For more than four decades during the Cold War, deterrence has been a key element of US defence policy and it can even be argued that the strategy of nuclear deterrence thwarted a major military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA. With the end of superpower tensions and the end of the Cold War itself, the deterrence system became obsolete. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11 brought deterrence back on the political agenda. In its National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction the USA calls for “new methods of deterrence” in order to meet the threats of global terrorism.
The question arises whether deterrence, which seems to have worked in a traditional setting, where one state deters military action of another state, can work in a non-traditional confrontation between a state and an abstract opponent like terrorism? In order to establish whether deterrence can work against terrorism, this essay will firstly look at the theory of deterrence. What are the criteria that must be fulfilled for deterrence to be successful and why does it not work in all situations?
Secondly, this essay identifies the main characteristics of the terrorist threat and establishes what the difficulties of deterrence in this specific asymmetric confrontation might be. The main difficulty seems to be the problem to execute appropriate action should deterrence fail, since the target is often unclear and the perpetrator of the terrorist action most likely dead. Special attention is given to the moral dilemma that derives from suggestions to execute retaliation actions against the families of suicide bombers in order to deter others from becoming suicide bombers as suggested by Steinberg. He argues that terrorism can indeed be deterred, if the concept was applied correctly, that is against terrorist leaders, who are “not so quick to give up their own lives” .
Finally, this essay will conclude that although it might be possible to deter individual terrorist actions , terrorism itself cannot be deterred by military means. And if the aim is indeed to eradicate terrorism completely, like the rhetoric used in the war on terrorism seems to suggest, deterrence is certainly not the most effective strategy.
Table of Contents
1. Deterrence and Terrorism – Can Global Terrorism be deterred?
Objectives and Themes
This essay explores the applicability of traditional deterrence theory—originally developed for inter-state Cold War confrontations—to the contemporary, non-traditional threat of global terrorism. The central research question examines whether, and to what extent, deterrence can function against an abstract, non-state adversary, and identifies the inherent challenges posed by this asymmetric security landscape.
- The theoretical foundations and essential criteria of successful deterrence.
- The structural differences between state-based threats and decentralized terrorist networks.
- The moral and legal complexities of retaliatory actions against state sponsors of terrorism.
- The potential for defensive measures to deter specific, individual terrorist operations.
- The limitations of using military deterrence as a tool for the complete eradication of terrorism.
Excerpt from the Book
Deterrence and Terrorism – Can Global Terrorism be deterred?
For more than four decades during the Cold War, deterrence has been a key element of US defence policy and it can even be argued that the strategy of nuclear deterrence thwarted a major military confrontation between the Soviet Union and the USA. With the end of superpower tensions and the end of the Cold War itself, the deterrence system became obsolete. However, the terrorist attacks of September 11 brought deterrence back on the political agenda. In its National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction the USA calls for “new methods of deterrence” in order to meet the threats of global terrorism.
The question arises whether deterrence, which seems to have worked in a traditional setting, where one state deters military action of another state, can work in a non-traditional confrontation between a state and an abstract opponent like terrorism? In order to establish whether deterrence can work against terrorism, this essay will firstly look at the theory of deterrence. What are the criteria that must be fulfilled for deterrence to be successful and why does it not work in all situations?
Summary of Chapters
Deterrence and Terrorism – Can Global Terrorism be deterred?: This section introduces the historical context of deterrence post-Cold War and establishes the core problem of applying traditional state-centric military strategies to modern, decentralized terrorist threats.
Keywords
Deterrence, Terrorism, Global Security, Cold War, Asymmetric Warfare, Retaliation, Credibility, Capability, International Law, Suicide Bombing, Defensive Measures, Military Strategy, State Sponsors, Rationality, Conflict Management.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic paper?
The paper evaluates the feasibility of employing classical deterrence theory as a counter-terrorism strategy in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.
What are the primary thematic areas addressed?
The study examines the mechanics of deterrence, the characteristics of terrorist threats, the ethical dilemmas of military retaliation, and the strategic differences between traditional warfare and anti-terrorism.
What is the central research objective?
The primary goal is to determine if terrorism can be deterred like traditional state actors, or if the lack of clear targets and varying motivations makes such a strategy fundamentally flawed.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The work employs a theoretical analysis and conceptual evaluation of deterrence, drawing upon historical examples, political science literature, and existing international security strategies.
What core topics are discussed in the main body?
The text analyzes the requirements of communication, capability, and credibility in deterrence, the irrationality versus rationality of terrorist actors, and the legal issues surrounding state-level retaliation.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include Deterrence, Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare, Credibility, Retaliation, and Defensive Measures.
Why does the author argue that traditional deterrence often fails against terrorism?
The author highlights that deterrence requires a clear, rational target that values survival; since terrorists are often non-state actors or individuals prepared for martyrdom, traditional threats against their lives or state interests are often ineffective or counterproductive.
What role do defensive measures play in the author's conclusion?
While the author concludes that terrorism itself cannot be fully eradicated by military deterrence, they argue that defensive measures can potentially deter individual terrorist actions by increasing operational risks for the perpetrators.
- Citar trabajo
- Patrick Wagner (Autor), 2004, Deterrence and Terrorism: Can Global Terrorism be deterred?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/26031
