Australia needs urgently to improve its understanding of deterrence so that it can build an effective strategy to respond to future provocation and malicious behaviour by aggressive actors, ASPI’s latest report states.
Despite having previously been a global thought leader on nuclear weapons and deterrence half a century ago, Australia today doesn’t have a strong grasp of the basics of modern deterrence, it states.
The special report by ASPI’s director of defence strategy and national security, Bec Shrimpton is titled ‘Deterrence, escalation and strategic stability: Rebuilding Australia’s muscle memory‘.
Despite featuring strongly—and increasingly—in major defence documents such as the Defence Strategic Review, a clear understanding of deterrence is yet to be established and the skills needed across the policy community are yet to be built.
“The depth of knowledge and working understanding of deterrence among policymakers and practitioners across the Australian system don’t match the concept’s increasingly frequent invocation,” the report states.
“Key terms are co-opted to mean whatever’s convenient to the user at the time. Failing to understand the doctrinal and practical application of ideas such as escalation and de-escalation, for example, leads to oversimplification or even wrong-headed interpretations of their purpose.
“Conceptual confusion or the misuse of foundational deterrence terminology risks undermining attempts to develop a workable strategy.”
The report makes four substantial recommendations about improving Australia’s skills and knowledge of deterrence. It should invest in knowledge and literacy within Defence and the wider policy community; it should support a stronger public debate to inform the community; it should engage in more deterrence dialogues, exercises, war games and planning with international partners; and it should invest in and use the most effective methodologies for developing robust deterrence strategy.
The report states that Australia built substantial expertise from the 1950s to the 1990s during Cold War in nuclear deterrence, which was a key focus of its alliance with the US. Ministers and officials made it a key priority.
“The level of expertise that Australia was able to bring to the table won the respect of senior US officials,” it states.
Beyond the government itself, experts included Hedley Bull, JDB Miller, Coral Bell, Bob O’Neill, Desmond Ball and Rod Lyon (who remains a leading Australian authority). These figures were all in the top global ranks of strategic intellectuals.
The “muscle memory” exists to revive these skills, the report says. However the new approach needs not to focus just on nuclear deterrence but on integrated or “full spectrum” deterrence, to avoid potentially catastrophic wars. The full spectrum needs to include deterring irregular warfare—including special and covert operations, political warfare and the “grey zone” —as well as conventional and nuclear capabilities.
It also must incorporate the newer domains of space and cyberspace. And it must integrate all elements of national power, including diplomatic, economic and industrial—including technological—power.
The report stresses that a sophisticated understanding of deterrence includes the appreciation that escalation dynamics are not linear.
“It’s entirely possible to ‘escalate to de-escalate’. Failing to respond adequately to provocation and malicious behaviour can encourage more aggressive actors to escalate further (weakening deterrence).”
