trying to keep up with and take in the major issues and process them in such a way as to really develop an understanding for them.

a couple of points of interest-

Bob's World the focus on deterrence in the form you've described seems viable if and only if we can both do as you suggested in your last post and find some common requirements among both ourselves and those whom we seek to deter.

By this I mean areas, capabilities, life stuff that both they and we would rather not be without because those are probably the only areas we could count on being a constant during and after a given state of conflict.

I guess the best example I could give would be something like the Internet
(Big I) although most actors would be likely to attack networks or connectivity for an opponent it's hard to imagine that many either state or non-state would attempt to take down The Internet because they depend on it as much if not more than we. Leaving Slaps individuals out of that equation what other things, capabilities, requirements are there which might fall in the same category's

Maybe by actually clarifying those which are least likely to be the way someone decides to act up may help to point out more clearly those areas where deterrence would not only be doable but perhaps beneficial not only militarily but politically as well(mainly in the Foreign policy arena).

The one other thing I wondered about would be whose job it is to develop understanding of the various ideologically based strategies out there which are most likely to precipitate what we would consider potentially in need of "deterrence" This seems pertinent due to the fact that even though we might not like talking or thinking about it much of the risk of conflict in many areas is pretty clearly tied to policies in governance based off them or lack of populaces to entertain them.

Not sure that made sense