Home / Summaries / Force and statecraft / power-threat-deter

Deterrence

6 important questions on Deterrence

What is the strategy of ‘massive retaliation’?

The strategy of Massive Retaliation entails the threat of use of force as an instrument of statecraft in order to deter the opponents.
For example, in the Peloponnesian War the leaders mobilized troops and put fleets near each other’ coasts to deter the aggression of the other party and make the opponent carefully reflect before attacking. Machiavelli said that showing force would lead the adversary to reflect upon the costs and risks of launching an attack and therefore deter him from aggression

1. Why was Deterrence not previously an important factor in statecraft? What changed this?

Deterrence was not seen as an important factor in statecraft in the past because threats were an insufficient deterrent.

Bargaining with threats was a complex aspect because before there was no distinction between the power to hurt and the power to destroy. However, this changed with the invention of strategic bombing. This meant that countries could hurt each other without destroying each other military forces. Therefore, this led to the distinction between the threat and power to hurt and the threat and power to destroy.

1. What was the significance of the Sputnik satellite launch?

The Sputnik launch gave credibility to Khrushchev’s speech about the army the Soviet Union possessed. He had claimed as a deterrence strategy that the USSR had enough nuclear, atomic, and hydrogen weapons along with rockets to use in case any allied states were attacked.

1. From what threat was the Congress of Europe set up to deter, and how in practice was this enforced?

The Congress of Europe was set up to deter France’s possible future aggressions towards any other Great Power. To do so, they established a system of collective security. This meant that in case France started a new aggression the countries would join forces to stop it. The idea of the Great Powers joining forces to stop one Great Power was to be seen as a deterrent.

1. What was the strategic danger to the US of an overaggressive Taiwan?

The strategic danger to the US of an overaggressive Taiwan was that in the event of an escalation of the conflict the US would be pulled into a larger conflict that it didn’t want to fight in. For this reason the US established diplomatic channels with the Chinese Communist leaders to reassure them that it would not support the Taiwanese action to invade the Chinese mainland.

Why does deterrence often not work versus non-state actors?

certain non-state actors are intensely motivated and are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to achieve their objectives. They don’t fear the threat of punishment and actually see it as a way to increase legitimacy and support fro their actions. Finally, non-state actors often do not have clearly identifiable assets, such as massed armies and a defined territory

The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:

Force and statecraft | 9780195162493 | Paul Gordon Lauren, et al

View summary