Nuclear Security and Strategic Analyses Dr Marko Beljac

Obama’s QDR Adopts Tailored Deterrence

I have been going through the QDR. I cannot help but notice that tailored deterrence is mentioned in the document, (p14)

...Credibly underwriting U.S. defense commitments will demand tailored approaches to deterrence. Such tailoring requires an in-depth understanding of the capabilities, values, intent, and decision making of potential adversaries, whether they are individuals, networks, or states. Deterrence also depends on integrating all aspects of national power...

It is important to stress that this is not written with respect to nuclear strategy, but it is the sentence that immediately appears above a small discussion of nuclear deterrence.

A key assumption driving Obama's acceptance of Bush's strategy of tailored deterrence, at least in the conventional sense, is the notion of "hybrid" adversarial strategies. Potential adversaries, both state and non-state, threaten to employ a variety of asymmetric means to counter US military power. Such hybrid strategies require that deterrence be tailored.

These hybrid strategies are spoken of in the conventional, not nuclear, sense. You can see that the comments on hybrid warfare play a key conceptual role underpinning tailored deterrence, (p8)

...From non-state actors using highly advanced military technology and sophisticated information operations to states employing unconventional technologies, our current adversaries have shown that they will tailor their strategies and employ their capabilities in sophisticated ways. The term “hybrid” has recently been used to capture the seemingly increased complexity of war, the multiplicity of actors involved, and the blurring between traditional categories of conflict. While the existence of innovative adversaries is not new, today’s hybrid approaches demand that U.S. forces prepare for a range of conflicts...

Nuclear planners need only adopt a similar conception of hybrid WMD based adversarial strategies (and adversaries) to accept tailored deterrence in the Nuclear Posture Review. In fact, (p14 again), the QDR might well be telling us this

...To reinforce U.S. commitments to our allies and partners, we will consult closely with them on new, tailored, regional deterrence architectures that combine our forward presence, relevant conventional capabilities (including missile defenses), and continued commitment to extend our nuclear deterrent. These regional architectures and new capabilities, as detailed in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review and the forthcoming Nuclear Posture Review, make possible a reduced role for nuclear weapons in our national security strategy...

One could easily draw a connection here between tailored deterrence and nuclear deterrence. It seems to me, at any rate, that the above comment suggests this.

The bit about the reduced role, I think, is pretty much just a sop to Obama's talk about "going to zero". During the Bush era tailored deterrence was the key concept that led to expansion in the scope of nuclear deterrence, even as the US reduced its nuclear arsenal to SORT levels.

Most nuclear analysts have "weaponitis". It is the doctrines associated with the use of nuclear weapons that should matter first and foremost.

If I were to construct a course called "nuclear weapons 101" that would be my very first point.

I will have more to say about the QDR through the coming week.