ABSTRACT
Boserup: Frank Barnaby stressed that his proposals for non-provocative defence are not really radical ones. I think I understand his point, namely, that they can be implemented step by step over a period of time without upsetting things and that even small steps in the right direction will stabilize the military situation and improve security. On these points I entirely agree, and the possibility of gradual implementation is important to stress. But from the conceptual point of view of defence thinking, Frank Barnaby’s proposals are extremely radical. They imply a complete break with old notions of defence, security, dissuasion (deterrence), and so on, which are generally taken for granted, as I have tried to show in my own paper. We recognize the need for genuinely tough defence, but also the need for a radical critique of notions of how to pursue it. At the present juncture it is very important to stress this radical difference in basic concepts, to criticize preconceptions when they are dangerous or illogical, and to show that it is possible to think about the same problems in other, more cogent ways. Unless we attack the established dogmas of deterrence theory head-on we shall be met time and again by the same ill-conceived objections — “adding a nuclear component to a conventional defence will give additional security” or “to deter effectively we need offensive-capable forces to reconquer lost territory” and so on. A great merit of ideas on non-offensive defence is that they force us to reconsider, at the deepest level, our preconceptions. For this reason it is important to stress that these ideas are extremely radical, even though the concrete changes may be small, gradual, and in some cases fairly uncontroversial.
