Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Defense Intelligence Agency, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
Posted on Feb 13, 2018
DNI Coats: North Korea is an 'existential threat'
4.52K
10
12
5
5
0
Military and civilian leaders routinely misuse the term "existential threat" and this regular misuse dilutes honest discussion regarding the threats our country faces. Describing terrorism as an existential threat, for example, is the most egregious misappropriation that suggests almost *any* conflict could meet this threshold.
First, let's start with some definitions:
(Dictionary.com) Existential (Philosophy): concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
(Merriam-Webster) Existential: of, relating to, or affirming existence.
The meaning of "existential" is that it is decisive to the very essence of the subject in question. Therefore, an "existential threat" is a danger to the *very essence* of the United States in that the country *would cease to exist* if that threat materialized in a worst case scenario.
Using the above definition, this nation has only experienced two real existential struggles - the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Defeat in either of those conflicts would have fundamentally altered or destroyed the United States. Even World War II, as gruesome and high stakes as it was, did not represent a true "existential threat" to the United States. That said, it was existential for Europe.
To address the article above, North Korea does not represent an existential threat to the United States unless we believe that it could hit every major city in the U.S. with a nuclear missile at the same time. Even if one or two cities endured a nuclear attack, the United States would respond, rebuild, and likely be even stronger than before. What Mr. Coats is trying to say is that North Korea's combined rhetoric and potential ICBM capability presents a grave danger, i.e. an "unacceptable threat" to the US homeland. We are unwilling to accept the risk of a belligerent North Korea possessing nuclear tipped ICBMs.
Why do I bring this up? Perhaps you might find it academic, but language matters. And in this case, it is important to communicate with precision.
First, let's start with some definitions:
(Dictionary.com) Existential (Philosophy): concerned with existence, especially human existence as viewed in the theories of existentialism.
(Merriam-Webster) Existential: of, relating to, or affirming existence.
The meaning of "existential" is that it is decisive to the very essence of the subject in question. Therefore, an "existential threat" is a danger to the *very essence* of the United States in that the country *would cease to exist* if that threat materialized in a worst case scenario.
Using the above definition, this nation has only experienced two real existential struggles - the Revolutionary War and the Civil War. Defeat in either of those conflicts would have fundamentally altered or destroyed the United States. Even World War II, as gruesome and high stakes as it was, did not represent a true "existential threat" to the United States. That said, it was existential for Europe.
To address the article above, North Korea does not represent an existential threat to the United States unless we believe that it could hit every major city in the U.S. with a nuclear missile at the same time. Even if one or two cities endured a nuclear attack, the United States would respond, rebuild, and likely be even stronger than before. What Mr. Coats is trying to say is that North Korea's combined rhetoric and potential ICBM capability presents a grave danger, i.e. an "unacceptable threat" to the US homeland. We are unwilling to accept the risk of a belligerent North Korea possessing nuclear tipped ICBMs.
Why do I bring this up? Perhaps you might find it academic, but language matters. And in this case, it is important to communicate with precision.
DNI Coats: North Korea is an 'existential threat'
Posted from politico.com
Special Forces
DIA
Edited 6 y ago
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 4
0
0
0
Color me surprised. A Lieutenant in Intelligence that actually has some working brain cells.
CPT (Join to see) you gave a very good explanation as to why proper use and interpretation of language is so important. Thank you.
CPT (Join to see) you gave a very good explanation as to why proper use and interpretation of language is so important. Thank you.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were absolutely existential threats to the United States. The American Civil War was not. The American War of Independence, if lost, would have eliminated the political existence of the United States as a nation-state, but it would not have destroyed the population or economic potential of the American colonies.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Really can't disagree with you more on the Civil War. Your explanation of why it wasn't an existential threat is contradictory: "would have eliminated the political existence of the United States as a nation-state." That is literally the definition of an existential threat.
(1)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
In neither war (CW or AWI) do I see an existential threat. Existential to me would cover destruction of our society itself and I don't accept elimination of a political entity as existential threat. Countries get invaded, governments destroyed, and new government rise up. A nation is not confined to a nation-state. These are distinct entities. The French are a nation. France is a nation-state. If you have invade France and overthrow its government, but leave French society, culture and identity, then there is still a nation of the French and at some point there may be (in our scenario) a new France. Nation != nation-state.
(1)
(0)
SSG Robert Webster
SGT (Join to see) - You are so wrong. Especially if you are going to use France and the French as your example. Now, if you had used England and the English nation as an example you would have been a lot closer to making your point, but then if you had used that as an example you would have been only incorrect, instead of wrong; but it still would not have been able to make your point for you.
I suggest that you study the history of the regions known as France and England today to get a better understanding, and hopefully see where your thesis has its flaws.
Maybe by examining the French speaking people of Belgium and asking yourself, are they French or are they Belgique?
You may also want to study the nation-state, The Holy Roman Empire and its dissolution.
I suggest that you study the history of the regions known as France and England today to get a better understanding, and hopefully see where your thesis has its flaws.
Maybe by examining the French speaking people of Belgium and asking yourself, are they French or are they Belgique?
You may also want to study the nation-state, The Holy Roman Empire and its dissolution.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) - I see what you're saying, but keep in mind that the "essence" of our nation could arguably encompass the following domains: political/legal, social/cultural, and geographic/place.* You correctly point out that social/cultural are very important (arguably the most important), but that said, political/legal and geographic/place are extremely important to the "essence" of the nation as well. Outcomes resulting in negative changes to these domains, therefore, would constitute crises of existential magnitude. Such was the case with both the Revolutionary War and Civil War. Negative outcomes in either conflict would have caused huge changes to political/legal and geographic/place, even if social/cultural would have only been moderately affected.
*economic could arguably be a fourth consideration in certain cases - such as our national debt - where it represents an existential crisis because collapse of our economy would cause such severe consequences to our domestic and global interests that it could cripple us decisively.
*economic could arguably be a fourth consideration in certain cases - such as our national debt - where it represents an existential crisis because collapse of our economy would cause such severe consequences to our domestic and global interests that it could cripple us decisively.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google