Terrorism, the Threat in Perspective and Great Power Conflict, by Paul K. Chisholm
We've heard much about terrorism since the 9/11 attacks. It has become an issue at the forefront of foreign policy and the mainstream media. The danger is no doubt real, the threat to be taken seriously. However, looking at the big picture, we should keep terrorism in perspective and perhaps have a look at more traditional threats to world peace - namely conflict between the great powers.
It is a matter of some speculation the damage terrorists could inflict on the western democracies. The worst case scenario being an attack with weapons of mass destruction on a major urban center. A reasonable estimate would place the death toll running from tens of thousands to perhaps a million with accompanying destruction/disruption of domestic infrastructure. The panic would no doubt exceed the actual damage.
The ability of terrorist groups to effectively deliver weapons of mass destruction is open to debate. Chemical and biological weapons, while lethal and having great psychological impact may not be able to inflict the kind of mass damage many perceive. Nuclear weapons are the only available that can offer a guarantee of mass destruction. To obtain, deliver and detonate one is no easy task.
As frightening as such scenarios are, actual damage would be limited to a city or relatively small geographic area. Simultaneous attacks on several cities with weapons of mass destruction are beyond the reach of international terrorist organizations, especially in the heightened security of the post 9/11 era.
Terrorism is usually discussed as an unprecedented threat to western civilization. Those of us who grew up during the cold war were presented with a far more frightening threat to world civilization - the clash to two nuclear armed superpowers.
Government officials, military leaders, foreign policy experts and journalists of the cold war era, right up until its end, presented the following scenario:
A nuclear war would begin and end with a conventional attack on East Germany lasting approximately 30 minutes. This would be followed by nuclear strikes against major targets in both the United States and Soviet Union and other strategic locations. Accounting for delivery time the world, as we knew it, would end in approximately 90 minutes. To add insult to injury nuclear winter would follow rendering the Earth uninhabitable.
This was made possible, as anti-nuclear protesters told us, by each superpower possessing enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world four times over.
Coming back to the present, we are in a transitional stage brought about by 9/11. For the duration of the 1990s the potential for great power conflict was considerably less than during the cold war. Even the last few years have seen little real potential for a major war between superpowers.
It was the 9/11 attacks that prompted a more aggressive foreign policy by the United States, soon to be imitated by other nations that have put us back on the path of the potential for major conflict.
The immediate focus after the attacks was on international terrorist organizations. We then began to hear about rogue states for which the Bush Doctrine's most famous principle began to gain attention - pre-emptive strikes. The use of such strikes in the Bush Doctrine was originally reserved only for the United States. Many observers at the time warned that a foreign policy Pandora's box had been opened.
The concept of pre-emptive strikes has now been adopted as a legitimate response by Russia. Putin has stated he would strike terrorist organizations anywhere in the world to protect the Russian homeland. Ask yourself what would happen should such a strike run counter to the interests of the United States or her allies?
Another corner stone of the Bush Doctrine states that no foreign power should approach or equal the United States military capability. US military dominance is a concern of Russia and China. Both nations have been moving to establish closer ties and expand their military capability.
Russia has announced they are developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. They are also negotiating increased arms sales to China and are cross training their military. The two countries have also signed agreements offering support for suppression of separatist movements within their borders. China has recently passed a law authorizing force against Taiwan should the island try for independence. With Europe considering lifting the ban of weapons sales to China there is potential for real trouble.
We're not in another cold war yet, but we're moving back into the era of great power politics. Russia is the wild card, sitting on the fence between a western or eastern orientation.
A look at the globe will tell you there is potential for major war, between India and Pakistan, whose relations always run tense; the growing prominence of Asian nations China and Korea could bring tension with Japan and finally in the next decade we'll see American interests threatened by great power alliance.
Terrorism kills people and disrupts civilian life on a limited scale. It doesn't lead to the fall of nations and wide spread annihilation. Only great power conflict can do that. Should we not refocus our attention and foreign policy now? Diplomacy should be redirected to head off a full scale arms race and potential conflicts between nuclear parties.
-- Paul K. Chisholm, April 2005
More of Paul's Opinion Columns