|
McNair Paper 62, The Revenge of the Melians: Asymmetric Threats and the next QDR, November 2000
Categorizing the Threats
What rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches toward Bethlehem to be born? --William Butler Yeats, The Second Coming
The previous two chapters have established the what, who, and when of asymmetry, and have also attempted to describe the military and civil structures and military operational practices of the United States that are the potential target sets for asymmetric actors. This chapter will integrate these two lines of argument, and attempt to make some clear distinctions about what the most dangerous threats are to the United States. This will form the basis for the policy component of this paper, chapter five, which will outline specific actions that can be taken to preserve both our military superiority and the integrity of the United States homeland from asymmetric attack. It is essential to discriminate between different levels of threat. Otherwise, we are confronted by a veritable smorgasbord of threats--some reasonable, some incredible, but all difficult to plan for unless we differentiate between them. Thinking in a discriminate manner will lend structure and a comparative approach to asymmetric threats, and pay heed to the cautionary that "we should not spend more time inventing asymmetric options for other states than those states' leaderships do themselves."110 At the same time, it is not productive, within the limits of this study, to establish a threat list that explicitly proposes, for example, a number 1 threat to the United States that is markedly different from a number 4 threat. It is productive, though, to posit that some threats stand out as more dangerous than others, and are therefore worthy of specific policy counters. This selection of threats is based on the recurring themes that have guided the discussion of asymmetric warfare throughout this paper: *Asymmetric actors pit strength against vulnerability, seeking disproportionate effect *A perceived or actual disparity of interest is the enduring background to asymmetric approaches (and there is a crossover point that may prove deadly to the asymmetric actor) *The target is the will of the opponent (and this is the psychological component of asymmetry) *The desired effect is on the strategic level, regardless of the level of war the approach is implemented *There is an interaction of threat and response that is based on what the United States does, as well as the culture of the potential asymmetric actor *Effectiveness is important. From this broad integration of the relative danger of each potential asymmetric approach against the potential targets, it is possible to extract the more specific set of dangerous threats that we will face. As a result of this, ten potential asymmetric threats are discussed below. They are not ranked, and none is singled out as "most dangerous" to the United States. Such a comparison would be invidious: these are all dangerous threats, and they are representative of other threats that have not been included. These ten threats form a reasonable spectrum of potential asymmetric approaches that could be practiced against the United States from which our own policy decisions can be crafted. Selection of these threats will allow detailed examination of potential scenarios, and it will also provide a more explicit basis for developing effective counters. "Future case studies" have been appended to some of the threats to provide a sense of immediacy. What Are the Ten Asymmetric Threats? The first asymmetric approach considered is the threat of a nuclear or biological attack against the American homeland. The damage that could be done by such an attack is much greater than any other possibility. For this reason, possession of nuclear or biological weapons and means of delivery give a regional competitor or a rogue state a credible means of influencing U.S. decisionmakers. This is true disproportionate effect. Any U.S. president would have to weigh alternatives of war and peace very solemnly against the U.S. national interest when the opponent possesses the credible capability to deliver a nuclear or biological countervalue attack on the United States. It is conceivable under certain circumstances (i.e., when a national interest of the United States is not unambiguously involved) that this type of threat would severely compress our range of options.111 This is a threat that operates almost purely at the strategic level of war. As a threat, this is both a highly dangerous possibility and one that is increasingly likely, and for these reasons this alternative is the only asymmetric approach considered among these ten that is based on the principle of coercion and might not actually employ a weapon. It is the threat of attack that coerces or deters potential U.S. action in this case; an actual attack may well surrender many of the advantages of an asymmetric approach. The threat of such an attack could include either covert or conventional means. Conventional means--cruise or ballistic missile, or manned aircraft--is less likely as a means of delivery for a non-peer competitor. Technological considerations alone would make it difficult to deliver such a weapon to the continental United States, and the trail back to the source would be clear and unequivocal. An alternative option would involve the covert infiltration of a nuclear weapon or a biological weapon into a major urban center. The possibility of an irrational state actor cannot be discounted, however, when the stakes are so very high, and the delivery of a small number of nuclear weapons by ballistic missiles should be considered a viable, though less likely "lesser included" case of this threat. Crossing the line between coercion and actual attack would be a very dangerous step for any state. For this reason, coercive asymmetric approaches of this nature could be coupled with an intensive diplomatic and information operations campaign designed to achieve limited results below the threshold of actual use. The vignette that follows describes just such an attempt. Vignette 1: The Disputed Middle Ground Westland and Eastland share a common border and have been locked in periodic conflict going back generations over a disputed oil-rich area of several hundred square miles that lies between them. The area is controlled by Eastland. Eastland's oil is not considered vital to the United States, but it is vital to a number of Western European nations and Japan. Westland is larger and more powerful than Eastland. Westland, because of its repressive governmental policies and attempts to foment revolution among neighboring states, is a regional pariah, but does enjoy some level of support from states and nonstate entities, both in an out of the region, that are opposed to U.S. policies. Westland is largely equipped with legacy Warsaw Pact equipment, most of it in need of maintenance. Recognizing this, and having access to significant oil revenues, Westland has pursued many attempts to develop not only an indigenous WMD capability, to include biological agents and delivery systems, but also sophisticated delivery systems. They have tested the TRIGON4, a ballistic missile with near-intercontinental range. It has been the best judgment of the CIA that Westland does not possess weaponized nuclear devices. While Eastland does not have a formal defense treaty relationship with the United States, since the end of the Cold War it has purchased significant amounts of military equipment from the United States. Despite this, it is widely recognized that Eastland's military strength is only a fraction of Westland's, and in a general war between the two states, Westland will likely prevail. An informal relationship has been established between the United States and Eastland that includes periodic ground, air, and sea exercises of United States forces, partial prepositioning of selected military equipment, and extensive staff talks. Plans have been developed and refined for the rapid movement of air, ground, and naval forces to the defense of Eastland in the event of an attack by Westland. America's regional allies and NATO are full partners in these plans. The discovery of new and extensive oil deposits in the disputed area breaks the uneasy peace between Eastland and Westland. Westland delivers a demarche to Eastland demanding full control of the oil fields. Apparently, Westland has decided that its own oil fields, while still productive, are nearing exhaustion. Eastland's new fields offer the best hope for long-term economic security. Concurrently, Westland masses three armored divisions on the border between the two countries. It is the judgment of the U.S. theater CINC that these forces can overrun the disputed oil fields in less than 12 hours, and defeat Eastland within 72 hours, to include the occupation of the capital city. Eastland refuses the Westland demarche and mobilizes the Imperial Guard. At the same time, Eastland secretly requests the deployment of U.S. forces. The regional commander-in-chief concurs, and requests the immediate movement of four AEFs, two Marine prepositioning brigades, two Army prepositioning brigades, and three carrier battle groups. While the Joint Staff is considering these requests, Westland fires what is assessed to be a TRIGON5 missile that places a satellite on low earth orbit--a feat they were not believed to be capable of for at least another five years. A rapid CIA assessment of the missile's characteristics indicates that it could be capable of delivering a nuclear warhead-equivalent against more than half the continental United States, with a probable circular error of between five and ten miles. Within hours of the successful launch of the satellite, a secret diplomatic communique from the "Maximum Leader" of Westland to the U.S. President is delivered through a third party's embassy. The note is short and to the point: We now possess 10 TRIGON5 missiles. As you can see, they are capable of reaching your country. More to the point, we also possess a number of nuclear weapons, which we have obtained from former Soviet stocks. Photographs, weapons serial numbers, and other technical data on 10 of these weapons are appended. These weapons are in the 170-kiloton range. We invite you to double check this information with the Russians, who are unaware of these missing weapons. Additionally, we possess biological weapons that we have developed ourselves. You will also know that the TRIGON5 possesses the throw-weight to carry these weapons to the United States, although regrettably our accuracy at this time will preclude their use against anything other than a large urban area. You will also note that the TRIGON5 is capable of placing these weapons on orbit, and in such a manner that will invite exoatmospheric electromagnetic attack. Your scientists can instruct you in the potential effects of such a "nonlethal" attack. Our requirement is simple: we want co-ownership of the disputed oilfield. We do not demand the surrender of Eastland, and we do not demand Eastland's embarrassment--merely that Eastland recognize that Westland owns 50 percent of the oilfield, and that Westland will be the executive agent for the operation of the field. How you convince Eastland to accept this is your business. There can be no deployment of any U.S. air, ground, or sea forces into Eastland, or within 500 nautical miles of either the Eastland or Westland coast. Again, how you couch this in palatable terms to your regional and NATO allies is your business. We will not make political capital of your efforts here--so long as you do it. Last--doubtless your military leaders will argue for preemption of some kind. We urge you not to accede to this. Ask them how they did in "the great SCUD hunt" against Iraq--and know that should you undertake any military operation into Westland, two things will happen: we will detonate a nuclear weapon in conjunction with your attack on the outskirts of a major city in Westland and then blame you loudly and effectively; second, we will destroy a major American urban area. Alternatively, we may select an exoatmospheric HEMP attack. And, of course, you cannot be certain that the satellite now on orbit does not carry a radio-command nuclear weapon. As you know, it crosses over the United States many times every day. Ask your scientists what the effects will be of a 170-kiloton low-earth-orbit explosion. In closing, we ask you to consider whether these oil fields really constitute a vital national interest to the United States, particularly when we are more than willing to cooperate with you in concealing the fact that this dialogue--and our new capability--ever existed. This is a matter of national survival for us. Is it a matter worth the lives of millions of American citizens? The next asymmetric threat is that of a concerted information warfare attack against our national information systems infrastructure, to include the information management systems vital for the operation of the critical infrastructures of public safety, transportation, and banking and finance. The relative likelihood of this attack is high, given our dependence upon such systems. The potential damage could be severe, but it would probably not approach the devastation possible from a nuclear or biological attack. The single caveat to this assessment would be that a HEMP strategic attack on the United States could be devastating to the entire national information infrastructure. Because of the combination of opportunity and vulnerability, this is assessed as a very real threat, whose potential scope will only grow with time. Such an attack targets the will of the United States by operating directly against the civil population. It enjoys disproportionate effect, and, if used as a threat or coercing tactic, could have many of the deterring advantages of nuclear and biological weapons. Such an attack could run the gamut from attacks of precision disruption aimed at specific elements of infrastructure (air traffic control systems, for example) to a culturally disruptive attack based on HEMP.112 The United Sates remains uniquely vulnerable to these forms of attack because of the increasing digitization of virtually everything in both the public and private sector.113 In fact, the complete interdependence and system of systems approach that characterize information technology make it very difficult to predict the top end scope of a successful IW attack. What is clear, though, is that a HEMP attack would be profoundly destructive to the American way of life. As already discussed, a nuclear weapon detonated at between 100 and 500 kilometers above the center of the country would cause no deaths due to direct effects (fire, blast, radiation), but could cause thousands of deaths due to the creation of an adverse electromagnetic environment: massive power loss, aircraft flight control systems failures, the possible destruction of the commercial satellite constellation, and a myriad of other effects that would, in all likelihood, have the ultimate effect of ending, at least temporarily, the information age in this country. The dangers to the attacker are very high in a strategic HEMP attack. As has already been outlined, the strategic command and control and continuity of government functions of the United States are protected against this type of attack, and the track of a missile or a weapon already on orbit would be easy to investigate. It would be much more difficult to find the responsible party involved in a less direct information warfare attack. As proposed below, such an attack would gain effectiveness if employed in concert with other asymmetric operations. In the vignette below, and continuing the argument of vignette 1, Westland elects to conduct a biological attack on the United States and follow it up with a cyberattack that will take advantage of the additional stress placed upon power and other systems. Vignette 2: Cyberattack on New York--A Matter of Trust It is rush hour in New York City. At the very busy 34th Street Subway Station of the Red Line, no one notices two small light bulb-size glass containers that are thrown onto the track. Each contains ten grams of weaponized bacillus anthracis. Within minutes, 20 grams of dried anthrax spores are circulating among the commuters on the crowded Red Line. Theoretically, one gram of dried anthrax spores contains approximately 10 million lethal doses.114 Within 2 or 3 days, hospitals throughout the New York area are reporting large numbers of people with fever, malaise, and other flu-like symptoms. Within 4 to 5 days, it is clear that this is not the flu. Although some people improve for short periods of time, respiratory distress sets in rapidly, along with a host of other life-threatening symptoms. Medical intervention generally cannot reverse the course of the disease after the onset of symptoms, and so the vast majority of people who are sick will die. If 1 percent of the population of New York City were infected--about 126,000 people--then fatalities would number around 120,000. The high number of fatalities reflects the simple fact that after the onset of clear symptoms, treatment is usually ineffective. Probably another 1.3 million people would flood the already overloaded medical system--the "worried well," who are uninfected but frightened. The emergency services systems within the New York area would be overwhelmed. By the third day of the anthrax attack on New York City, the hospitals in Manhattan and in the adjoining boroughs are overwhelmed; the National Guard has been called out and federalized, and the U.S. military is beginning to deploy medical and other support elements into the city. Just after dark along the east coast of the United States, hackers operating from outside our borders gain access to the protected servers of Consolidated Edison. They are helped in this by a well-paid insider, who furnishes them with the access codes needed to gain system administration privileges. Consolidated Edison buys most of its power from Canadian sources, and the electrical grid is controlled through an Oracle-based operating system and database. The system used by Consolidated Edison, unlike Oracle software used by the U.S. military, does not use "trusted software." Elements of the code have been written outside the United States. This allows the insertion of malicious code into the system that was dormant until called to life. Within two hours, most of New York is without power. A chaotic situation becomes disastrous on Manhattan. But, within six hours, the damage to the automated power management grid has been repaired, and as the sun comes up the next morning, power has been generally restored--but hundreds have died throughout the night, particularly patients who were on respirator support--a characteristic of anthrax therapy--in overflow annexes to New York's hospitals. Military power systems are unaffected, and most hospitals are able to run off their own internal generators, but many of the patients are not in the hospitals. In isolation, this would not have been a particularly damaging attack, but when executed in concert with other measures, it provokes a powerful and lethal synergy. The next asymmetric threat is that of biological and chemical attacks against host nation support and alliance forces in an area of responsibility, with the dual goal of splitting a coalition and eroding the national will in the United States. An attack of this nature would seek to exploit weaker elements of a coalition by attacking with principally biological and chemical weapons. The relative likelihood of this form of attack is high in a major theater war environment, and the relative danger to U.S. and allied forces is high. Because of its potential effectiveness, the threat of this form of attack could also be used to coerce potential regional allies in the early days of a crisis. Such an attack--or threat of an attack--would be directed against the weakest elements of any coalition or host nation. It would strictly avoid targeting U.S. forces, and would instead be directed against the personnel who are the vital theater enablers for U.S. forces. The most lucrative form of this attack might be to target civilians critical to offloading U.S. equipment as it enters a theater. They will not be under military discipline, will not have any NBC training and will have little or no protective equipment, to include the requisite series of inoculations that U.S. and allied forces presumably will have had. These workers are the Achilles' heel of any theater that will require the heavy flow of U.S. forces through a limited number of ports of entry, either air or sea. If the will of regional allies can be degraded by these threats or by actual employment, then it could have a pernicious effect on the will of the United States to participate. For a regional aggressor, it follows that threats would initiate eventual use. It might be that good effect for the aggressor could be obtained by simple coercion, but the line from threat to employment is easier to cross within a regional scenario, and when the primary targets will not be U.S. forces. Vignette 3: Just Getting There! It is C+3 in a major theater war. Southland has been invaded by its hostile neighbor, Northland. The United States has begun execution of a longstanding contingency plan to flow forces into the two deepwater ports and three international airfields in Southland. The U.S. plan calls for the rapid introduction of theater airpower to slow the advance of the four mechanized and two infantry divisions of Northland, and then the movement of U.S. ground forces by strategic airlift to link up with two prepositioned brigade sets of equipment, and two prepositioning brigade sets that will arrive by fast sealift by C+5. During the morning of C+3, though, symptoms of anthrax are noted in small numbers of stevedores who will work to offload the ships as they arrive. The numbers affected are small, but simultaneously Northland begins to broadcast this to the entire world via CNN and the internet. Within 24 hours the ports are virtual ghost towns, as the workers flee the urban centers. The United States offers inoculation to its Southland allies, and feverishly works to vaccinate all members of the international coalition, but there isn't enough vaccine. U.S. civil reserve pilots decline to fly to destinations in the theater that have reported infection. The panic factor dramatically increases the reporting of both real and imagined cases of sickness, and allied nations within the AOR close their borders to U.S. deploying forces. The effect of this is to slow the ability of U.S. airpower to maintain the sortie generation rate required to slow the Northland attack. Southland, seeing this and realizing that U.S. ground forces will not be arriving in a timely manner, elects to sue for peace and cedes large portions of its nation to Northland. The next asymmetric threat is that of WMD attacks against strategic deployment systems, including air and seaports of debarkation in theater, en route facilities, and enabling infrastructure. The primary threat is that of chemical and biological weapons. The relative likelihood of an attack such as this is high in a major theater war or near-major theater war scenario. The potential for damage is high. Many of the considerations that apply to the previous threat, attacks on allied and coalition forces, are also operative here. There are also some greater risks, because in this case the attack is now being delivered directly against U.S. forces as they enter a theater. An attack of this nature would be a central component to an antiaccess strategy that would seek to slow the arrival of U.S. forces into an AOR. Chemical attacks would be the least effective but easiest to execute. Biological warfare attacks would gain high leverage--it would not take more than a very small attack, coupled with an aggressive information operations plan, to severely disrupt the large number of nonmilitary enabling systems that support the deployment architecture. It is possible that a lesser included or alternative to this form of attack would be the aggressive employment of conventional SOF and perhaps terrorists who operate against the deployment infrastructure without using WMD. Vignette 4: Just Getting There--Again It is C+3 in a major theater war. Southland has been invaded by its hostile neighbor, Northland. The United States has begun execution of a longstanding contingency plan to flow forces into the two deepwater ports and three international airfields in Southland. The U.S. plan calls for the rapid introduction of theater airpower to slow the advance of the four mechanized and two infantry divisions of Northland, and then the movement of U.S. ground forces by strategic airlift to link up with two prepositioned brigade sets of equipment and two prepositioning brigade sets that will arrive by fast sealift by C+5. Concurrent with its attack south, Northland unleashes a barrage of improved SCUDB missiles on the arrival ports and airfields that U.S. forces will use, and the operational airfields that U.S. airpower is operating from. Their warheads contain VX, and while the accuracy isn't particularly effective, large areas of the ports and airfields are blanketed with the persistent agent. The immature theater ballistic missile defense system proves effective against only about 60 percent of the incoming missiles, and Northland is believed to have a SCUDB stockpile of several hundred. This has two immediate effects: The deployment of U.S. forces is significantly slowed, and large elements of U.S. airpower must be dedicated to "SCUD-busting," which brings a poor return on the investment in time, pilots, and aircraft. The result is that Northland forces are able to overrun most of Southland before the U.S. deployment can be completed, and U.S. forces are withdrawn to neighboring countries--and subsequently face the need to execute a forcible entry operation in order to restore the territorial integrity of Southland. The next asymmetric threat is that of information warfare, including the threat of HEMP attack against forces in an AOR. This is a potent threat across the spectrum of information operations, but the most dangerous form is the use of HEMP to degrade U.S. and allied capability to achieve information dominance. The relative likelihood of this form of attack is moderate--the technical requirements to successfully prosecute such an attack are daunting--but the danger to U.S. forces would be very high if the attack proved successful. As a general principle, offensive information warfare will grow less fruitful for an opponent as the level of warfare moves from strategic to tactical. It is harder to enter U.S. tactical computing systems, and a variety of aggressive U.S. defensive information operations will be concurrently taking place. The use of HEMP at this level, though, maximizes the advantages of disruption inherent to this weapon while minimizing the dangers of an attack on or above U.S. soil with nuclear weapons. A HEMP attack in a regional conflict would strike directly at the heart of the U.S. concept of warfighting: the rapid management of information. It might be possible to destroy all tactical communications in an AOR, severely degrade theater communications, destroy all satellite support functions, damage or destroy many aircraft, and cause a staggering number of potential problems in virtually all U.S. military equipment. States that possess nuclear weapons and delivery systems will also have the potential deterring benefit that accrues from this capability. In actual operation, however, this threat would exist below the strategic level, although favorable strategic effects could be secured by operations that follow such an attack. Vignette 5: Fade to Black It is C+10 in a major theater war. Southland has been invaded by its hostile neighbor, Northland. The United States has executed a longstanding contingency plan and has deployed forces into the two deepwater ports and three international airfields in Southland. U.S. airpower has stopped the advance of the four mechanized and two infantry divisions of Northland, and U.S. ground forces have linked up with two prepositioned brigade sets and two prepositioning brigade sets, and have begun to establish themselves in the field. Southland forces have defended in good order and are ready to undertake offensive operations. The theater commander is preparing to counterattack to restore the international boundary between Southland and Northland. Just after midnight on C+10, Northland fires a modified SCUD to a high altitude over the battlespace. While SCUD firings are not new in this theater, the assessed trajectory does not fit an attack profile that has been experienced before. The theater staff is still in an attack assessment conference with SPACECOM when a 100-kiloton nuclear weapon detonates at an altitude of 200 kilometers near the geographic dead center of the battlespace. A number of things happen very quickly on the ground. Tactical communications cease; vehicles with advanced solid-state electronics stop running. Many theater backbone data transmission up- and down-links are rendered useless. In the air, Army helicopters literally fall from the sky, and some Air Force aircraft are brought down as well. The JSTARS picture disappears, and no contact can be established with the aircraft; the same is true for AWACs. On the beach, U.S. Navy ships can be seen on the horizon, but it isn't possible to communicate with them electronically in the hours after the explosion: much of their electronics have been damaged as well. The worst damage, though, is reserved for space-based systems. The effect of the explosion charges the Van Allen radiation belt and destroys all commercial satellites in low earth orbit (LEO); satellites in half-geosynchronous and synchronous orbit, including GPS satellites, have varying degrees of adverse effects. While assured command and control systems based on MILSTAR remain active, virtually all other satellite communications systems cease to function, either immediately, or in the near future.115 The CINC has lost his common operating picture. No American troops are killed or injured as a result of the explosion itself. In fact, it will eventually be determined that the explosion occurred over Northland. As the dark sun fades, the theater commander realizes that instead of fighting with the principles of JV 2010, he must now face Northland with tools and techniques that would be well known to Sir Douglas Haig in front of Passchaendale in 1917. The core principle of U.S. warfighting doctrine--the ability to rapidly and efficiently share vast amounts of information--is no more. On this new battlefield, high-lethality systems will now fight with very limited intelligence beyond direct visual range. Northland formations continue to move south. They appear to have suffered degradation as well, but they now enjoy an uncontested numerical superiority in what is becoming an infantry fight. The next asymmetric threat is that of battlespace selection: we may be forced to fight in places where our information and other forms of superiority are blunted. A scenario such as this would see an opponent seeking to lengthen our operations in time while maximizing opportunities for U.S. casualties. The relative likelihood of this method of attack is high--if the terrain will support it--and the potential for danger is also high. The world is becoming more urbanized, and U.S. forces will often be forced to enter and operate in this terrain--perhaps most of the time. The examples of Stalingrad, Hue City, Manila, and Mogadishu are clear and evident. Vignette 6: Going to Town--Terrain and Warrior Tactics Northland attacks Southland with little warning. Due to unfortunate geography, the Southland capital, Prime City, is located just 40 kilometers from the international border between the two countries. Within 24 hours, the Northland strategy is clear: attack to seize Prime City with a combination of infantry and SOF, while mechanized formations fan out in an attempt to bypass the city. By the very speed of their attack, they are able to overrun the suburbs of Prime City, which has over 12,000,000 occupants, spread over several hundred square miles of developed terrain. By use of SCUDBs with chemical warheads fired in persistent barriers, they have prevented the population of Prime City from fleeing south; instead, they remain largely within the city, and are now subject to the vicious street-to-street fighting that is going on between Northland attackers and Southland defenders. U.S. forces, some already within Southland, respond immediately. The CINC has long argued with the Southland General Staff that Prime City should not be defended; it is too close to the border, and the huge urban sprawl makes it very hard to employ sophisticated U.S. sensors and weapons. Now, in the heat of battle, and with the city's population still trapped within, Southland leaders make it clear that they plan to fight the decisive battle of the war in Prime City. In the open areas away from Prime City, much of Northland armor has been destroyed or has gone to ground to avoid U.S. airpower, but the battle still rages within the capital. By C+7, there are three divisions of Northland infantry in Prime City, and they hold a little less than half of its area. The CINC's preference would be to methodically isolate the city from Northland lines of communication, and then let Northland forces starve. The fact that there are over 10,000,000 civilians still within the city, though, makes this strategy untenable. On C+8, there are video reports from within the city of mass executions, and it becomes clear that it will be Northland strategy to force the U.S. military to enter the city and fight to retake it: the alternative will be to stand by while millions of innocent civilians are killed. The pressure from Southland on the U.S. NCA is strong, and on C+9, U.S. infantry begin to fight their way into the city. It will be a long and bloody process, even with abundant close air support and the latest in urban warfighting technology. The next asymmetric threat is that of non-WMD antiaccess measures, namely, mines, missiles, and other tried-and-true measures that can slow deployment or forcible entry operations. The relative likelihood of these tactics being employed is high, and the potential for damage at the operational level is also high. This approach applies legacy systems from the Cold War along with newly emerging systems to prevent the entry of either amphibious, airborne, or air forces. It is a tactic that has limited opportunity for success unless applied in concert with other measures. This has the greatest chance of success in a small-scale contingency, where there is no direct U.S. vital national interest at stake. The Serbian air defense system during Allied Force, already discussed, is an excellent example of just such an antiaccess strategy. The next asymmetric threat is that of the employment of warrior tactics; methods of fighting and conduct on the battlefield and in a region that grossly violate norms of behavior in an attempt to shock and disrupt an opponent. The relative likelihood of these tactics being employed is high, and the potential for damage to U.S. forces is moderate. Vignette 6 incorporates an example of this approach. Another asymmetric threat is that of a chemical attack against the continental United States. The potential for chemical attack is often left in the shadow of the biological warfare threat to the homeland, but it is a distinctly separate threat, with a slightly higher relative likelihood of being employed. It is more likely because it is easier to introduce chemical weapons into the United States than nuclear weapons. This is also a less dangerous method of attack, for it does not draw the international revulsion that attends biological weapons. The potential for large-scale damage to the United States is low. This is less an alternative for state actors than for nonstate actors with limited resources and delivery alternatives. The last asymmetric threat is the one that we can't even envision: the wild card. Threats will emerge that we cannot plan for. While most of them will spin off what the United States does, they will take root in the fertile soil of their own unique culture and basis of experience, and may prove to be the most dangerous of all.
Table 8 summarizes our assessment of what constitutes the ten asymmetric threats to the United States
worthy of consideration. It is important to reemphasize that this is certainly not intended to be an
all-inclusive list of threats. Other threats that are both lethal and dangerous have been omitted for
various reasons. For example, a direct WMD attack against U.S. forces is not included here, based on
the judgment that such a nuclear attack (however effective) would surrender many of the advantages of
asymmetry; and chemical and biological attacks against fielded U.S. forces, while certainly dangerous,
will not dramatically change the outcome of an engagement. In the area of information operations, the
cyber and EMP threats are emphasized, even though traditional information warfare techniques remain a
very real and dangerous threat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions Four of these threats employ some form of WMD as their principal operative element. Two of the threats explicitly employ information operations, while several others would depend heavily upon information operations as a supporting element of the primary strategy. Two are relatively "low tech" approaches. The WMD approaches all have a significant deterring component, and actually draw their strength from the disproportionality inherent in possession of nuclear or biological weapons. This approach, and, to a lesser degree, the others, seek to cause the United States to be very cautious about what will be declared a vital national interest. There is, however, a flip side: much of the disproportionality and all of the advantages of disparity of interest would be lost in the event of an actual employment of these weapons.
Based on this understanding of what the main asymmetric threats to the United States are, what actions
can be taken to counter them? This will form the basis for the next chapter.
|