NEGATIVE/ROGUES/GENERAL

TURN: MISSILE STRIKE THREAT CAN END WESTERN HEGEMONY

FEAR OF MISSILE STRIKES WILL RAISE PUBLIC OPPOSITION AND STOP OVERSEAS MILITARY INVOLVEMENTS

Ben Sheppard, Jane's Sentinel editor, The study of ballistic

missile proliferation formed part of his MSc in Strategic Studies. Jane's Intelligence Review October 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Ballistic missile proliferation: a flight of fantasy or fear? // ln-10/99-acs

The threat would not just be military but also be highly political and psychological. Missiles strike fear and uncertainty among civilians and place extreme pressure on governments not to become involved in situations that would expose them to or exacerbate this threat.

THE PUBLIC WILL NOT SUPPORT A MILITARY CONFLICT WITH A NATION CAPABLE OF MISSILE STRIKES ON THE HOMELAND

Ben Sheppard, Jane's Sentinel editor, The study of ballistic

missile proliferation formed part of his MSc in Strategic Studies. Jane's Intelligence Review October 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Ballistic missile proliferation: a flight of fantasy or fear? // ln-10/99-acs

A conflict involving Western nations, where the adversary could launch ballistic missile strikes with relative impunity, would bring the war directly to the homes of West European and North American countries. The comfort and reassurance to civilians of being 'out of harm's way', with their country fighting a war hundreds or thousands of kilometres away in the Middle East or Northeast Asia, would instantly be shattered. Fear, anxiety and apprehension would take hold across all sectors of the population, from the public to those intimately involved in the decision-making process.

POLICY MAKERS WILL BE UNABLE TO ENGAGE IN MILITARY ACTION AGAINST MISSILE STATES BECAUSE OF PUBLIC FEAR OF MISSILE ATTACKS

Ben Sheppard, Jane's Sentinel editor, The study of ballistic

missile proliferation formed part of his MSc in Strategic Studies. Jane's Intelligence Review October 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Ballistic missile proliferation: a flight of fantasy or fear? // ln-10/99-acs

This fear, anxiety and apprehension would cause problems for policy-makers. Gaining public support for distant military operations that could result in missile strikes on the 'homeland' would be difficult and would depend on getting the correct facts across to the public while avoiding unnecessary unease.

WITH MISSILE STRIKES IN THE EQUATION, PUBLIC OPINION WILL FORCE POLICY MAKERS TO AVOID SUCH AN "UNNECESSARY WAR"

Ben Sheppard, Jane's Sentinel editor, The study of ballistic

missile proliferation formed part of his MSc in Strategic Studies. Jane's Intelligence Review October 1, 1999 HEADLINE: Ballistic missile proliferation: a flight of fantasy or fear? // ln-10/99-acs

To understand how SSM missile strikes and threats of a nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) attack could affect the West's foreign and defence policy in times of crisis, it is necessary to comprehend how an anxious public could place political pressure on its government not to become involved in an 'unnecessary war'. Figure 3 shows a diagram of public awareness of international affairs that divides the population in terms of its level of interest and expertise, with levels decreasing as one moves outward toward the edge of the circle. The first two groups are the 'core decision-makers' in the government and the 'elite' who actively seek to influence foreign and defence policy. These groups, who influence the formulation and execution of foreign and defence policy, would have the true facts available to them. It is the third and fourth segment that are of particular concern. The third section (the 'informed' or 'attentive' who stay abreast of international news) is far smaller - and in the context of the missile threat would be even more so for reasons discussed below. The fourth segment is the largest and the most challenging segment of the population to win over: the 'uninformed' or 'inattentive' public. They are unlikely to keep abreast or be aware of international news and the reasoning behind events. Many of them consciously avoid international news, believing such issues are unimportant to them. Why should they be concerned with affairs in Kosovo, the Middle East or on the Korean Peninsula when most developments in these areas have little or no affect on their daily lives?