Military Deterrence Policy Analysis

As long as humans have been on the Earth, the art of deterrence has existed in some form or fashion. With the evolution of technology and change in society and culture, deterrence has taken on different forms. The basic idea of deterrence is deterring a person or group of people from committing an aggression on the threat of retaliation or consequences, many times in the form of threat of physical harm. Merriam-Webster defines deterrence as, “the maintenance of military power for the purpose of discouraging attack.”1 How a country maintains and arrays their military power is dependent on their capabilities. There are three aspects of military capability that are important in deterrence: time, size, and lethality. To have a proper military deterrence

They were multi-faceted, consisting of conventional force projection, nuclear deterrence, alliance building and proxy wars. The deterrence policies of the US and the Soviet Union were also multi-tiered, aimed at preventing different levels of conflict. They both had nuclear deterrence policies, backed by very large, strategically deployed nuclear arsenals. The goal was to prevent the use of nuclear weapons through the notion of mutually assured destruction should one side use them. The lower tier of military deterrence deterred large scale conventional engagements. It was essential to have both tiers established as one of the points of deterrence is that the response should be appropriate to the offense. In this case, a nuclear response to an offense through conventional means would not be appropriate and would most likely escalate the conflict to a level that neither side wanted. The Cold War experienced both levels of

Security alliances have proven to be a crucial part of a country’s deterrence policy. NATO is perhaps the strongest example of a security alliance that practices deterrence. During the cold war, the Warsaw Pact was the counterpart of NATO on the Soviet side. Both had the same function and were effective in deterring the other side from acting on aggression by creating strength in numbers. The US has created a large network of extended deterrence over the past decades, but there is beginning to be a shift in its policy. On many occasions, the US has been the lead proponent in alliances it forms. That has begun to shift in recent years. The new emerging US philosophy is that alliances are critical to the US extended deterrence policy, but they are willing and encouraging other countries to take the lead. A good example of this is revolution in Libya in 2011. While the US was part of the alliance involved in the operation, they were not the leader and played more of a support role.9 Patrick Morgan states “the United States wants the alliances to provide more military assistance to itself by becoming more suitable for joining American forces in conflicts and interventions around the world.”10 This has two clear benefits to those in alliance with the US. Morgan goes on to state those. “The payoff for