Concepts and Analysis of Nuclear Strategy

Concepts & Analysis of Nuclear Strategy Theory Team Framework Report.

Author | Editor: Bragg, B. (NSI, Inc).

This paper reports the theoretical review and framework development conducted by the STRATCOM/J-5 “Concept and Analysis of Nuclear Strategy (CANS) Theory Team. It reports the theoretical review and framework development with two goals in mind:

1. Framing the problem space surrounding U.S. deterrence, assurance, defeat, counter-proliferation and strategic stability policy objectives in light of varying threats, international environments, and adversary types.
2. Developing an intellectual framework within which the alternative analytic and modeling techniques might be evaluated.

The CANS project is intended to examine the utility of alternative analytic techniques for assessing nuclear force attributes and sufficiency under a variety of changed conditions. This report captures the essence of a continuing discussion rather than a final assessment of the problem space.

This effort is designed to inform debates in this topical area and to facilitate the related CANS modeling efforts that follow. It is important to note that, as with the entire CANS effort, the theory team was not intended to review or produce policy or force structure recommendations.

More than twenty years after the common dating of the “end” of the Cold War, US military planners and policy analysts continue to grapple with ways to conceptualize and analyze the sufficiency of our nuclear forces. Specifically, their ability to accomplish major policy goals in a multi-polar world where diverse actors – from “major powers” to those that have been all but disregarded – now constitute significant threats to US and allied interest. Not only is it unclear the extent to which traditional models of nuclear strategy still apply, but efforts to extend them run up against an expanded array of potential threats, types of actors, and foreseeable international environments.

The Concepts & Analysis of Nuclear Strategy (CANS) project undertaken for US Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) was tasked to examine the utility of alternative analytic techniques for assessing nuclear force attributes and sufficiency under a variety of changed conditions. It was a nine-month effort during which major tasks were divided among three teams:

1. Theory Team: Responsible for reviewing existing nuclear strategy theory, defining terms and establishing an intellectual framework for conducting the study.
2. Analysis Team: Composed of war gamers, strategic gamers, computational and decision modelers, and qualitative researchers who addressed some of the key outstanding questions as they conducted a “deep dive” demonstration of several alternative analytic approaches to the study of nuclear strategy.
3. Integration Team: Tasked with attempting to integrate the outputs generated by the first two teams into a series of conceptual models and a cohesive framework to assist planners and policy analysts as they think through some of the difficult topics they will face in coming years.

The following key questions were addressed by the Theory Team’s approach as well as the various deep dive efforts undertaken for the CANS project:

• How do we set up the analytic community to address the next round of arms control relevant to our nuclear forces and strategy?
• NSI: DAT model
• NSI: ATOM model
• Monitor 360: Crowdsourcing
• DNI: game
• How do the attributes of a potential force posture relate to deterrence, assurance, defeat, strategic stability and counter-proliferation?
• NSI: ATOM model
• Carnegie Mellon University Dynamic Network Analysis
• George Mason University: Pythia
• What are the force structuring questions associated with the anticipated thrusts of upcoming arms control negotiations?
• DNI game
• How should tradeoffs between force attributes be considered?
• NSI: ATOM model
• Do changes in US targeting doctrine change our abilities to deter adversaries and assure allies?
• USAF Game
• Monitor 360: Crowdsourcing
• Carnegie Mellon University: Dynamic Network Analysis
• George Mason University: Pythia
• How should we assess risks and trade-off relationships relative to nuclear force posture and modernization decisions?
• George Mason University: Pythia

This report outlines the theoretical review and framework development conducted by the CANS Theory Team. The Theory Team Supporting Documents compiles individual pieces written by Theory Team members that focus on specific elements of the framework and their interrelationship. These documents capture the essence of a continuing discussion rather than final judgments, and are best viewed as a “living” product that reflects Theory Team discussions. Both have been refined and amended over the course of the project. The Framework Report and Supporting Documents were designed to inform debate in this topical area, and to enrich and facilitate the Analysis Team’s modeling efforts.

The Theory Team was charged with two goals: first, to frame the problem space surrounding the U.S. policy objectives of deterrence, assurance, defeat, strategic stability, and counter-proliferation in light of varying threats, international environments, and adversary types; second, to develop an intellectual framework within which the alternative analytic and modeling techniques might be evaluated.

It is important to note that, as with the entire CANS effort, the theory team was not intended to review or produce policy or force structure recommendations.

This report represents the Theory Team’s approach to mapping the scope of the nuclear strategy policy space. However, over the course of this effort it became clear to members of the Theory Team that this mapping process generated further questions, as well as answers. Even now, a number of outstanding issues and theoretical issues challenge our understanding of this problem space. Some of these are enumerated in the “Way Ahead” section at the end of this report.

The Framework Report is organized as follows: A broad view of the problem space associated with assessing nuclear force structure and posture – what the team has called the Problem Space Vortex – is introduced. In essence the Vortex imagines the complex collection of factors that define the space within which force posture and structure trade-offs and decisions must be made. This is a first step in articulating a credible, useful way of expressing the value of US military capabilities in deterring or defeating adversaries, assuring allies, maintaining strategic stability, and countering potential nuclear proliferation. This is followed by discussion of the 5-Dimensional intellectual framework that was used in this project for organizing and cataloguing alternative analytic approaches according to the types of contexts to which they apply. Each of the five dimensions–policy objective, actor type, threat, world “future”, and operation/conflict phase – is discussed individually and multiple models for thinking about the different dimensions are provided. The report concludes with an outline of the overall CANS project. This involved two major activities. The first built on the framework tables that are the culmination of this report (see page 23) to identify pertinent questions and the relevant analytic techniques for addressing them. Simultaneously, the Analysis Team – made up of USAF, USN and DNI war gamers, a George Mason University-led multi-modeling team, NSI decision analysis, and Monitor 360 Crowdsourcing Non-U.S. SME sub-teams — worked to produce “deep dive” examples, exercising these approaches specifically for the USSTRATCOM problem set.

 

Download Publication