To deter is not synonymous with attack. But without the capability of the latter deterrence is an illusion, writes Amin Howeidi* Everything about deterrence, whether conventional or unconventional, fascinates me. Conventional arms, chemical and biological weapons and nuclear warheads decide the course of any given crisis. Some countries have big deterrent capabilities, others have small ones. My question is: how do you fight a big deterrent with a small deterrent? Is it true that size always win? I discussed the topic at length in my book The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Conventional versus Nuclear Deterrence : Beirut; Arab Unity Research Centre, 1983, repr. 1987. I sent copies of the book to all Arab leaders. The only one to respond was president Saddam Hussein, who relayed his views on the matter. A précis of my argument is that Israel may have an abundance of conventional and nuclear weapons but the outcome of any conflict would ultimately depend on our ability to stand firm. I wrote that: - What matters is not the method of deterrence, but the destruction it can cause. And destruction can result from nuclear as well as conventional weapons. - The level of your determination compensates for your lack of firepower. - A small deterrent is more credible than a big deterrent. An enemy holding a stick is more likely to attack than one holding a knife. - A big deterrent is unpredictable in the damage it may cause and therefore less useful. - Nuclear powers have been challenged repeatedly by conventional powers: Vietnam versus the US, Argentina versus the UK, Afghanistan versus the UK, Egypt versus France and the UK. Arab regimes need a credible deterrent to stop Israel from pushing them around and to correct a flawed status quo. There will be no stability in the region unless our interests are backed by power. Deterrence, however, is not synonymous with aggression. You need it to stop others from walking all over you though it need not be used. It is impossible for the Arabs to move on to nukes without first being able to protect themselves in the conventional sense. Israel has made that amply clear. It promised to destroy any Arab or Islamic attempt to acquire nuclear weapons. As part of the 100-year strategy formulated by Menachem Begin Israel refuses to allow international borders or laws to temper its ambitions. Israel is obsessed with absolute security and can think of nothing else. We have to keep this in mind if we ever hope to emerge from the current vicious circle. Some people want to free entire regions from nuclear weapons but you cannot free an area from nukes just by removing warheads. You can take the warheads away but you cannot remove the know-how from the heads of nuclear scientists unless, of course, you remove the heads. After invading Iraq the US rounded up Iraqi nuclear scientists. No one knows what happened to them. Other people argue for a free-for-all. Let every country obtain nuclear warheads so that everyone is ultimately safe. This is an unacceptable argument. It would be ridiculous to give everyone nukes when there is not enough food or water to go round. Whether as countries or regions we need credible deterrence. And we can get it. We have the weapons and can provide the training and command to go with it. Israel will stop only when we make it stop. * The writer is former defence minister and chief of General Intelligence.
