Table Of ContentAAnnaallyyssiiss ooff DDeetteerrrreennccee
CDR (s) Harrison Schramm
NNaavvaall PPoossttggrraadduuaattee SScchhooooll
Report Documentation Page Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE 3. DATES COVERED
JAN 2011 2. REPORT TYPE 00-00-2011 to 00-00-2011
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Analysis of Deterrence
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey,CA,93943 REPORT NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
2011 Force Structure Workshop, TASC Heritage Conference Center, Chantilly, VA, 24-27 January 2011
14. ABSTRACT
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF
ABSTRACT OF PAGES RESPONSIBLE PERSON
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE Same as 19
unclassified unclassified unclassified Report (SAR)
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
Agenda
• WWhhaatt iiss ddeetteerrrreennccee??
• A review of Analytic Methods
• CCase SStuddiies
• Implications and prospects for deterrence
2
Motivation
“(I want) to take the lessons of the
ppaasstt iinn nnuucclleeaarr ddeetteerrrreennccee aanndd
apply them moving forward” –
ADM Mike Mullen
”the instruments of war do have a
role to play in preserving the
peace. And yet this truth must
coexist with another ‐ that no
matter how justified, war promises
human tragedy.”
‐‐ President Obama’s Nobel Peace
speech
3
Deterrence:
Is.. Is challenging to study because…
• A coercive strategy which aims • We only gain partial
to maintain the status quo by information about
fforciing an addversary tto re‐ effffecttiiveness.
consider the costs and
– When we (or others are
benefits of their actions attacked) we can conclude that
our deterrence was insufficient
• RReeqquuiirreess::
– When attacks to not happen, it
– The ability to inflict harm to
may be because of our
something the adversary values
deterrent, or another effect.
– The Will to inflict this harm
• WWee nneevveerr ttrruullyy kknnooww tthhee
– Effective communication of
motivations / utilities of our
the ability and will
adversaries.
• Can sum these up in one
– Their private utilities are
wwoorrdd:: CCRREEDDIIBBIILLIITTYY
probbabblly ‘‘unkknowabblle’’
NNoo oonnee wwaannttss ttoo bbee iinn tthhee ppoossiittiioonn ooff ffiinnddiinngg aa pprroobblleemm bbootthh iimmppoorrttaanntt
for study and without good analytic methods to tackle it. ‐ Jervis
4
Analytic Methods
• Critical Thinking / Systems Analysis
– Kent’s First Strike Stability
• Statistical Analysis: fitting models to datasets
– DDiiffffiiccuullttiieess:: CCooddiinngg ddaattaa, mmooddeell ssppeecciiffiiccaattiioonn, ddeessccrriippttiivvee
statistics. Presupposes model format.
– Huth, Signoriono
• GGame TThheory
– Difficulties: presupposes an ability to compute utilities
– Schellingg, Zaggare and Kilggour
• History
– Difficulties: May not be applicable to future campaigns
– MMeeeerrsshhiimmeerr, KKeeeeggaann, ootthheerrss
5
General Conclusions
• Deterrence requires all the levers of national power – it is not
simpplyy a militaryy pproblem – ((all methods))
• Deterrence is most likely to fail when:
– At least one side perceives the campaign will be ‘quick’ and
‘easy’ (History, Strike Stability)
– At least one side perceives the campaign feels that they
aarree iinn aa ‘uussee oorr lloossee’ ssiittuuaattiioonn ((HHiissttoorryy, GGaammee TThheeoorryy))
– Deterrence postures irrelevant if not effectively
communicated (History, Statistics)
– Communication Fails (History)
• The objective of deterrence cannot be ‘Everything –
EEvveerryywwhheerree’’ – wwee sshhoouulldd pprriioorriittiizzee wwhhaatt wwee wwiisshh ttoo ddeetteerr.
6
Who is deterrable?
Deterrable Not deterrable
• Nations that seek to • Groups who do not seek to
minimize costs minimize costs
– Because they don’t count
them
– Because they have ideological
imperatives to act
– Because theyy seek conflict
• Nations that feel secure in
• Nations who feel they are in
their nuclear (and other)
a use // lloose siittuattiion.
deterrents
7
Nuclear Deterrence: The Gold Standard?
• Sources of Stability:
•Kent’s model of Nuclear
– CClleeaarr CCoommmmuunniiccaattiioonnss
DDeetteerrrreennccee
– Assured Retaliation
•Advantages: tractable,
• Sources of Instability:
simpple,, eleggant
– “Splendid First Strike”
•Disadvantages: Measures the
– Deterrence capability made
‘costs’ of attacking first versus
irrelevant:
tthhe ‘‘costts’’ off attttackkiing secondd
• Communication lapses i.e.
•The closer this ratio is to Saddam Hussein
unityy,, the more stable the – “Mandates” – Political or
personal motives that force a
system is.
solution
• Germany WWII?
8
Kent’s Model of deterrence
FFiirrsstt ssttrriikkee SSttaabbiilliittyy IInnddeexx::
CC CC
AA,11 BB,11
FFSSSSII
C C
A,2 B,2
Where: C represents costs; several definitions have been used
RRaattiiooss ddoonn’tt tteellll tthhee wwhhoollee ssttoorryy;; mmaaggnniittuuddee ooff ppootteennttiiaall ccoossttss kkeeyy aass
well.
9