Once the Democratic primaries are over, I have a suggestion for how the Democratic candidate could burnish their national security credibility and possibly help our diplomacy with Iran. The candidate should announce that he/she would implement a "Kill List" deterrence policy regarding any terrorist nuclear attack.
The idea behind a kill list is that normal deterrence might not work if a country like Iran developed a nuclear bomb and then "handed it off" to one of their proxies for use, or used it in such a way as to be less likely to be traced back to them as a state actor. For example, instead of a normal missile launch they would have Hezbollah smuggle the bomb in a shipping container to Long Beach and blow it up there. Iran could deny responsibility for the attack. Now we could probably trace the material signature, etc., back to them, and then strike back, but the Kill List makes it more automatic.
The Kill List also encourages those on the list to stop any proliferation they might be considering. North Korea might think long and hard before helping Syria or Iran out with a nuke program if they thought they would be held collectively responsible.
Another attraction of the Kill List is that you can offer to remove countries from the list as part of your bag of carrots during negotiations or make noises about adding countries as well. I remember how the Taiwanese hated being on the Super 301 List and incessantly bitched about it, but the have far better intellectual protection now in Taiwan as a result. (Sadly this killed off the MTV .)
Why should the Democratic candidate think about supporting such a Kill List policy? (And they would not have to be too explicit about naming names, etc.)
1. It's probably a good idea by itself. Even just discussing it serves as a warning to proliferating regimes.
2. It would assist their diplomatic position if elected.
3. It would burnish their national security credibility.
4. It's a pretty cheap program.
The Kill List also encourages those on the list to stop any proliferation they might be considering. North Korea might think long and hard before helping Syria or Iran out with a nuke program if they thought they would be held collectively responsible.
Another attraction of the Kill List is that you can offer to remove countries from the list as part of your bag of carrots during negotiations or make noises about adding countries as well. I remember how the Taiwanese hated being on the Super 301 List and incessantly bitched about it, but the have far better intellectual protection now in Taiwan as a result. (Sadly this killed off the MTV .)
Why should the Democratic candidate think about supporting such a Kill List policy? (And they would not have to be too explicit about naming names, etc.)
1. It's probably a good idea by itself. Even just discussing it serves as a warning to proliferating regimes.
2. It would assist their diplomatic position if elected.
3. It would burnish their national security credibility.
4. It's a pretty cheap program.
3 comments:
Is this satire?
Nah, not good enough for satire. Not real serious either. Pretty much just boredom.
Maybe you can pick a topic for me?
Seriously.
BTW, this is the sort of stuff poli sci majors actually learn about. (I mean the deterrence stuff.)
Post a Comment