The Indian tradition of strategic nonviolence, however imperfect, is less risky and more conducive to long-term success than a militaristic strategy to counter terrorism in a nuclearized environment.
Decision- and policy-makers need a set of revised influence and deterrence tools and approaches that are applicable to the modern security environment.
There is still a window of opportunity for cooperation between the United States and Russia on conventional prompt global strike weapons.
Any Conventional Prompt Global Strike acquisition decision should be preceded by an in-depth and detailed debate about the costs, risks, and benefits of all potential CPGS alternatives. Their military utility is a natural starting point for such a debate.
The world watches and waits to hear if the Assad government will give up Syria’s chemical weapons stock.
Russia has submitted a plan for chemical weapons seizure in Syria.
Israel’s short-range missile defense system was designed to defend against rocket attacks on the country’s population centers. Since its deployment in 2011, the system has seen action in several engagements.
With some CPGS technologies reaching maturity and an acquisition decision approaching, the time is right for a national debate about the benefits and risks of CPGS.
The long-held U.S. goal of striking distant targets with non-nuclear weapons in just minutes has always been controversial. In the current fiscal environment, however, an impending decision to acquire Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) weapons will be especially hotly debated.
The big disputes between libertarian-conservatives and progressives revolve around whether justice can be reduced to individual liberty and property rights, and whether individual liberty and property rights should be privileged over correcting injustices.