rewarded for carrying out mass destruction on what they call the infidels. They don't respond to deterrence the same way that Pyongyang in North Korea would. There's a far greater risk to them having a nuclearweapon than than even having that in in a communist totalitarian state like North Korea. But for Canada in this
And he explained that-- and this is a perpetual problem in our deterrence strategy. Deterrence requires-- to deter, you have to credibly be able to commit to impose pain on the adversary when the adversary does something to youthat you don't want to happen to you.
and an abiding permanent tough reality and they did this through a strategy known as deterrence deterrence means you hit me i hit you back harder until you get the message that it's nota good idea to hit me and you desist you leave me alone
a good idea to hit me and you desist you leave me alone deterrence was working but it was slow 45 years from 1948 to 1993 had not led to successit was expensive it required a huge standing army and even larger reserve army
change their minds and so by 1993 the israelis were fed up with this slow boring passive process of deterrence in the hopes of victory and decided to try something elseand that was what was inaugurated on the white house lawn in
in other words everything went worse so deterrence was too slow appeasement failedand since 2000 the major effort has been unilateral withdrawal the first ocean ladder
at most hundreds which is more than enough for any reasonable uh go role of deterrence and again I hope the Obama Administration will follow through onwhat they what seem to be their first steps in this direction the bush there was a treaty of Moscow signed between
to examine what they called the "deterrence theory," a very simple theory widely, widely held, particularly in the legal profession, hence the journal they published it in. And deterrence theory is very simple. If you want someone to do less of something, add a punishment. If you want someone to do more of something, take a punishment away. Straightforward, common sensical, also largely untested. So they said, "We're gonna test it." So, they went and observed ten day care centers in Haifa, Israel. And they observed those day
Well, the alliances uh, the US alliances with Japan and South Korea are uh, both related to deterrence against threats from North Korea and increasingly uh, especially in the Korean case um, the scope is expanding to include China.
need these exercises. Uh, and so that's exactly the opposite of the conventional wisdom, which is we need to have deterrence in place because there is a hostile relationship uh, and it will be necessary to go through long negotiations in order to build trust and uh, establish conditions
through long negotiations in order to build trust and uh, establish conditions under which deterrence is not necessary. Okay, so where does this scaling back and the disparaging remarks that we've
But there is a lot of precedent for this. So we want this deterrence effect.
We can't do defense very well as a nation. We can't do deterrence very well as a nation, which is why the frog is slowly boiling. This is a big topic.
I do. The first one could lead to an accidental war, or a war by miscalculation. A minimal deterrence by definition means you're not going to use the force.
the west should and the united states in particular encourage israel to win not just defend itself but to engage in deterrence to convince the enemies of israel they can't win the gig is up they've lost israel's there it's a thriving modern democratic state and they have to come around to
nuclear weapon capability but the danger is not that iran would then use that weapon to attack israel or attack the united states deterrence is alive and well one bomb doesn't do you a lot of good you use it you're done you're now vulnerable the united states israel any other country iran try to attack with that weapon would surely respond with
I do. The first one could lead to an accidental war, or a war by miscalculation. That's technically called a minimal deterrence , and China not only had that kind of force, but they have proclaimed that's the kind of a force they have.
I do. The first one could lead to an accidental war, or a war by miscalculation. They're obviously moving beyond the minimal deterrence force, which I would think is not good news.
Or as a cabinet official told me, that malware was "just like a WMD." And that's why we needed to approach it in the same kind of deterrence theory that we used in the Cold War. What these people fail to appreciate is the parallel to the Cold War is not the one they think they're making.
excuse me, from an essay published by Uri Gneezy and Alfredo Rustichini in the Journal of Legal Studies in the beginning of this decade. And Gneezy and Rustichini set out to examine what they called the "deterrence theory," a very simple theory widely, widely held, particularly in the legal profession, hence the journal they published it in. And deterrence theory is very simple. If you want someone to do less of something, add a punishment. If you want someone to do more of something, take a punishment away. Straightforward,
years has been one of strategic vacuum dealing with problems on a day-to-day basis but not having a larger purpose as had been the case under deterrence as had been the case under appeasement my third concept is victory i've mentioned this in passing back in 1993 the prime minister of israel was yitzhak robin
for israel to win my council visit israel should go back to its old policy of deterrence nothing fancy nothing novel nothing original but this implies that the israeli goal and our goal in helping them is to help the palestinians have a
Keep the troops stationed inside South Korea for that reason to prevent deterrence essentially. Yes, for deterrence and part of the package is that Americans are going to offer what is called a nuclear umbrella. And the the contract here is that South Korea do not go and develop your own nuclear weapons because Americans will
kind of a new Advantage we have to getting some background data uh in terms of mitigation um we actually use sound to our advantage in some cases um using acoustic deterrence to drive potential groups of animals that will potentially Mass strand in our Hotpot areas like Wellfleet and other spots in Cape Cod Bay and using it to actually um
have in terms of their intelligence and military arsenals, and the reputations that countries have for using these capabilities-- how all this has come together to either produce credible defense commitments to establish deterrence , or fail to do those things. The history of that tells us a lot about some of the things that policymakers have struggled with with respect to nuclear terrorism.
We're not faced with that kind of threat today as we thought we were during the Cold War. How many we need to give us a level of deterrence is to stop any other country who has nuclear weapons from thinking they could attack us, is measured in the hundreds, not in the thousands--a few hundred, I would say, at the most.
Getting down to that number is a huge political problem. It has nothing to do with the need for deterrence . It has to do with the fact that many people in this country, maybe most people in this country, would be reluctant for us to come down to a few hundred nuclear weapons if Russia
Sec. William Perry: We haven't tested a bomb or built a new bomb for several decades now. And so, this deterrence , which we have today, comes whether we have a hundred or a thousand or two thousand. It comes from weapons which are 30, 40 years old and being carried by missiles which are almost as old.
israel that was faltering that no longer had the determination at least they perceived it no longer had the determination that it had in the earlier period of deterrence and palestinians instead of coming warming to israel and becoming more accepting of it quite the reverse became more resolute
about a company and this company did some sort of practice, bad practice and you say how much do you want to find a company? You could find them a medium amount which will cause them some harm or serve. So the the the purposes of deterrence is a legitimate purpose. But often we want revenge now
Koreans and this is why for many decades South Koreans have demanded that the US keep their troops and this will Keep the troops stationed inside South Korea for that reason to prevent deterrence essentially. Yes, for deterrence and part of the package is that Americans are going to offer what is called a nuclear umbrella.
need Americans? And in that case, have Americans lowered their commitment and really lowered the confidence that Asian allies have in America about deterrence , about giving aids and protection. And in that case, if South Korea no longer can rely on America to come to its aid, then what's
You know, although this is something that has been said before, at this moment, it kind of feels different to hear South Korea talk about going its own way and being strong on its own and having their own deterrence . And I think there is this risk that we hear from experts that essentially it is
Uh, the US-Japan alliance has always had China as a regional threat. Uh, but increasingly I think for the US-Korea relationship, it's really dual deterrence against North Korea and China at this stage. So, does that appear to be changing or is this Donald Trump saying, "Well,
But there is a lot of precedent for this. Initially, but there's a deterrence effect.
It was a conceptual device to make certain points about the nature of deterrence that would, on being triggered-- and you could preset it to be triggered by whatever you want,
And he was being questioned about why the United States did not do more. And he explained that-- and this is a perpetual problem in our deterrence strategy. Deterrence requires-- to deter, you have to credibly be able to commit to impose pain on the adversary when the adversary does something to you
I do. The first one could lead to an accidental war, or a war by miscalculation. I'm hopeful that they're still staying more or less within the minimum deterrence policy, even though they are modernizing, and improving, and strengthening their forces.
Phillip Taubman: Speak up a little bit, please. So, this is not simply about deterrence .
there was a constant effort to get the egyptians the jordanians the syrians and others to accept that israel was there and an abiding permanent tough reality and they did this through a strategy known as deterrence deterrence means you hit me i hit you back harder until you get the message that it's not
1993 no longer was victory the goal it became resolution of the problem and no longer was victory sorry no longer was deterrence the strategic method rather it was negotiations
- If we wanna avoid wars, we have to have serious deterrence because our enemies need to understand, we will use selective, focused,
And my work then-- and it still continues-- has been on bringing risk analysis to bear on the question of nuclear deterrence .
I do. The first one could lead to an accidental war, or a war by miscalculation. For many decades since then, their policy was to maintain a minimal deterrence .
One of the things that was most studied in criminology is this question, does increasing the punishment create deterrence .
So if you do raise the chances of getting caught, meaning you put more officers out there, you do see a change in deterrence .
If not, like you can put them, you know, you will have less crime because they will be in prison more, but in many of the cases, deterrence
One reason, it would be much, much cheaper than our current Strategic Air Command that depends on deterrence by building thousands of weapons,
I'd always read the newspaper from a very early age from cover to cover reading about Afghanistan, the Soviet invasion, nuclear deterrence .
would be worse when Iran counter-retaliated. And he said earlier, and this is, I think, the conclusion of the US government, we simply can't do deterrence . We can't do defense very well as a nation.