hiding terrorism behind a nuclear deterrent

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Geronimo


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?

No. I do not.

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?

You're assuming a third rate power like NK or Iran could scratch their nuclear itch without a 'Great' power obliterating their ability to launch a kite with near zero chance of nuclear retaliation.

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?

I would think that the administrations of the US or Russia would have to hold their people back if some tinpot dictators claimed responsibility for attacks in the US or Russia.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Geronimo


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?

Not that I have seen, but then the point of an AQ type of organization is that it is non-centralized, which is the kind of org. state actors would not deal with, because individual cells would be unpredictable.

I still fail to see what gain any state would have from an AQ type attack. AQ did what it did BECAUSE it wanted the US to put boots in the ground in Islamic lands, to supposedly rally the masses to its support.

Most states shy away from the kind of provocative acts that might get it attacked. No state has really ever openly stated they support "terrorist" organizations because the nature of terrorism undermines the entire basis of the state system anyways. If they support a group openly they state that they are doing it for national liberation reasons, and proclaim the actors freedom fighters, not terrorists, but then always deny any operational support, just "moral." UNder that climate I find it diffciult to fathom how a campaign of international terrorist attacks would serve the interest of any particular state enough for it to spend its money that way.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by GePap


Not that I have seen, but then the point of an AQ type of organization is that it is non-centralized, which is the kind of org. state actors would not deal with, because individual cells would be unpredictable.

I still fail to see what gain any state would have from an AQ type attack. AQ did what it did BECAUSE it wanted the US to put boots in the ground in Islamic lands, to supposedly rally the masses to its support.

Most states shy away from the kind of provocative acts that might get it attacked. No state has really ever openly stated they support "terrorist" organizations because the nature of terrorism undermines the entire basis of the state system anyways. If they support a group openly they state that they are doing it for national liberation reasons, and proclaim the actors freedom fighters, not terrorists, but then always deny any operational support, just "moral." UNder that climate I find it diffciult to fathom how a campaign of international terrorist attacks would serve the interest of any particular state enough for it to spend its money that way.

Thanks, this reasoning does help explain imho why the soviet union never resorted to terrorist tactics to blackmail it's rivals.

[Edan]

Originally posted by GePap

Transnational terrorist attacks are difficult to plan, expensive to run

Yep. Certainly a poor country, like say Afghanistan, couldn't be the source of such terrorism. Oh wait.

Building and maintaining a nuclear weapons program is a lot more expensive than supporting an international terrorist attack.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Edan


Yep. Certainly a poor country, like say Afghanistan, couldn't be the source of such terrorism experience. Oh wait.

HELLO! The Taliban merely played hosts to AQ. I have never heard ANYONE ever claim that a cent of Taliban money ever went into planning any attacks outside of Afghanistan.

The question here is funding and directing, not simply providing the room.

Building and maintaining a nuclear weapons program is a lot more expensive than supporting an international terrorist attack.

Yes it is. That is not the point.