Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Print Friendly

About

The Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel (DCAP) was established by the Bush administration to oversee production of the president’s Nuclear Posture Review, which is a classified study outlining the country’s plans and strategies vis-à-vis its nuclear arsenal. Tapped to chair the panel was Keith Payne, a hawkish nuclear policy analyst who heads the National Institute for Public Policy (NIPP).

In January 2001, shortly before the panel was established, NIPP released a report that is widely considered to have served as a blueprint for the Bush posture review. Several members of the NIPP study group that produced the report, titled "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces," also served on DCAP and/or went on to receive influential posts in the Bush administration, including: James Woolsey, DCAP and Defense Policy Board; Keith Payne, DCAP and deputy assistant secretary of defense for forces and policy (until 2003); Linton F. Brooks, DCAP and head of the National Nuclear Security Administration; Stephen Hadley, National Security Council; Robert Joseph, National Security Council; Stephen Cambone, assistant secretary of defense. (The other members of DCAP were Chris Williams, a supporter of the Project for the New American Century and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, as well as a member of the Defense Policy Board; Barry Blechman, a member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the Defense Policy Board; James Miller; and Kurt Guthe. The panel was disbanded in Fall 2002.)

Regarding NIPP’s "Rationale and Requirements," the World Policy Institute reported, "In general, the NIPP report calls future security threats to the U.S. unknown and unpredictable. Therefore, the report concludes that the U.S. must maintain its nuclear arsenal, and the ability to design, build and test new nuclear weapons. The report asserts that conventional weapons are inadequate replacements for nuclear weapons because they do not have the same ‘destructive power.’ As a solution the report recommends the development of ‘low-yield, precision-guided nuclear weapons’–in other words, a nuclear weapon the US can actually use. The NIPP panel frowns on arms control treaties because, ‘US policymakers today cannot know the strategic environment of 2005, let alone 2010 or 2020. There is no basis for expecting that the conditions that may permit deep nuclear reductions today will continue in the future.’" (5)

Share RightWeb

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Sources

(1) Members of the panel were verified through IRC email correspondence with LTC Dan Stoneking, Pentagon Press Desk Officer, April 21, 2003.

(2) "About Face: The Role of the Arms Lobby In the Bush Administration's Radical Reversal of Two Decades of U.S. Nuclear Policy," World Policy Institute, May 2002
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/execsummaryaboutface.html

(3) "Pentagon Wants Nuclear Weapons Hedge," BulletinWire, January 10, 2002
http://www.thebulletin.org/bulletinwirearchive/BulletinWire020111.html

(4) "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces, Volume 1," National Institute for Public Policy, January 2001
http://www.nipp.org/Adobe/volume 1 complete.pdf

(5) "Axis of Influence," World Policy Institute, July 2002
http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/axisofinfluence.html

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The Trump administration appears to have been surprised by this breach among its friends in the critical Gulf strategic area. But it is difficult to envision an effective U.S. role in rebuilding this Humpty-Dumpty.


Print Friendly

A recent vote in the European Parliament shows how President Trump’s relentless hostility to Iran is likely to isolate Washington more than Tehran.


Print Friendly

The head of the Institute for Science and International Security—aka “the Good ISIS”—recently demonstrated again his penchant for using sloppy analysis as a basis for politically explosive charges about Iran, in this case using a faulty translation from Persian to misleadingly question whether Tehran is “mass producing advanced gas centrifuges.”


Print Friendly

Trump has exhibited a general preference for authoritarians over democrats, and that preference already has had impact on his foreign policy. Such an inclination has no more to do with realism than does a general preference for democrats over authoritarians.


Print Friendly

The President went to the region as a deal maker and a salesman for American weapon manufacturing. He talked about Islam, terrorism, Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without the benefit of expert advice in any of these areas. After great showmanship in Riyadh, Jerusalem, and Bethlehem, he and his family left the region without much to show for or to benefit the people of that war-torn region.


Print Friendly

Although the Comey memo scandal may well turn out to be what brings Trump down, this breach of trust may have had more lasting effect than any of Trump’s other numerous misadventures. It was an unprecedented betrayal of Israel’s confidence. Ironically, Trump has now done what even Barack Obama’s biggest detractors never accused him of: seriously compromised Israel’s security relationship with the United States.


Print Friendly

Congress and the public acquiesce in another military intervention or a sharp escalation of one of the U.S. wars already under way, perhaps it’s time to finally consider the true costs of war, American-style — in lives lost, dollars spent, and opportunities squandered. It’s a reasonable bet that never in history has a society spent more on war and gotten less bang for its copious bucks.


RightWeb
share