Skip to main content

The Eroding Balance of Terror

Andrew F. Krepinevich, Jr.

Thus far the chief purpose of our military establishment has been to win wars,” the American nuclear strategist Bernard Brodie wrote in 1946. “From now on its chief purpose must be to avert them.” Brodie’s injunction summed up the grim lesson of the first five decades of the twentieth century: after two horrific world wars and the development of nuclear weapons, it was clear that the next major conflict would produce no winners—only survivors. As U.S. President John F. Kennedy put it a decade and a half later, in the midst of the Cuban missile crisis, “Even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth.” For decades, U.S. policymakers followed Brodie’s and Kennedy’s lead, putting deterrence—preventing rivals from attacking in the first place—at the center of U.S. defense strategy.

Applied effectively, deterrence discourages an adversary from pursuing an undesirable action. It works by changing the adversary’s calculation of costs, benefits, and risks. A country can, for instance, convince its opponents that an attack is so unlikely to succeed that it is not even worth the attempt: deterrence through denial. Or a country may convince its opponents that defeating it would be so costly as to be a victory in name only: deterrence through punishment. In either case, a rational adversary will decide to stay put.

Read the full article in Foreign Affairs here

Related Articles

Mike Pompeo's Predicament

Walter Russell Mead

The Syria withdrawal worried allies, divided the GOP, and made his job a lot harder....

Continue Reading

How the U.S. Should Handle Turkey

Michael Doran

In an interview with Gerry Baker on Fox Business, Michael Doran discusses how the US should proceed with Turkey. ...

Continue Reading

Syrian Army Head North Amid Turkish Advance

Michael Doran

In an interview with Tim Franks on BBC Newshour, Michael Doran discusses the president’s decision to remove troops from northern Syria and what’s next...

Listen Now