David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy and Policy 3 (1):118 (1985)
1. Introduction The policy of deterrence, at least to avert nuclear war between the superpowers, has been a controversial one. The main controversy arises from the threat of each side to visit destruction on the other in response to an initial attack. This threat would seem irrational if carrying it out would lead to a nuclear holocaust – the worst outcome for both sides. Instead, it would seem better for the side attacked to suffer some destruction rather than to retaliate in kind and, in the process of devastating the other side, seal its own doom in an all-out nuclear exchange. Yet, the superpowers persist in their adherence to deterrence, by which we mean a policy of threatening to retaliate to an attack by the other side in order to deter such an attack in the first place. To be sure, nuclear doctrine for implementing deterrence has evolved over the years, with such appellations as “massive retaliation,” “flexible response,” “mutual assured destruction”, and “counterforce” giving some flavor of the changes in United States strategic thinking. All such doctrines, however, entail some kind of response to a Soviet nuclear attack. They are operationalized in terms of preselected targets to be hit, depending on the perceived nature and magnitude of the attack. Thus, whether U.S. strategic policy at any time stresses a retaliatory attack on cities and industrial centers or on weapons systems and armed forces, the certainty of a response of some kind to an attack is not the issue
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Robert McKim (1985). An Examination of a Moral Argument Against Nuclear Deterrence. Journal of Religious Ethics 13 (2):279 - 297.
Jeff McMahan (1989). Is Nuclear Deterrence Paradoxical?:Nuclear Deterrence, Morality, and Realism. John Finnis, Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Germain Grisez; Moral Paradoxes of Nuclear Deterrence. Gregory Kavka. [REVIEW] Ethics 99 (2):407-.
G. R. Dunstan (1982). Theological Method in the Deterrence Debate. In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press
Arthur Hockaday (1982). In Defence of Deterrence. In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press
Geoffrey Goodwin (1982). Deterrence and Détente. In Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.), Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press
Nathan Hanna (2014). Facing the Consequences. Criminal Law and Philosophy 8 (3):589-604.
D. M. Kilgour & F. C. Zagare (1994). Uncertainty and the Role of the Pawn in Extended Deterrence. Synthese 100 (3):379 - 412.
Mareike B. Wieth & Rose T. Zacks (2011). Time of Day Effects on Problem Solving: When the Non-Optimal is Optimal. Thinking and Reasoning 17 (4):387 - 401.
John Finnis, Joseph Boyle & Germain Grisez (1988). Nuclear Deterrence, Morality and Realism. Clarendon Press.
Lisa J. Carlson & Raymond Dacey (2010). Social Norms and the Traditional Deterrence Game. Synthese 176 (1):105 - 123.
Geoffrey L. Goodwin (ed.) (1982). Ethics and Nuclear Deterrence. St. Martin's Press.
Duane L. Cady & Richard Werner (eds.) (1991). Just War, Nonviolence, and Nuclear Deterrence: Philosophers on War and Peace. Longwood Academic.
Duncan MacIntosh (1991). Retaliation Rationalized: Gauthier's Solution to the Deterrence Dilemma. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 72 (1):9-32.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads8 ( #370,603 of 1,790,305 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #431,681 of 1,790,305 )
How can I increase my downloads?