...threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends . . . Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the...solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past.5 The trouble is that the United States does not have a clear sense of the goals of most rogue...

...destruction (WMD). It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the...States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture 1 See National Security Act of 1947, §198, 50 USC §404a (2000). 2 WHITE HOUSE, THE NATIONAL SECURITY...

...policy of the preemptive use of military force is required. The Bush administration has declared that "the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past." 9 However, the preemptive use of military force against adversaries that are stateless, elusive, and...

...prevent the possibility of weapons transfers to terrorists.57 As stated in the September 2002 document: Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely solely on a reactive posture as we have done in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker,...

...Prävention ausgerichtete Militärstrategie ersetzt werden müssen. In der NSS steht hierzu geschrieben: «Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists,...adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option (...) Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics...

...s/2002/l2/WMDStrateqv.pdf>, (I 2 January 2004), p. 3 4 National Securitv Strategv of the United States of America, p.iv goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States...rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. [...] We cannot let our enemies strike first. "5 Thus the NSS introduces the concept of preemptive...

...forced a fundamental change in the calculus that governed the traditional doctrine of containment. "The inability to deter a potential attacker, the...today's threats and the magnitude of potential harm that can be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons," they wrote, means that "we cannot let our enemies...

...Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." The 2002 NSS minced no words in claiming that given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer rely solely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker,...

...detect and deter reliably. To the NSS, even a small per> centage of successful attacks is unacceptable: Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the...inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today s threats, and the magni> tude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries choice...