|
View the PSRT-L Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in PSRT-L's October 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] View the Next Message in PSRT-L's October 2009 logs by: [date] [author] [thread] Visit the PSRT-L home page.
mailto:hirener@earthlink.net Published in 1963, Limited War in the Nuclear Age by Morton Halperin explored many of the issues concerning warfare at a lessor level than all out nuclear attacks, while the backdrop of Nuclear Technology and Weapons sustained National strategy and military policy. His book also included a substantial bibliography of previous publications. Two of these publications[1], would raise here as meaningful discussion focused upon historical polar positions concerning American strategy and warfare implications for conduct of military operations during the past Cold War era and years. 19Century: The British Empire Expansion of Great Britain globally during previous centuries, particularly the 19th, resulting in the era of European colonial empires, realized the strategic and military importance to those geographic areas and lands associated with the southern and eastern peripheries to Russia's immense land in Asia and reaching to the Pacific. It was not without cause, British forces paid considerable attention to their relationship with India and those immediate areas affected by the Khyber Pass; this, the point of disgorgement between Russian Empire lands to the North and what comprises modern day Pakistan, India and indirectly, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. This vast region and number of modern Nation-States, sustained a considerable investment of resources by the British to comprise their land check upon Russia's southern expansionism, forming a 19th Century type 'Containment policy' while boasting the fortunes of Britain's Imperial direction and accomplishment. Military success implied and directly allowed for political and economic success. Yet, with WW II, destruction and dissolve became the 20th Century pattern and order as this vast territory experienced the outcomes to British decline and Europe's overall losses. One this historical development became the 'order of the day', new problems and dilemma's arose for the victorious Allies, including America, concerning the future of these lands. Once again, the way for Russian expansionism seemed open under the banners of a Communist Soviet Union. Secretary of State, Dean Acheson called attention to the dilemma facing America and the Democracies by 1958, publishing his volume, Power and Diplomacy. This book advanced his critique of the US reliance on a policy of massive retaliation, by then adopted as American military strategy for response to Soviet military capabilities and possible war in Europe. His book also called for a conventional was capability by the US for both defense of Europe and so called' grey areas'. It was these gray areas, which were found along the southern Soviet Russian periphery that comprised the previous centuries British and European colonial territories and today's modern nation states whose difficulties have raised immediate military problems for both those countries and the western democracies. Acheson's volume was also, partly, response most likely, to the previous year, 1957, publication by then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, of his Foreign Affairs Quarterly article, 'Challenge and Response in United States Policy'[2]; wherein, he calls for the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the defense of local areas as an alternative to massive retaliation. US policy and military strategy as well as operations have been impaled upon these two opposite positions since this time in one manner or another. With collapse of the Soviet Union, however, seeming changes took place which lessened the importance of nuclear weapons for strategic purposes of war between the West and the Communist powers. This has opened the door to more likely conventional warfare and responses to local incidents have historically to date been more directed towards this option in military forces and practices. Still, with historical changes that have taken place in the so called 'grey areas', among the new Nation States left in the wake of Britain's collapsed Empire, military needs and threats to western democracies suggest this 20th Century dilemma and analysis, invoking the 'tactical' nuclear option, does retain meaning and potential application to those areas[3]. The Four Front War: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Iran Recent history as seen, involves the US and Europe along a four front area, comprising this older British Empire zone of territory. Here, differences in conditions, military situations and peoples have led to realizations, different mixes and combinations of techniques are needed to resolve political and military needs of localities. Should historical developments arising from this earlier period determine military outcomes ? Besides current 'quisling like' attitudes towards military involvement and application of military solutions to threats arising from these 'grey areas', much of that historical presentation can be said, still valid and capable of being applied as military force operations and policy.[4] Political decisions, military planning and decisions reflecting this reality can be answers to those exceedingly difficult problems being faced and real possible outcomes leading to success. Wyatt Reader UCLA___Whittier College California Community Colleges//private footnotes: 1----Limited War in the Nuclear Age, Mortin Halperin[Harvard]; John Wiley and Sons, NY, London, 1963. See Bibliography p.133 and p.144 referenced. 2---Vol. XXXVI, October 1957. 3---Also see references, Halperin Bibliography by Biorklind, 'Can War Be Limited', Air Power VI[Summer 1959], p.136 and Gallois, The Balance of Terror; Strategy for the Nuclear Age, p.146 4---Just in the last 2 weeks, press reports indicated the US was preparing a new 'tactical' nuclear bomb capable of replacing earlier models and giving it a present day capability. This alone suggests the viability of tactical strikes as a option and operation that might bring military and political solutions to a desired outcome in the 'grey areas' in specific. There are problems of course, with crossing the nuclear line and how reactions might politically and military might result from such decision and policy. A fuller discussion of more recent events would not suggest favorable outcomes for these areas and their current trends should 'grey area' military developments prove unsatisfactory to US and western democracies preferences for peaceful solutions to political and military situations. Wyatt Reader hirener@earthlink.net EarthLink Revolves Around You. >
 Humanities & Social Sciences Online 
|