Any serious discussion about Long term Turkish defence ambitions cannot be done without mentioning the Nukes and ICBMs, and the conventional assumption always seems to be, you need nukes to deter nukes.
However, the self evident hurdle of tremendous political and economic cost that would come with any meaningful attempt to developing global strategic strike capability, is what prevent us.
Globalisation and the unprecedented connectivity and interdependence made the use of nuclear weapon very unlikely. Until 1999 the public and expert consensus seems was, nuclear armed nations cannot fight any war short of nuclear escalation, However, Kargil conflict showed us Nuclear power can fight conventional war without climbing up the escalation ladder. And today, PRC and USA with its allies decisively preparing for a large scale conventional war in Indo-pacific if Cold War 2.0 ever turns into hot war. However, for the above mentioned reasons the threat of nuclear escalation is considerably laser than what it used to be in second half of the 20th century.
But nevertheless, an effective deterrence capability against nuclear armed adversaries is still the holy grail of any Nation state. And it will continue to remain so. While the cost in pursuit of such ambition is tremendous, Türkiye or any Nation that value its existential security cannot avoid this in the long run.
While acquiring credible nuclear deterrence of our own could be the ultimate goal, but considering the cost, in short and medium term it is not practical.
Perhaps crossing beyond the realm of conventional thinking 'you need nukes to deter nukes' we can take a new approach.
Well, not entirely new but the public discourse largely forgot about the other dimensions of WMD. In particular,
biological weapon of mass destruction.
It doesn’t require billion dollar multiple enrichment plants, decade long expensive delivery systems development process. (ICBM, SLBM and SSBN)
And more important of all, with adequate measures, the main hurdle of tremendous economic and political cost that comes with nuclear weapon development
can be avoided.
Because it can be done by handful of genius scientists in a relatively small lab. Thus, it is practically possible to keep the program completely secret.
And for minimum deterrence, It is not necessary to publicly issue the threat of Biological WMD. It is enough to let know the political and military leadership of nuclear armed adversaries of the biological WMD that you posses. But if any tense strategic stand off require, public disclosure of your capability is within option.
Even though strategic Nuclear global reach is still the most prized possession, the irony here is that United States can actually shoot down handful of ICBM launched by a small of medium power, thus, putting the credibility of small/medium power's retaliatory capability at risk, but there is no stopping the Biological weapon of mass destruction. It does not require missiles or the conventional means for its delivery. Nor can it be neutralised by a massive 'First Strike'.
“A biological attack could conceivably result in large numbers of civilian casualties and cause severe disruption to economic and societal infrastructure.
A nation or group that can pose a credible threat of mass casualty has the ability to alter the terms under which other nations or groups interact with it. When indexed to weapon mass and cost of development and storage, biological weapons possess destructive potential and loss of life far in excess of nuclear, chemical or conventional weapons. Accordingly, biological agents are potentially useful as strategic deterrents, in addition to their utility as offensive weapons on the battlefield.”
The paper examines the strategic utility of biological weapons in the hands of state actors. The work was written in an attempt to rectify a lack of theoretical and strategic discussion of these weapons in the existing literature. Through discussion of theoretical concepts and empirical data the...
web.archive.org
I wonder why nobody thinks along these lines these days. I would really like hear our esteemed member’s opinion on this.
@dBSPL @Sanchez et al.
Edit- I just realised this discussion is not suitable for this thread. Maybe any of the mods could move in some place more suitable.
