Do you agree with the deterrence theory?

Posted by: PetersSmith

In sum, the theory states that the presence of nuclear weapons will deter full-scale wars from happening.

  • Yes; nuclear weapons give nations the potential to not only destroy their enemies but humanity itself without drawing immediate reprisal because of the lack of a conceivable defense system and the speed with which nuclear weapons can be deployed. A nation's credible threat of such severe damage empowers their deterrence policies and fuels political coercion and military deadlock, which in turn can produce proxy warfare.

  • No; first, it is argued that suicidal or psychotic opponents may not be deterred by either forms of deterrence. Second, if two enemy states both possess nuclear weapons, Country X may try to gain a first-strike advantage by suddenly launching weapons at Country Y, with a view to destroying its enemy's nuclear launch silos thereby rendering Country Y incapable of a response. Third, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a sub

78% 7 votes
22% 2 votes
  • It is unlikely any of the nuclear armed nations will ever fight each other directly.

  • The MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction approach has been successful so far. The military deadlock is only in regards to nuclear weapons, conventional weapons and hybrid warfare has continued to evolve.

  • The only time a nuke was ever used was when one nation had a monopoly on it. After multiple countries developed programs, the prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction prevented them from ever being used again.

  • I actually agree with nuclear weapon deterrence. But I do know that it doesn't always work. Plus yes column had a misconception that nuclear weapons can destroy humanity.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
PetersSmith says2015-04-24T19:32:51.1527771-05:00
No description got cut off: No; first, it is argued that suicidal or psychotic opponents may not be deterred by either forms of deterrence. Second, if two enemy states both possess nuclear weapons, Country X may try to gain a first-strike advantage by suddenly launching weapons at Country Y, with a view to destroying its enemy's nuclear launch silos thereby rendering Country Y incapable of a response. Third, diplomatic misunderstandings and/or opposing political ideologies may lead to escalating mutual perceptions of threat, and a subsequent arms race that elevates the risk of actual war.
Vox_Veritas says2015-04-24T21:55:25.9430319-05:00
It's probable that the United States and the Soviet Union would've escalated the Cold War to WWIII had neither side possessed nuclear weapons. In that sense, the presence of nukes was a net benefit to both countries, as well as the countries of Europe.
biggest_pro_going says2015-04-25T08:34:41.5766004-05:00
It works but not with terrorists with nukes. Because were do u nuke? Or if North Korea used nukes and America nuked them it would be stupid because kim would be in some nuclear bunker and the US would just kill lots of defenseless civilians,
Kreakin says2015-04-25T08:41:04.3421157-05:00
Portable nukes have had a massive amount of cash spent on tracing where they are. Satelites with radiation measuring kit etc. tracking them. They are a major hazard, but by there nature can not be very big.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.