answersLogoWhite

0

The policy of deterrence is based on the idea that whoever attacks first will be robustly attacked in return, hence they are 'deterred' from launching the initial attack.

The concept dates back to the 1950-1980 days of the Cold War, whereby the USSR knew if they attacked the United States first, they would be immediately attacked by one or more of the US nuclear triad of B-52's, nuclear missiles launched from the nuclear-powered submarines hidden deep in the ocean, plus land-based rockets carrying nuclear warheads - the theory said the USSR would be deterred from launching a nuclear attack on the United States.

User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

Still curious? Ask our experts.

Chat with our AI personalities

BlakeBlake
As your older brother, I've been where you are—maybe not exactly, but close enough.
Chat with Blake
ProfessorProfessor
I will give you the most educated answer.
Chat with Professor
FranFran
I've made my fair share of mistakes, and if I can help you avoid a few, I'd sure like to try.
Chat with Fran

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: The policy of deterrence is based on the idea that?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about Military History

How effective was the policy of nuclear deterrence in light of the number of nuclear weapons available?

osama


What is the policy of making the military power of the US and its allies so strong that no enemy would dare attack for fear of retaliation?

Deterrence


What was nuclear deterrence or mutual destruction?

nuclear deterrence - the idea that if you attack me with nuclear weapons then I will attack you back with nuclear weaponsmutual assured destruction - the idea that if you attack me with nuclear weapons then I will totally destroy you with nuclear weapons and if I attack you with nuclear weapons then you will totally destroy me with nuclear weapons - thus any nuclear attack by either party will result in the certain destruction of both parties


What is the difference between deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment?

Fred Korkisch This is a rather artificial question, because in the official literature the term "deterrence by denial" was never used, asked, nor answered, nor mentioned. The post-nuclear literature tried to invent and imagined a number of terms and phrases that were never used by the people who wrote about nuclear war planning and doctrine. Deterrence was either used in relation to * Gradual Deterrence (see: The gradual use of nuclear weapons, or a gradual use of force, like the escalation President Johnson used against North Vietnam etc.); * Minimum Deterrence (see: The threat to use force, including nuclear weapons on a limited scale, or the minimum number of strategic weapons which provides a credible deterrence; see SALT, START); * Finite Deterrence (see: The nuclear capabilties which will survive any enemy attack, available for a devastating counterstrike, like SLBM-weapons on submarines; * Deterrence by Punishment (this is a rather juridical term, used after WW II, to explain the legal rightfulness of the bombardments of German and Japanese cities, as a justified "punishment" for the aggressions of both states, used later on for the possible use of nuclear weapons as a retaliatorial strike. To explain "Deterrence by Denial" one can follow the logic of protection of nuclear delivery systems by various measures, like dispersal of bombers, missiles in silos, SLBM-submarines etc.


President Eisenhower's domino theory was based on the idea of?

containment