Nuclear strategy: What is true, what is false, what is arguable

Gray, Colin S.

doi:10.1080/01495939008402798

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mazarr (1991) states 'one of the crucial aspects of nuclear deterrence is a strategy for targeting a retaliation to achieve the greatest deterrent effect.' Gray (2007) concludes 'there has to be a nuclear strategy' indicating the intended response to a nuclear strike to deter an adversary.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear warfare beyond counterforce

Gallagher

Cevallos

2021

Journal of Military Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A counterforce attack intends to disable an opponent's nuclear arsenal to limit potential damage from that adversary. We postulate a future when hardening and deeply burying fixed sites, transition to mobile strategic systems, and improved defences make executing a counterforce strategy against an adversary's nuclear forces extremely difficult. Additionally, our postulated future has multiple nations possessing nuclear weapons. Consequently, each country needs to consider multiple actors when addressing the question of how to deter a potential adversary's nuclear attack. We examine six nuclear targeting alternatives and consider how to deter them. These strategies include nuclear demonstration, conventional military targets, and attacks consisting of communications/electronics, economic, infrastructure, and population centers that a nation might consider striking with nuclear weapons. Since these alternative strikes require only a few nuclear weapons, executing one of them would not significantly shift the balance of nuclear forces. The attacking country's remaining nuclear forces may inhibit the attacked country or its allies from responding. How can nations deter these limited nuclear attacks? Potentially, threatening economic counter-strikes seems to be the best alternative. How might escalation be controlled in the event of a limited attack? Other instruments of power, such as political or economic, might be employed to bolster deterrence against these types of nuclear strikes.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear warfare beyond counterforce

Gallagher

Cevallos

2021

Journal of Military Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Neo-Realism and the future of strategy

Williams¹

1993

Rev. Int. Stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To speak of the ‘future’ of strategy is to reveal a deep tension in the way we commonly think about the subject. On the one hand we are confronted by revolutionary changes in the geo-political landscape. The transformation of Europe, the fragmentation of the Soviet Union, and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, for example, encourage the belief that the Cold War—a term which has been almost synonymous with-strategy for nearly half a century—is now an historical artifact. These events, analyzed so intensively by leaders and commentators, open up significant questions about the future of strategy.

show abstract

Nuclear strategy: What is true, what is false, what is arguable

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Nuclear warfare beyond counterforce

Nuclear warfare beyond counterforce

Neo-Realism and the future of strategy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About