hiding terrorism behind a nuclear deterrent

[Geronimo]

If a state with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them were to openly support non nuclear terrorist attacks on a nuclear armed democratic state would the nuclear deterrent still be sufficient to shield the terrorist sponsoring nation from any possibility of being invaded?

Would it be more likely that the population of the democratic state would capitulate to the political demands of the terrorist sponsoring nuclear state or would it be more likely that the population would support invasion or massive first strikes of some sort that would attempt to neutralize the nuclear deterrent of the terrorist sponsoring nation?

Can sponsorship of terrorism be publicly used in the modern world even if a nuclear deterrent is obtained or would the consequences always be so unpleasant that no state would ever openly take credit for terrorist attacks against a strong target country even if they had a nuclear shield to feel secure behind?

Perhaps some other outcome would be likely?

Discussion along these lines in the past has usually focused on the possibility of the nuclear armed terrorist sponsor resorting to nuclear terrorism but what about support for "conventional" terrorism behind a nuclear deterrent? Would that be a more viable blackmail route for a nuclear power?

[Sirotnikov]

That would be similar to the cold war, when the Ruskies pretty much had their way in Europe and Africa and there was little one could do.


Even now, the UK had its citizens poisoned by FSB agents, and it does diddly squat, because it fears of hurting its strategic relations with Russia (economic ties, russia's power as a nuclear state).

[Admiral]

The problem with a nuclear deterrence strategy is that is only works as a final resort. Both sides recognize that the other side will only launch if they feel the other option is total defeat. Obviously, terrorism cannot do this, so in the situation you posit, a nuclear deterrent would be irrelevant.

[Kuciwalker]

More importantly, it's hard to get a nuclear deterrant that would survive a first strike on the scale the US could launch. It's certainly not within the abilities of, say, Iran

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Admiral
The problem with a nuclear deterrence strategy is that is only works as a final resort. Both sides recognize that the other side will only launch if they feel the other option is total defeat. Obviously, terrorism cannot do this, so in the situation you posit, a nuclear deterrent would be irrelevant.

The nuclear deterrent wouldn't be irrelevant to the terrorism if the government of the terrorist sponsoring state only feared actions that would pose an existential threat to their control of the government. In that case they might sponsor terrorist acts with impunity in that they would be able to tough out any response short of regime change to their actions while their nuclear deterrent would rule out regime change as a possible response.

the objective of the terrorism wouldn't be to affect the nuclear balance at all. Rather the objective of the terrorism would be the same far more modest aims that terrorism has been used to pursue in the past.

Pull your troops away from region 'X', stop sending weapons and money to zionist entity 'Y', lift economic sanctions against government 'Z', etc. Until those demands are met the terrorist incidents continue unabated.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
More importantly, it's hard to get a nuclear deterrant that would survive a first strike on the scale the US could launch. It's certainly not within the abilities of, say, Iran

I agree! the question is would terrorist strikes be more likely to provide the political will to launch a first nuclear strike or would they be more likely to coerce the victim state into meeting their demands? (assuming meeting those demands would not be an existential threat to the state that would meet them).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
That would be similar to the cold war, when the Ruskies pretty much had their way in Europe and Africa and there was little one could do.


Even now, the UK had its citizens poisoned by FSB agents, and it does diddly squat, because it fears of hurting its strategic relations with Russia (economic ties, russia's power as a nuclear state).

The soviets didn't seem to buy into terrorism much as a tool to blackmail its cold war rivals.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


The nuclear deterrent wouldn't be irrelevant to the terrorism if the government of the terrorist sponsoring state only feared actions that would pose an existential threat to their control of the government. In that case they might sponsor terrorist acts with impunity in that they would be able to tough out any response short of regime change to their actions while their nuclear deterrent would rule out regime change as a possible response.

the objective of the terrorism wouldn't be to affect the nuclear balance at all. Rather the objective of the terrorism would be the same far more modest aims that terrorism has been uised to pursue in the past.

Pull your troops away from region 'X', stop sending weapons and money to zionist entity 'Y', lift economic sanctions against government 'Z', etc. Until those demands are met the terrorist incidents continue unabated.

"Terrorism" would not work in this manner. I mean, can you describe any state that has ever used terrorism in this manner? States support groups using terrorist emthods all the time (including the US) but these groups are almost always based in one area and carry out attacks in their home countries.

Transnational terrorist attacks are difficult to plan, expensive to run, and unless you are talking something ona ridiculous levels such attacks are highly unlikely to actually sawy public opinion in any state enough to actually force governments to change policy.

Modern war is expensive anyways. Since Kuci already brought up Iran, no one is seriously speaking about going to war with Iran, and they certainly don't have a nuclear deterrent. IN general any state that could even afford the kind of campaign you envision will be rich enough to have enough of a conventional deterrence to make leaders in other countries weigh the cost of military action.

[Drake Tungsten]

If a state with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them were to openly support non nuclear terrorist attacks on a nuclear armed democratic state would the nuclear deterrent still be sufficient to shield the terrorist sponsoring nation from any possibility of being invaded?

Iran already openly supports non-nuclear terrorist attacks on nuclear-armed democratic states (Israel, sometimes US) and no one does jack **** about it. If they aren't being invaded now, they sure as **** won't be invaded once they have nukes...

[notyoueither]

If you're asking if Iran could cow the US (or Russia) with terrorism once they have the bomb to hide behind...

Definitely not.

Take credit for a terrorist attack and Iran's military would be obliterated from the air in short order. Most of the political leadership would get whacked in targeted strikes. If they still wanted to play, then there would be no shortage of support and arms for anyone remotely anti-regime.

If Iran showed a single sign of the launch of a bottle rocket it would be glass factory time.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If a state with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them were to openly support non nuclear terrorist attacks on a nuclear armed democratic state would the nuclear deterrent still be sufficient to shield the terrorist sponsoring nation from any possibility of being invaded?

Iran already openly supports non-nuclear terrorist attacks on nuclear-armed democratic states (Israel, sometimes US) and no one does jack **** about it. If they aren't being invaded now, they sure as **** won't be invaded once they have nukes...

couldn't that be because under no conceivable circumstances would Israel be able to force a regime change on Iran?

And yes Israel is victim of such state sponsored terrorist attacks but are any nato countries victims of state sponsored terrorist attacks sponsored by non nato states?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

If a state with nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them were to openly support non nuclear terrorist attacks on a nuclear armed democratic state would the nuclear deterrent still be sufficient to shield the terrorist sponsoring nation from any possibility of being invaded?

Iran already openly supports non-nuclear terrorist attacks on nuclear-armed democratic states (Israel, sometimes US) and no one does jack **** about it. If they aren't being invaded now, they sure as **** won't be invaded once they have nukes...

When did they ever claim support for an attack on the US or Russia in the US or Russia?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
If you're asking if Iran could cow the US (or Russia) with terrorism once they have the bomb to hide behind...

Definitely not.

Take credit for a terrorist attack and Iran's military would be obliterated from the air in short order. Most of the political leadership would get whacked in targeted strikes. If they still wanted to play, then there would be no shortage of support and arms for anyone remotely anti-regime.

If Iran showed a single sign of the launch of a bottle rocket it would be glass factory time.

North korea could try using terrorism as well, but I'm thinking more in general terms. Todays "rogue states" might not be tomorrows rogue states.

In any event you think Great powers would not be deterred by a nuclear deterrent from robustly responding to state sponsored terrorist acts with military action?

Do you think the terrorist sponsoring state would never have the balls (short of the usual crazy leader scenario) to launch some nukes against a nuclear armed that was launching such conventional military retaliation which it believed threatened the regimes power?

That seems to be a reasonable assumption but would the leadership of the countries suffering the terrorist acts be able to convince their electorates of that assumption sufficiently well to initiate such strikes against the nuclear armed terrorist sponsor?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


"Terrorism" would not work in this manner. I mean, can you describe any state that has ever used terrorism in this manner? States support groups using terrorist emthods all the time (including the US) but these groups are almost always based in one area and carry out attacks in their home countries.

Transnational terrorist attacks are difficult to plan, expensive to run, and unless you are talking something ona ridiculous levels such attacks are highly unlikely to actually sawy public opinion in any state enough to actually force governments to change policy.

Modern war is expensive anyways. Since Kuci already brought up Iran, no one is seriously speaking about going to war with Iran, and they certainly don't have a nuclear deterrent. IN general any state that could even afford the kind of campaign you envision will be rich enough to have enough of a conventional deterrence to make leaders in other countries weigh the cost of military action.

Have there been any signs that states might try to switch from the traditional approach of sponsoring terrorist groups that act locally to sponsoring much more ambitious al qaeda style transnational spectacular operations?

[Drake Tungsten]

When did they ever claim support for an attack on the US or Russia in the US or Russia?

I didn't say they had...