsday Machine.” By Daniel Ellsberg From The Doomsday Machine, published by Bloomsbury. The book is an account of America’s nuclear program in the 1960s drawn from Ellsberg’s experience as a consultant to the Department of Defense and the White House, drafting Secretary Robert McNamara’s plans for nuclear war. Ellsberg is the author of Secrets, a book about his experiences leaking the Pentagon Papers. At the conclusion of his 1964 film, Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick introduced the concept of a “Doomsday Machine”—designed by the Soviet Union to deter nuclear attack against the country by automating the destruction of all human life as a response to such an attack. The movie’s Russian leader had installed the system before revealing it to the world, however, and it was now being triggered by a single nuclear explosion from an American B-52 sent off by a rogue commander without presidential authorization. Kubrick had borrowed the name and the concept of the Doomsday machine from my former colleague Herman Kahn, a Rand physicist with whom he had discussed it. In his 1960 book On Thermonuclear War, Kahn wrote that he would be able to design such a device. It could be produced within ten years and would be relatively cheap— since it could be placed in one’s own country or in the ocean. It would not depend on sending warheads halfway around the world. But, he said, the machine was obviously undesirable. It would be too difficult to control— too inflexible and automatic—and its failure “kills too many people”— everyone, in fact, an outcome that the philosopher John Somerville later termed “omnicide.” Kahn was sure in 1961 that no such system had been built, nor would it be, by either the United States or the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]