Talk:Deterrence theory

Deterrence Theory

This isn't a useful account, as other have noted. It doesn't discuss theory at all - if it is limited to the Cold War, it should mention books like Kahn's on escalation. If it is a critique of US policy, it need to explain non sequiturs like "containment" being an "aggressive policy." it needs to look at the Solarium Project, where the Eisenhower administration shaped deterrence theory and rejects a more aggressive policy. Much of this material is available in wikipedia. Gaintes (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The history section in this article is inappropriate, as it reduces what was in fact a complex and changing theory

    of deterrence into a homogenous whole. It is necessary to distinguish at least four periods: the first, from the
    beginning of the Cold War to the policy of detente in the 1960's; the second from the 60's to the 80's, which 
    was the period of detente; the third from Reagan's re-escalation of the Cold War in the 80's to the end of the Soviet
    Union; and the fourth for Post-Cold War deterrence. This division would bring this article to the standards of other
    Wikipedia entries such as detente and Cold War. I have made these changes once, but they were reverted to the
    previous, overly simplistic account. I am making them again now. If there is disagreement about them, please respond
    in the Discussion page. Guslto 15:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this page should simply be rolled into MAD, but it is very underdeveloped as it is. I am going to rewrite it all in a day or so. Any suggestions? I would like to incorporate some criticisms of traditional deterrence theory, but that might work best as a separate article. Deleuze 12:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I support your initiative on this. Kingturtle 16:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I give my support to this because there is so much to be said about Deterrence that is not here.DO something about it and do it fast.user:beemahx-bimbo

Just a note, deterrence theory could not have been both developed after and used throughout the Cold War. 71.37.24.93 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Champi

The video game Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater taught me everything I needed to know about deterrence. This article, though of good quality, did nothing for me. --Cookn4evar 20:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

------------- I agree, the notion of MAD obscures the virtues of MND.

Exactly what the notion of MAD was intended to do..

I have tried to add basic fundamentals to the subject....

Maybe that will help.

I will keep an eye here and maybe rewrite what I have posted...

A Nation's Civilized International Conduct should be: First do no harm to other nation's people life and rights. Be answerable in international criminal and civil courts of Truth, Justice and Compensation and participate in Mutual Nuclear Deterrence with enemy nations when feeling threatened. Export health and care, not violence and war.

maclab

European "Deterrence Theory"

This article is heavily focussed on U.S. Foreign policy. As the U.K. considers replacing its nuclear-armed submarine fleet, it would be good to have some notes in this article or links to relevant articles on the British and French rationales for holding nuclear weapons. === Vernon White (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I put this in a few days ago: "While it is clear that the possession of nuclear weapons raises the threshold for declaring war, it is equally clear that the threshold is raised by a relative, not an absolute degree. In other words, the deterrence system is not incapable of failure.

If the consequences of breakdown of a system are infinitely negative, it is logical to use that system if, and only if, the chances of its failure are zero. Since the chance of a breakdown of nuclear deterrence are greater than zero, advocates of nuclear deterrence must believe that an all-out nuclear exchange would not destroy human civilisation. Informed people find that belief difficult to sustain."

and it did not stick. Did I do something wrong?88.144.7.157 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I took it out, because it's unsourced original research and opinion. It's not what Wikipedia is for. Georgewilliamherbert 21:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well Georgewilliam, quite a bit of the Criticism section could fall victim to that criterion. And in fact the points are not capable of research. With the exception of the assertion that "the possession of nuclear weapons raises the threshold for declaring war", which is pretty axiomatic, the rest is a logical syllogism.

I would like a second opinion. Doc Richard 11:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the section and article can be sourced to well-known published mainstream political science / geopolitical / military studies sources. What you added has no sign of being anything more than your personal opinion. That makes it original research as Wikipedia defines it, which is not permitted content. All material must have reliable sources available. What you individually think, unless you happen to publish in political science journals or books, isn't ok. Georgewilliamherbert 10:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Credbility

This article lacks a discussion of credible vs. non-credible threats. This is of primary importance to deterrence theory. Deterrence does not work without a means to decide whether or not threats are credible. A discussion of the connection between core interests and credibility should be added along with sections on extended deterrence (i.e. protecting a third party), tripwire forces, burning bridges, and other means of increasing credibility. 216.185.11.254 20:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Deterrence in modern USA - Russia relations

"Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is a form of this strategy, which characterizes relations between the United States and former Soviet Union as well as present day Russia."

On what base is the past relationship between US and Soviet Union extended to that of US and present day Russia? I'm removing the part with the present relations until someone justifies this with a reference. I think current relationship is more complicated than this, and deterrence is by no means a major aspect of it. Bogdantudor 11:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In referrence to nuclear weapons, deterrence is how the United States deals with any nuclear nation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxrock88 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Combining this article with MAD

I know that this was discussed earlier, but I really feel like this article should be combined with the one on mutually assured destruction. Deterrence theory and mutually assured destruction mean exactly the same thing in my opinion. Can anyone think of a difference between the two?

Both articles need substantial work, but they should be combined. I suggest using this title, its less colloquial. -----bosoxrock88 4-25-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosoxrock88 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Military Industrial Complex

"Finally, a military build-up increases a country's risks of budget deficits, restrictions on civil liberties, the creation of a military-industrial complex, and other such potentially-undesirable measures."

Here in the UK, the aerospace industry, arguable a large part of the "military industrial complex" contributes to a significant portion of our GDP. Thousands of people are employed in the defence industries, from top scientists to technicians. Even ignoring the huge benefits to civilian research and development which comes from the defence industry, what evidence is there that a military industrial complex is "potentially undesirable"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.45.47 (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Cold War

I came to this article looking for pre-Cold War examles of deterrence strategy to gain some perspective. However, the article starts with the Cold War. Although the Cold War applied it to nuclear weapons, I would imagine the doctrine existed before then. 75.67.142.56 (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Deterrence and chemical weapons

Should we say that deterrence first arose in World War II when both Germany and Japan avoided the use of chemical and biological agents out of fear that the Allies would retaliate? Also, there seems to be a modern usage of deterrence in which nuclear retaliation is threatened against first use of chemical agents Masterblooregard (talk) 08:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Flexible deterrence

When I read,in the second paragraph, that deterrence involves an "immense response," I was first going to comment on the need to include a discussion of "flexible response," a major departure in US strategy that moved away from "immense response." However, I see from the other comments that this article, as currently drafted, is inadequate. There is an immense literature on deterrence, including writings on Soviet attitudes towards deterrence, that is not reflected (at a minimum, I'd consider the work of Raymond Garthoff and Michael McGuire). Much of the discussion in the article has nothing to do with deterrence - the Iran-contra affair is very distant from the idea of deterrence, as is the Iran-Iraq war: the text implies that the US funded Iraq (factually wrong, by the way) in its war with Iran as a means to deter the Soviet Union. This makes no sense. As written it is really a critique of American foreign policy during the Cold War, while what it needs to be is a discussion of a military strategy based on nuclear weapons.

My guess is that as an articulated strategy, deterrence first appeared in the 1950s (the concept of deterrence, as the comment above points out, predates the Cold War). It might help if the article focused on the Cold war military strategy, was edited for objectivity, added a discussion of the evolution of deterrence strategies from both the American and the Soviet perspective, added a discussion of deterrence and NATO planning (NATO is not even mentioned in the text) and removed the extraneous discussion of American foreign policy. This could include the discussion of the post-cold war notion of deterrence as applied to WMD or that could be treated separately - I'd recommend an article that focused on deterrence strategies in the Cold War. Gaintes (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Theory?

To call it a theory is actually wrong (just like conspiracy "theory") because it is not testable, it's not falsifiable. There was no nuclear war (Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not part of a nuclear war) and we cannot test the "theory" because it would probably destroy mankind--Arado (talk) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Deterrence theory extends beyond nuclear Mutual assured destruction. And that's the title it's known under in the literature - even if you dislike calling it theory, that's what the experts call it, so that's what we should use. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Virtual Nuclear Deterrence

Should there be a section in here mentioning the concept of a Virutal Nuclear Deterrent, since it seems conspicuous in it's absence from any nuclear strategy/theory related articles that I can find... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.169.44 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition

The beginning of the article lacks a definition of what deterrence actually is but starts with US foreign policy. 94.173.122.147 (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The article goes in circles. I searched for deterrence and did not find a conclusive description as one finds in other articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.40.84 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

It seems to this editor that the content of Nuclear deterrent largely duplicates content already found in Deterrence theory. Any content in Nuclear deterrent should be merged into the Deterrence Theory article and the shell of Nuclear Deterrent article converted to a redirect pointing at Deterrence Theory. --Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

• I completely agree with the proposed merge. Same concept, no need for two articles. bd2412 T 14:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)