« Previous |
1 - 10 of 13
|
Next »
Number of results to display per page
Search Results
2. Missile Defense: Defending America or Building Empire?
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 05-2003
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- The rationale for missile defense put forward by its advocates is often a “doom and gloom” picture: America and its citizens are defenseless against the threat of ballistic missiles, and missile defense is supposed to protect the American people. The administration's vision of missile defense is not just a global system that protects the United States against long-range missiles but a global system capable of engaging all classes of ballistic missiles to protect U.S. forces deployed worldwide, U.S. allies, and other friendly countries. Thus, the purpose of missile defense is extended well beyond protecting America and Americans.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, and Nuclear Weapons
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
3. Iraq: The Wrong War
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 12-2003
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- President Bush asserts that U.S. military action against Iraq was justified because Saddam Hussein was in material breach of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. But even if Iraq was in violation of a UN resolution, the U.S. military does not exist to enforce UN mandates. It exists to defend the United States: its territorial integrity and national sovereignty, the population, and the liberties that underlie the American way of life. So whether Iraq was in violation of Resolution 1441 is irrelevant. The real question is whether Iraq represented a direct and imminent threat to the United States that could not otherwise be deterred. If that was the case, then preemptive self-defense, like Israel's military action against Egypt, Syria, Jordan, and Iraq in the 1967 Six Day War, would have been warranted. And if Iraq was not a threat, especially in terms of aiding and abetting Al Qaeda, then the United States fought a needless war against a phantom menace.
- Topic:
- War
- Political Geography:
- United States, Europe, Middle East, United Nations, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan
4. Mini-Nukes and Preemptive Policy: A Dangerous Combination
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 11-2003
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Currently, the United States relies on conventional bunker-busting bombs—such as the GBU-28, which was used in both Afghanistan and Iraq—to destroy hardened, underground targets. Legislation is pending in Congress that would provide funding for research—but not engineering or development—for low-yield, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons for targets that cannot be destroyed by conventional bunker busters.
- Topic:
- Terrorism, War, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
- Political Geography:
- Afghanistan, United States, and Iraq
5. Bush's National Security Strategy Is a Misnomer
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 10-2003
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- The Constitution of the United States of America makes clear that one of the paramount responsibilities of the federal government is to "provide for the common defense." In the past, the primary threats to the United States and U.S. interests were hostile nation-states. Today, the real threat to America is terrorist groups, specifically the al Qaeda terrorist network. Therefore, al Qaeda, not rogue states, should be the primary focus of U.S. national security strategy.
- Topic:
- Terrorism and War
- Political Geography:
- United States and America
6. Responding to the Threat of Smallpox Bioterrorism: An Ounce of Prevention Is Best Approach
- Author:
- Veronique de Rugy and Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 04-2002
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- The threat of direct terrorist attack against the United States proved to be real. And the subsequent anthrax cases point to the possibility of a future bioterrorist attack, including use of the deadly smallpox virus. The nature of terrorism is such that it is impossible to accurately predict the probability of such an attack, but the potential consequences are catastrophic. Therefore, it is a serious threat that deserves serious attention.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy and Government
- Political Geography:
- United States and Europe
7. Should the United States "Weaponize" Space?
- Author:
- Edward Hudgins and Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 03-2002
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Control of space is at the crux of the debate about the future of U.S. military space policy. The question is not about militarizing space. Clearly, we have been using and will continue to use space for military purposes. But, whereas we are currently using space assets to support terrestrial (ground, sea, and air) military operations, what Sen. Robert C. Smith (R-N.H.), the Space Commission (which was chaired by current Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld), and others have proposed is that the United States move toward “weaponizing” space for space control.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, and Science and Technology
- Political Geography:
- United States
8. The Anti-Terrorism Coalition: Don't Pay an Excessive Price
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 12-2001
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- To prosecute the war on terrorism, President Bush has assembled a diverse coalition of countries for political, diplomatic, and military support. Some of those countries are long-standing friends and allies of the United States. Others have new or changing relationships with the United States. Although there may be a price for their support, America should not pay an excessive price—one that could be detrimental to longer-term U.S. national security interests. And though it may be necessary to provide a certain amount of immediate aid (directly or indirectly) as a quid pro quo for the support of other nations in our war on terrorism, the United States needs to avoid longer-term entanglements, openended commitments, and the potential for an extreme anti-American backlash.
- Topic:
- Security, Religion, and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, America, Europe, Middle East, and Asia
9. The Anti-Terrorism Coalition: Don't Pay an Excessive Price
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 12-2001
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- To prosecute the war on terrorism, President Bush has assembled a diverse coalition of countries for political, diplomatic, and military support. Some of those countries are long-standing friends and allies of the United States. Others have new or changing relationships with the United States. Although there may be a price for their support, America should not pay an excessive price—one that could be detrimental to longer-term U.S. national security interests. And though it may be necessary to provide a certain amount of immediate aid (directly or indirectly) as a quid pro quo for the support of other nations in our war on terrorism, the United States needs to avoid longer-term entanglements, open-ended commitments, and the potential for an extreme anti-American backlash.
- Topic:
- Security, Religion, and Terrorism
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United States, America, Europe, Middle East, and Asia
10. From the Sea: National Missile Defense Is Neither Cheap Nor Easy
- Author:
- Charles V. Peña
- Publication Date:
- 06-2000
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- Sea-based missile defense is being advocated as an alternative to the Clinton administration's limited land-based national missile defense (NMD), which is in the early stages of testing. Proponents of sea-based NMD (which is only a concept, not a program) argue that such a system can be deployed more quickly and will be less expensive than the Clinton administration's land-based system. Some argue that the Navy Theater Wide (NTW) system—which is being designed to provide midcourse intercept capability against slower, shorter-range theater ballistic missiles—can be upgraded to attack longrange intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in their boost phase (when under powered flight at the beginning of their trajectories). Interestingly enough, advocates of sea-based NMD include not only traditional supporters of missile defense but also people who were previously opposed to missile defense.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Politics, and Terrorism