Does Deterrence Work Essay Research Paper

Does Deterrence Work Essay, Research Paper

........... Deterrence

is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries

to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if

attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply

state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main

questions have to be addressed, .Has it worked.. and .Does it make sense.. To

answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then

examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in

reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such

a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of

threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on

Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word

.deterrence. is used, it should be taken as .nuclear deterrence.. Hedley Bull

describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B

from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to

Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks

on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on

that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the

capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that

the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to

occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will

be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials."

Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls. language, country B would consider following a

course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the

threat – not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to

convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and

is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each

other from following a set of actions – effectively a stand off or a stalemate

between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public

statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb

was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her….on an equality

or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet attack "would bring down

upon them at once a crushing weight of nuclear retaliation" and a nuclear

war "would result in mutual annihilation." Similarly, the United

States issued a formal deterrent warning in January 1954 announcing an

intention of "more reliance on deterrent power and….a great capacity to

retaliate, instantly, by means and at places of our own choosing." This

was qualified a little while later, "a potential aggressor be left in no

doubt that he would be certain to suffer damage outweighing any possible gains

from aggression." These statements ended the era of the implicit threat

which had been evident to the world since Hiroshima, and fulfils Hedley Bulls.

first criteria for deterrence. There are a number of consequences to the threat

of deterrence. In relation to the cold war, some argue that it escalated the

arms race and the threat of a nuclear war was increased; conversely, some argue

it brought peace. An interesting phenomena was the war by proxy, where the

superpowers would both indirectly support opposing states or factions within

states to curtail each others sphere of influence. Third world states with

tendencies towards one of the superpowers were supported by that power and

became .client-states.. The superpowers. aim were to gain influence and power

in that particular region, thereby maximising power for some future use, for

example, using it as a knock on effect to gain other states or to control the region

through the client state. Any third world state which was a client of the

superpowers could expect any internal opposition to be supported by the other

superpower, similarly, any opposing state would also receive support. With the

exceptions of Korea (1950-54), Vietnam (1965-74) and Afghanistan (1979-86)

where one side was drawn into direct conflict, both sides avoided direct

intervention, preferring to indirectly support groups or states already

involved. If one superpower did get involved directly, the inevitable end would

be a large scale war – as what happened in the above three exceptions. If both

were directly involved, the almost inevitable end would be an escalation to

nuclear weapons. The result was firstly the increase in costs for the superpowers

overall strategy. The main outcome was by using these third world countries as

pawns for their war, they increased the level of technology used by

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать