|
One of the national security policy options under debate is the use of unilateral military action against nations that harbor nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. The new military doctrine is termed
"preemption."
In this class, we will divide up into a series of groups representing the United States and other nations that have been our traditional allies, as well as those bordering a rogue nation we wish to preemptively strike. Our intelligence sources indicate that it is probable, but not certain, that the rogue nation we wish to use military actions against, has chemical and biological weapons and could be in contact with terrorist organizations. In this activity, the role of the United States is to enlist the other countries' support for action against the rogue nation. Your troop commitments in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo limit your unilateral options. You must modify your doctrine of preemptive war in order to achieve your military goals.
Questions to Consider:
- What is it about the new world of terrorists and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that would force the U.S. to act alone against countries harboring either?
- If the U.S. insists upon a policy of preemption against rogue nations, what signal will that send to other countries on how they should carry out their future military strategy? Could such a policy be
destabilizing? If so, how? Consider the situation in Iraq where the case for preemptive war initially seemed strong but now is being questioned.
- What military options are available to the United States to counter the North Alderian threat?
- How would the North Alderian government and military respond to a limited strike against WMD associated facilities?
- There are many countries thought to harbor either terroritsts or weapons of mass destruction - where do you draw the line on whether to preemptively invade them or not?
|
