More thoughts on threats...

Sun Tzu, Jomini, von Clausewitz, B H Liddle Hart... all espoused theories on the strategy and tactics of waging and winning war.  All seem to say the same thing about the nature of threats that the US faces today in the post-Cold War era:

We are creating our own problems through our success.

I'm not becoming some pacifistic loony with delusions of "make love not war"... I'm being quite serious.

Since the early 90s, the US has shown itself completely capable of total victory in almost any conventional military action, in any environment, against any adversary.  Even in our darkest military hours, during actions like the Vietnam War, we won all the battles but failed to win the war because we failed to understand the nature of our enemy's goals.

The victory of the "West" in the Cold War has shown that the strategy of mutually assured destruction was enough to deter an exchange of nuclear weapons on a global scale, while our superiority in conventional methods of warfare far exceeded that of the USSR and her allies.  In 1991, in less than 100 hours, the US-led coalition (mostly US troops and equipment) utterly defeated the third largest standing army on the face of the earth and liberated a small nation from an occupying force in less time than it took that force to invade.  In 2001, the US invaded and defeated a hateful, tyrannical regime in Afghanistan in less than six months, but has fought ever since to keep the extremists from regaining power.  In 2003, the efforts begun in 1991 were completed when we over-threw the Ba'athists in Iraq in less than 28 days.

No nation that could be called an "enemy" today could hope to compete with what we can field in a matter of hours... militarily speaking.  Not North Korea, not Iran... probably not even China or Russia.

Therein lies the root of our problems.  This level of success forces "enemies" to look for means of success outside of the traditional "conventional" means of waging warfare.  Thus, our success is driving the proliferation of nuclear-capable nations like Iraq, North Korea and Iran.

I'm not saying this to promote the strategy of "lose to win"... far from.  I'm saying that history has proven that enemies will find the means to attack a superior force, even if that superior force is capable of defeating the attacker by all conventional means.  Sun Tzu says we must attack first, destroy the potential enemies and their ability to harm us, and thus remove the threat with the least amount of risk or cost to us... but that is not an option for us in this modern world, is it?  Yes, we could nuke or carpet-bomb North Korea and Iran into fused glass, but we'd gain no real or tangible security from the effort because we would make enemies of all other nations in the process.

My point is simply that the threats must be addressed, and cannot be ignored or disregarded.  If the potential exists that a nation like Iran or North Korea could use ONE nuclear device to impede or impair our ability to function as a society rather than destroy a single city, then it must be addressed.  If the means to mitigate damage from an EMP attack exist now, then they should be (at the very least) considered and discussed, if not implemented.  If the means to defend against such attacks by single or limited numbers of missiles exists, then we should explore those means, rather than assume that such defenses will only spur greater antagonism in the future.