PREVENTIVE DEFENSE STRATEGY
AP Photo
Summer 2008
"Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 33
By Maria Stephan, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program/Intrastate Conflict Program and Erica Chenoweth, Research Fellow, International Security Program
The historical record indicates that nonviolent campaigns have been more successful than armed campaigns in achieving ultimate goals in political struggles, even when used against similar opponents and in the face of repression. Nonviolent campaigns are more likely to win legitimacy, attract widespread domestic and international support, neutralize the opponent's security forces, and compel loyalty shifts among erstwhile opponent supporters than are armed campaigns, which enjoin the active support of a relatively small number of people, offer the opponent a justification for violent counterattacks, and are less likely to prompt loyalty shifts and defections. An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims. These dynamics are further explored in case studies of resistance campaigns in Southeast Asia that have featured periods of both violent and nonviolent resistance.
Summer 2008
"How American Treaty Behavior Threatens National Security"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 33
In recent years, American treaty behavior has produced growing concern among both allies and less friendly nations. On such fundamental issues as nuclear proliferation, terrorism, human rights, civil liberties, environmental disasters, and commerce, the United States has generated confusion and anger abroad. Such a climate is not conducive to needed cooperation in the conduct of foreign and security policy. Among U.S. actions that have caused concern are the failure to ratify several treaties; the attachment of reservations, understandings, and declarations before ratification; the failure to support a treaty regime once ratified; and treaty withdrawal. The structural and historical reasons for American treaty behavior are deeply rooted in the United States' system of government and do not merely reflect superpower arrogance.
Summer 2008
"The Window of Vulnerability That Wasn’t: Soviet Military Buildup in the 1970s—A Research Note"
Journal Article, International Security, issue 1, volume 33
By Pavel Podvig
The Soviet strategic modernization program of the 1970s was one of the most consequential developments of the Cold War. Deployment of new intercontinental ballistic missiles and the dramatic increase in the number of strategic warheads in the Soviet arsenal created a sense of vulnerability in the United States that was, to a large degree, responsible for the U.S. military buildup of the late 1970s and early 1980s and the escalation of Cold War tensions during that period. U.S. assessments concluded that the Soviet Union was seeking to achieve a capability to fight and win a nuclear war. Estimates of missile accu¬racy and silo hardness provided by the U.S. intelligence community led many in the United States to conclude that the Soviet Union was building a strategic missile force capable of destroying most U.S. missiles in a counterforce strike and of surviving a subsequent nuclear exchange. Soviet archival documents that have recently become available demonstrate that this conclusion was wrong. The U.S. estimates substantially overestimated the accuracy of the Soviet Union's missiles and the degree of silo reinforcement. As the data demonstrate, the Soviet missile force did not have the capability to launch a successful first strike. Moreover, the data strongly suggest that the Soviet Union never attempted to acquire a first-strike capability, concentrating instead on strategies based on retaliation.
Photo Credit: Deborah Gordon
July 1, 2008
PDP Co-Directors Lead U.S. Delegation to Taiwan & PRC for Strategic Security Discussions
Press Release
In cooperation with the National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, PDP Co-Directors William Perry and Ashton Carter led a bipartisan civilian/military delegation to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China for the ninth Track II Strategic Security Issues Dialogue.
June 22 - July 1, 2008
Report of the Strategic Security Issues Delegation to Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC)
Report
By Dr. William J. Perry, Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Admiral (ret.) Joseph W. Prueher, Senior Advisor, Preventive Defense Project, Ambassador Robert D. Blackwill, International Council Member, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Dr. Ashton B. Carter, Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities, Stephen A. Orlins, President, National Committee on U.S.-China Relations, Dr. David M. Lampton, Director, China Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Dr. Kurt Campbell, CEO and Founder, Center for a New American Security, Dr. Ashley Tellis, Dr. Evan Medeiros, Senior Political Scientist, RAND Corporation and Jan Berris, Vice-President, National Committee on U.S.-China Relations
Full text of the trip report from PDP's Track II meetings in Taiwan and the People's Republic of China (PRC).
May 29, 2008
Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters
Book
By Richard Clarke, Faculty Affiliate, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs
It's not just Bush and Cheney that are to blame. The system is broken. That's the message in this provocative sequel to Against All Enemies. When Richard Clarke apologized for 9-11, he never thought that there would be so many more government failures in so short a time, but climate change, Katrina, the struggle with al Qaeda, the insecurity in cyberspace, and the failure of homeland security all bespeak a larger problem, a systemic failure. Clarke documents the failures and suggests solutions for making government work better in its most important job, protecting us.
AP Photo
April 15, 2008
Actions Now for the Day After: Findings of the Preventive Defense Day After Project
Testimony
By Dr. Ashton B. Carter, Co-Director, Preventive Defense Project, Harvard & Stanford Universities
PDP Co-Director Ashton B. Carter testifies before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
April 15, 2008
PDP Co-Director Carter testifies before Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Press Release
PDP Co-Director Dr. Ashton B. Carter testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs at its hearing on "Nuclear Terrorism: Confronting the Challenges of the Day After."
Marcus Halevi
March 12, 2008
Burns Calls for More US Engagement with Iran
Event Summary
Nicholas Burns spoke March 11 in the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum, labeling the top challenges facing the world today as global climate change, trafficking in women and children, international drug and crime cartels, and terrorist groups with access to chemical and biological weapons. This last challenge motivated the focus on Iran.
AP Photo
February 28, 2008
New Iran IAEA Report: Reading Between the Lines
News
By Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs; Douglas Dillon Professor of Government; Faculty Chair, Dubai Initiative
With the International Atomic Energy Agency scheduled to release its much-anticipated report on Iran within the next few days, Graham Allison offers his insight and analysis — as well as questions that remain unanswered.
