Correspondence: Clandestine Capabilities and Technological Diffusion Risks

Abstract

Brendan Green and Austin Long make a signiacant contribution with their theoretical framework for peacetime signaling of clandestine military capabilities.1 Examining U.S. anti-submarine warfare (ASW) during the Cold War, they argue that choices to disclose capabilities depend on uniqueness (replaceability) and anticipated countermeasures (pp. 59–60). Green and Long cannot fully account for many historical cases, however, because they overlook decisionmaker concerns about the spread of technology. A modiaed framework combining their theory with fears of technological diffusion offers greater predictive power by explaining the broader dilemma of revealing military innovations during both war and peace. States conceal military capabilities to avoid two threats: nulliacation and duplication.2 Green and Long’s variables of uniqueness and countermeasures focus on the former while failing to address the latter. Green and Long argue that if the risk of countermeasures is low or if replacement capabilities exist, signaling becomes attractive for “improved general deterrence, adversary resource diversion, and diplomatic concessions or strategic adjustments” (p. 56). Duplication is a fundamentally different concern. Disclosures may provide an adversary with insights to improve their own capabilities. The fear of nulliacation identiaed by Green and Long does not preclude concerns about technological diffusion (pp. 51–52). Correspondence: Clandestine Capabilities