As the present strategy of deterrence. Western

innovations in weapon technology have increased the ability of weapons to
impose damage on our enemies has encouraged new evaluations of the existing
proposals and strategies for new strategies such as (MAD). (Kattenburg 77) “It stands
for Mutual assured destruction and is a doctrine of military strategy and
national security policy in which a full scale of nuclear weapons by multiple opposing
sides would cause the complete destruction of both the defender and the
It is centered on the theory of deterrence, which holds the threat of using
strong weapons such as nuclear weapons against the enemy to prevent them from
using the same weapons.”   I agree with Paul M. Kattenburg that this is
the most effective strategy causing both sides when armed to not have any
incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm. Though there are some that
disagree with (MAD) such as Albert Wohlstetter, sometimes it is necessary to
harm the enemies innocent for the greater good of our country.

arguments pursue two lines of reasoning. “Too start with, Wolstetter claims
that the threat of devastating retaliation, which underlines (MAD), is an insufficient
risk because knowing that to do so would mean our own suicide, and we have no
real expectations of going through with it.”2 “Related
with this view and contained in the Catholic bishop’s pastoral letter that Wolstetter
discovers so unpleasant, is the idea that to threaten devastating retaliation
is immoral, just as the idea to threaten to destroy a substantial number cannot
be sanctioned morally or ethically under any conditions.”3  “Furthermore, he argues that our typical identical
representations of the Soviets are so different from us that regardless of the civilian
lives loss, they will not timid far away from a war-waging, first-strike use of
nuclear weapons in order to prevent the loss of their military assets.”4  “5As
a result of the doctrine of mutual assured destruction requires the restraint
of the Soviets; so the fact they are not willing to give these; means the doctrine
is indeed invalid”. Though Wohlstetter has some good ideas it is apparent there
very inconsistent. The use of nuclear weapons as a threat under our present strategy
is not acceptable. If it is not acceptable to use the weapons as a threat, then
we cannot plan to use them. If it is acceptable to maintain our present
strategy of nuclear deterrence, then it is alright to use these weapons. It is
necessary that we maintain the foundations of the present strategy of

Best services for writing your paper according to Trustpilot

Premium Partner
From $18.00 per page
4,8 / 5
Writers Experience
Recommended Service
From $13.90 per page
4,6 / 5
Writers Experience
From $20.00 per page
4,5 / 5
Writers Experience
* All Partners were chosen among 50+ writing services by our Customer Satisfaction Team

strategies, for example, suggested by Wohlstetter and others who believers in
deterrence based on a nuclear war- waging doctrine policies are based on the
Soviet’s eagerness to risk civilian lives to saves their military is unethical
and immoral. Those individuals who believe in nuclear war- waging must be
willing to have an acceptable damage level, for example a million or fewer
deaths but in agreement that the Soviets will hold the same standard. Yet they
neglect the fact that the Soviet’s principles and contentions are too be
debated. Nuclear war waging and independent nuclear disarmament should be disposed
and a deterrence strategy endured because this is the only position that can be
taken that is politically realistic as well as humane. There is nothing
unethical at all about the balance of the threat to end life as we are aware,
if it is indeed the only effective approach to prevent a nuclear war. At the opposite
end of the scale, there continues to be political values worth fighting for,
making it futile to abandon deterrence and to utilize advocate unilateral disarmament
schemes. To deter by threatening annihilation may ethically uncomfortable, yet
despite everything it remains less immoral than unilateral disarmament doctrines
that can welcome assault.

claims that “we only complete the absurdity and of deterrence when we say that
we have no real intention to fight, that is, to use nuclear weapons if
deterrence fails.”6
Though this isn’t logical because the principle of deterrence and Wohlstetter principle
of not using nuclear weapons ‘devastate each other. But as you can see there are
various problems from his claims. The bishops are skeptical that any actual use
of nuclear weapons is morally right. This burden rests at the hands of the defender
of nuclear weapons which give evidence that they will not go against their
morally based limits. Yet the bishops agree that it is logically possible for a
counterforce use to be reasonable. More times than not the odds that an exchange
of nuclear weapons would not go against the moral constraints are highly
unlikely. The bishops believe that it would be morally wrong if we tried to
justify using a weapon which killed has killed millions of innocent civilians
that were too close to the target. Wohlstetter and the bishops fail to realize
their ideal in unachievable. The scholars involved in making our nuclear
deterrence strategy state that “any use of nuclear weapons will result in deaths
that go beyond the limits that bishops have set.” To prevent war the use of
nuclear weapons on our enemies and their civilians within our deterrence
strategy is necessary and there is no way for anyone to have confidence that
such a nuclear action will not lead to further and more devastating exchanges.

making sacrifices are necessary in benefiting your country for the greater.” The
strategy of nuclear deterrence involves some sort of threat and use of nuclear
weapons. Deterrence is used to make the price of nuclear warfare greater than
which a country is willing to take. A threat involves a conditional intent to
retaliate. If one threatens and goes through with it then the other side has
the right to do so also. Due to this, nuclear deterrence includes the intent
that one can use nuclear weapons. Nuclear deterrence is based on the means and
will to inflict damage on an aggressor and “deterrence is not inherent in the
weapons.” Nuclear deterrence results from the willingness to exercise  and possess the weapons. If the aggressor decides
to give up then the nuclear weapons aren’t used so there is no more deterrence.
With all of this in mind, nuclear deterrence and the use of nuclear weapons is
the most effective way to keep war simple and our country safe.


Definition used from Wikipedia

2 This
argument is from source 2

3  This argument is from source 2

4  This argument is from source 2

5 This
argument Is from source 2

Quote from source 2