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.

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

Share RightWeb

Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel Résumé

Right Web connections

  • Linton F. Brooks, member
  • Keith Payne, chair
  • Chris Williams, member
  • James Woolsey, member


  • Related:

    Deterrence Concepts Advisory Panel News Feed

    39th Ward candidate for alderman: Casey Smagala - Chicago Sun-TimesSubaru's Sales Success Comes With a Big Side of Trouble - The Truth About CarsForm 10-K ADIAL PHARMACEUTICALS, For: Dec 31 - StreetInsider.comForm S-1/A Verb Technology Company, - StreetInsider.comContributors GI | USAPP - USAPP American Politics and Policy (blog)Sunburn — The morning read of what's hot in Florida politics — 1.30.19 - Florida PoliticsForm 10-K FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE For: Dec 28 - StreetInsider.comPipeline Technology Journal 1-2019 - Pipeline Technology JournalForm S-1/A BIOXYTRAN, INC - StreetInsider.comForm 424B4 Alector, Inc. - StreetInsider.comCrikey Worm: government braces for Hayne recommendations - CrikeyUK PONI Roundtable: Extended Deterrence and Assurance in Europe - RUSI AnalysisPentagon Seeks a List of Ethical Principles for Using AI in War - Defense OneForm 497 PARNASSUS FUNDS - StreetInsider.comFrom WWI to www: Geopolitics 100 years later – Book Review - Modern DiplomacyContra massive retaliation: Possible trajectories of a flexible response deterrent strategy for India - Observer Research FoundationPraxis Wins $1.5M NIH SBIR Grant toward Abuse-Deterrent Prodrug Stimulant - Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology NewsSecurity Brief: North Korea Summit Aftermath; Cyber Authorities - Foreign PolicyOpinion | Revisiting India’s national defence doctrines - LivemintPakistan's sea-based nuclear deterrent and its asymmetric escalation strategy - Observer Research Foundation

    Right Web is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

    The Right Web Mission

    Right Web tracks militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy.

    For media inquiries,
    email rightwebproject@gmail.com

    From the Wires

    François Nicoullaud, the former French ambassador to Iran, discusses the ups and downs of Iran-France relations and the new US sanctions.


    Effective alliances require that powerful states shoulder a far larger share of the alliance maintenance costs than other states, a premise that Donald Trump rejects.


    The new imbroglio over the INF treaty does not mean a revival of the old Cold War practice of nuclear deterrence. However, it does reveal the inability of the West and Russia to find a way to deal with the latter’s inevitable return to the ranks of major powers, a need that was obvious even at the time the USSR collapsed.


    As a presidential candidate, Donald Trump appeared to recognize the obvious problem of the revolving door. But as the appointment of Patrick Shanahan, who spent 30 years at Boeing, as the Trump administration’s acting secretary of defense reveals, little has changed. America is indeed great again, if you happen to be one of those lucky enough to be moving back and forth between plum jobs in the Pentagon and the weapons industry.


    Domestic troubles, declining popularity, and a decidedly hawkish anti-Iran foreign policy team may combine to make the perfect storm that pushes Donald Trump to pull the United States into a new war in the Middle East.


    The same calculus that brought Iran and world powers to make a deal and has led remaining JCPOA signatories to preserve it without the U.S. still holds: the alternatives to this agreement – a race between sanctions and centrifuges that could culminate in Iran obtaining the bomb or being bombed – would be much worse.


    With Bolton and Pompeo by his side and Mattis departed, Trump may well go with his gut and attack Iran militarily. He’ll be encouraged in this delusion by Israel and Saudi Arabia. He’ll of course be looking for some way to distract the media and the American public. And he won’t care about the consequences.


    RightWeb
    share