I keep hearing about the threat of hypersonic missiles, and I keep wondering how this changes things?
My bias: I am a big believer in mutual assured destruction and a big skeptic of strategic missile defense.
Yes, countries are developing missiles that go much faster. Does this dramatically increase the threat to North America? I don't believe it does. The US has not yet developed a reliable, near 100% system for defending itself against ballistic missiles, so the impact of such hypersonics is ... to hasten our deaths in a nuclear war. We would die faster.
I have heard some folks say that Canada might get hit by Russian or Chinese hypersonics equipped with conventional warheads during a Taiwan or Baltic scenario to discourage our participation. Let me point out some of the problems with this:
the most obvious is: why should either country care that much about Canadian participation in such a conflict?
any missiles being flung at Canadian cities (which are almost all near the US) would be seen as an attack on the US. How confident can Chinese or Russian leaders be that the U.S. would not respond upon launch with a nuclear response? Remember, a key to nuclear deterrence is that you only need a small risk of the worst thing happening to do deter. So, can Xi or Putin or whoever be 100% the US wouldn't fire back?
One of the basics of the nuclear era is that offense is easier/cheaper than defense, so any effort to build up defenses will be a waste of money in an offense/defense arms race. We are seeing this now with drones versus counter-drone technology--that the US has used up most of its anti-missile missiles and Iran has plenty more cheap drones to send at American ships and other targets. Maybe there will be a breakthrough for a cheaper way to knock down drones. And, of course, a few conventional drones leaking through is not a huge deal. A few nuclear hypersonic missiles will absolutely ruin your day.
So, yes, we should not be pleased that missiles are getting faster, but it does not change the fundamental reality that has existed since the 1960s--mutual assured destruction deters nuclear war. Does it deter conventional war? Absolutely in Europe--Putin has not engaged in any conventional attacks despite much temptation. Does it work in South Asia? Kind of, sort of. Yes, India and Pakistan have engaged in conflict, but thus far, none has escalated very far. The two countries fought several major wars before they each had nuclear weapons.
Anyhow, I keep seeing all kinds of threats being inflated, but the world is scary enough without exaggerating some of them. The reality is that climate change and far right subversion of democracy are realities that are hurting people every day, and, no, the military can't help us with those. So, let's focus on the real threats that are doing real damage, and stop fantasizing about the other stuff.
Today's Guns and Butter Reel features Mexican Hot Chocolate Cookies and my discussing threat inflation. First, yes, I did invest in a phone mount that I can put on my wall so I can have a better angle on my baking. Second, no, I am not hiring an editor or using any CDSN/CSIDS/NPSIA/SSHRC/MINDS/whatever resources for this. This is too silly for any government-funded help, even if this does count as "knowledge mobilization" even if the knowledge is often a bit thin. I am trying to make these shorter since instagram videos and baking videos and their ilk are not long. So, I realized today that when I am recording a video, there is a small timer on the screen. And the key is to focus on one topic, one quote, one thing, rather than trying to attack or address something from multiple angles (such as in yesterday's discussion of Jessica Green's book where I invoked both Machiavelli and the classic concentrated pain, diffuse benefits tale).
I am trying to tie the IR discussion to the thing I am baking. So, as I stuffed mostly chocolate dough with frozen mini-marshmallows and not overstuffing them while talking about threat inflation. Why threat inflation? Because I guest lectured about Arctic security this week. I am not an Arctic Security expert, but I do call myself an Arctic Security Skeptic™. So, I discussed how the government of Canada pretty deliberately raised concerns about the Chinese and Russian threats to the Arctic to get the public to support defence spending.
My take:
Russia's Arctic investments are almost entirely due to their feelings of insecurity over their vast Arctic--that there will be far more traffic on their side, that this used to be the one direction that a frequently invaded country didn't have to worry about. And, as Napoleon said, don't interrupt your adversary when they are making a mistake. Putting a lot of weapons/bases/etc in the north is mostly a waste of money.
China's Arctic threat is not military but economic and political--offering to provide internet for Inuit peoples, buying up mining firms, etc. Not a random balloon or surveillance ship. What the hell is up there to surveil?
The US? Actually, the US is on the right side of the Law of the Sea and Canada is on the wrong side. The big thing with the US right now is NORAD modernization so I talked a bit about that.
That threat inflation scares the folks up there, which ain't good.
What is needed is more infrastructure/support for the peoples of the north so that our sovereignty claims are, ironically, maintained through them, not despite them or around them.
Climate change, disinformation, and cyber stuff are the key threats to Canadians in the north and everywhere else, and that stuff is mostly not military (and the military really wants not to do.emergency ops).
I do think Canada needs to spend more $ on defence because of the threats elsewhere and because of the use of the military as an instrument of, yes, policy. But not because of little green men invading the high north.
Anyhow, more cookie making and more of these reels over the next month as I prepare for the big cookie delivery of winterfest. As always, baking is joy, cookies are joy, giving cookies is joy, and making videos about IR and baking is also joy, at least for me.
The desperate effort to make Iran the bogeyman has got me thinking.
Pompeo is proving Wendt right--threats are what we make of them. Iran is really not that big a threat to US interests
UNLESS
US interests become conflated w Saudi/Israeli interests. https://t.co/6FHjQYbk04
What are the threats facing the US? What are the most worrisome, the ones most likely to do both significant and lasting damage? Which ones are, dare I say it, existential? Focusing on international threats (which lets me dodge naming Trump an existential threat to the US and mostly let's me dodge the related threat of white supremacy), here's the list as I see it from my hotel room in Berlin before I give a talk this afternoon on my civ-mil project:
1. Climate change. Yeah, I named a dynamic, not a country, as climate change is going to make a big dent on the US in ways that we are only now starting to appreciate.
2. Russia. Close call, but a declining and desperate Russia that is willing to subvert US elections (and British and French and etc) is a greater threat than China. China's damage is potential, Russia's harm is ongoing. That Russia's future is kind of bleak does not make Russia less threatening--the prospect of loss is far more likely to lead to risk acceptance, gambling, and bad stuff. Just as Dany. Ok, ask Daniel and Amos
3. China has more power, other than numbers of nukes, than Russia, and straddles more important territory--South China Sea. It has been taking the gloves off of its rise, as seen by its reaction to the Huawei executive being arrested in Canada for extradition to the US. China has been playing the long game while Russia has been gambling every day. China is surely going to be more successful and pose risks to the US down the road. Right now, it is just a trade war and some island disputes. It will be more than that although I am not so concerned about China in the Arctic. There are much more immediate problems (Taiwan, Koreas, South China Sea).
4. Speaking of the Koreas, North Korea is a significant threat. Unlike Iran, North Korea has nuclear weapons and missiles and is a personalist dictatorship--which means few constraints on the leader. The frustrating thing about Iran is that Trump seems determined into making Iran like North Korea by dumping the deal. Of course, North Korea was scarier last year because Trump was amping things up.
5. ISIS/Al Qaeda/etc. These organizations can inspire and sometimes organize terrorist attacks. Uncontested, ISIS did a great deal of damage.
6. Saudi Arabia. Yeah, more than Iran. Why? Because the Saudis have more influence and allies. Most folks in the Mideast are worried about Iran and are not its friends, so Iran has to sink resources into Syria. The Saudis can continue to promote extremism (how many 9/11 attackers were from Iran? from Saudi Arabia?). The Saudis have and want to continue to suck the US into wars it should not be fighting. Yeah, Iran supports terrorism, but so does Saudi Arabia. I would say that the one way in which Iran is a greater threat is its nuclear weapons program, but the Trump folks seem determined to have the Saudis catch up.
7. Iran. Twas a manageable threat with the deal in place. Yes, Iran supports terrorism, Iran supports Assad, Iran is a pain in the ass. But not an existential threat to the US. If the Israelis think Iran is an existential threat, well, that is why they have nuclear weapons. No country has attacked Israel since 1973--I don't count Hamas or Hezbollah as countries, despite their efforts to become countries. Note the Israeli Foreign Ministry does list the 1990-91 war as well.
8. Syria. Mostly by creating waves of refugees that undermine our allies.
What other countries threaten the US? I am sure some folks would like to list Venezuela, but that is stretching the concept of threat. What harm can Venezuela do to the US? Exactly. Cuba? Same thing. I am sure other places/movements can be mentioned, but do any outrank any of these? Let me know if you think I am wrong. I woke up early here in Berlin so I could watch Game of Thrones unspoiled, so I may not be remembering all of the threats.
To be clear, the US is still the most powerful country on the planet, it is far more resilient than its politicians think (hey, we shake off our kids getting killed by spree shooters all the time), it is still far away from adversaries and most crisis zones. Immigration is not a threat but an opportunity. Mostly, the greatest threats to the US are Americans--Trump and his coterie, white supremacists, etc. In a recent episode of Game of Thrones, after defeating the Night King, Tyrion said something to the effect that now we have to deal with us. That we are the threat to ourselves, and that would be true even if we didn't take into account climate change. Yes, the US's position of primacy is ending, but that does not mean the US is really threatened. It just can't impose its will alone as much as it could for about 20 years.
