Lawfare - Theory & Practice

[jmm99]

for the mindset of JMM.

The problem proposed by the mindset of others:

from BW
I was in an exercise that involved an individual employing a WMD device and then running to an allied nation and and taking sanctuary in a region of that state where it was largely self-governing and the populace was sympathetic to the motivations of this actor. Higher HQ demanded that we put a COA on the table to essentially retaliate in kind on the piece of dirt that we were pretty sure this guy was hiding on.

I'm positing that "Higher Hq" was primarily threat-oriented. OK, JMM can play that game.

The threat has two facets: (1) the 100 megaton device and delivery system; and (2) the disaffected individual (JMM in my hypo).

Retaliation will not work on the device-system because it's already gone and blown (and it can't be deterred by threatened retaliation because it has no mind).

JMM has a mind and can be deterred by threatened retaliation if he is afraid to die, or if he will not allow the "sympathetic populace" to die.

If JMM is not afraid to die and willing to let the "sympathetic populace" die, the threat of retaliation is meaningless. My purpose has been fulfilled when I turn the launch key. That is a simple game of Chicken, whether played by a state or by an individual.

To prevent 100 megaton damage to your country, you have to bet on what JMM will or will not do - he (or the nation-state or group that he symbolizes) is the only relevant target in what is essentially a MAD scenario.

BTW, the "sympathetic populace" is not directly material to solution of that problem since in my hypo I've built in adequate time to launch. The "sympathetic populace" can't stop me even if they wanted to.

The "sympathetic populace" is certainly guilty of allowing me to get into a position to launch. So, if "Higher Hq" wants retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence against them, then turning their little chunk of real estate into glass will accomplish those ends.

Whether "making glass" will result in general deterrence of other "sympathetic populaces" in the future seems speculative to me. As in the criminal justice arena, I'd suspect it may deter some and not others. As in the criminal justice arena, I'd suspect that COA will not deter future "JMMs" who have made up their minds as to their COAs.

In reality, if an expended WMD can be traced back to a specific piece of real estate, that region can expect WMD retaliation from the US, France or Russia (as I understand what their leaders have said at various times).

I think all of this is moving far off the point of what law can and can't do. Pass a law against the game of Chicken ? Only works if all the prospective players obey the law.

Regards

Mike