Deterrence (Political Science)

A military strategy in which one actor (A) tries to prevent an action by another actor (B) by threatening punishment or retaliation if B initiates the action that A seeks to avoid. Deterrence is aimed at preserving the status quo. The use of deterrence became more intricate with the invention of atomic and nuclear weapons and the onset of the Cold War. After World War II, deterrence became the defining feature of military strategy in the United States. From 1946 through 1995, the United States had engaged in 395 uses of physical force to influence other nations through either direct military coercion or indirect political posturing.

For deterrence to be effective, a nation must meet three criteria. First, the deterring actor (A) must be capable of carrying out the threat. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD) requires that A possess a guaranteed second retaliatory strike capability, which will survive its opponent's first strike. Second, A must communicate to the deterred actor (B) what actions B is not supposed to take and what will happen if action [Page 147]is taken. Third, the threatened response must seem credible to B. Credibility requires that A has, in addition to the capability, the will to carry out the threat. Thus, for deterrence to work, there is usually a cost-benefit analysis conducted by B. The cost is that of the perceived risk of punishment after A makes good its threats. This is counterbalanced against the gains of engaging in the proscribed action.

A problem with deterrence has been the idea of self-deterrence, which occurs when retaliatory threats lack credibility because the risks to domestic survival are too great, as in nuclear war. The image of war, especially nuclear war, is too horrible and the risks of nuclear escalation too great to chance a confrontation. For example, in 1979, in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the United States declined to participate in the Moscow Olympics. This response gave the USSR the ability to act with impunity under the protection of MAD. For more information, see Fordham (2004).