Gates Gives Rationale for Expanded Deterrence

[groovedaddy]

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Tuesday that the United States would hold “fully accountable” any country or group that helped terrorists to acquire or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

The statement was the Bush administration’s most expansive yet in trying to articulate a vision of deterrence for the post-Sept. 11 world. It went beyond the cold war notion that a president could respond with overwhelming force against a country that directly attacked the United States or its allies with unconventional weapons.

“Today we also make clear that the United States will hold any state, terrorist group or other nonstate actor or individual fully accountable for supporting or enabling terrorist efforts to obtain or use weapons of mass destruction — whether by facilitating, financing or providing expertise or safe haven for such efforts,” Mr. Gates said.

The comments came in an address in which he said it was important to modernize the nation’s nuclear arsenal as a hedge against what he described as “rising and resurgent powers” like Russia or China, as well as “rogue nations” like Iran or North Korea and international terrorists.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/washington/29gates.html?th&emc=th

[Ezlivin]

1. Isn't simply building the damned things enough to support terrorism?

After all, there is no terrorist cell out there sophisticated enough to build a nuclear weapon. Only states have that level of engineering expertise.

And what about inaction? If we don't act to protect Russian nuclear weapons from theft, aren't we contributing to the problem?

[bemildred]

2. Was someone in doubt about this? nt

[Qopika]

3. A new definition of self-defense?

Yesterday I read the news about Mr. Robert Gates' statement and I was distressed. As we can see, there are still leaders that have not been able to overcome the end of the Cold War. They claimed that the present transformation of the nuclear arsenal is aimed at “raising and resurgent power” (such as China and Russia), in addition to “rogue nations” (like Iran and North Korea). If seems that, what they are calling a “new definition of self-defense”, is nothing more that the “traditional definition of imperialism.”

www.qopika.net

[GSPowner]

4. right so we don't need to worry about them.???

is that what you are saying?