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

    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

    Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


    The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


    Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


    Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


    Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


    War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


    Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


    RightWeb
    share