The Concept of Deterrence

The Concept of Deterrence

The deterrent value of nuclear weapons is inherent in the terrible nature of the destruction they can cause. Hence, the Joint Publication (JP) 1-02 definition of deterrence, “the prevention from action by fear of the consequences . . . a state of mind brought about by the existence of a credible threat of unacceptable counteraction,” remains relevant for the twenty-first century. Indeed, the English word deter is derived from the Latin de, away from, and terrere, to frighten. One of the impenetrable basics of deterrence is the fundamental paradox that nuclear weapons exist never to be used. The reason for this paradox is in the basic physics of nuclear weapons. These things are not, as many have asserted, subsets of “kinetic” military capabilities. While distinct from nonkinetic capabilities, such as those in the cyber and space domains, nuclear weapons are certainly not simply more-powerful forms of classic firepower. Indeed the kinetic energy of a nuclear explosion, while orders of magnitude more powerful than that of an equivalent mass in a conventional weapon, is typically no more than half the total energy output of a nuclear device. The other half is distributed over thermal and radiation effects that no conventional munition can generate. This is what sets them so far apart from other weapons in the history of human conflict.

Because nuclear weapons effects are so terrible, we must not blur the distinction between “nuclear” and “conventional” weapons, even if we feel compelled to create new categories for cyber, space, and informational effects that are “nonkinetic.” Instead, we should explore how to integrate nuclear with conventional and nonkinetic capabilities into a new, comprehensive framework for deterrence.

Indeed, US STRATCOM’s Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept (DO JOC ) provides a framework for doing just that. The 2006 version of this document expands on JP 1-02 by asserting, “Deterrence operations convince adversaries not to take actions that threaten US vital interests by means of decisive influence over their decision making.” It suggests to planners that they can achieve decisive influence by credibly threatening to impose costs, deny benefits, and/or encourage restraint. The DO JOC ’s purpose is to describe “how joint force commanders will conduct deterrence operations through 2025.” It provides a necessary and useful framework for doing that within STRATCOM, but it is insufficient to guide the development, application, and employment of deterrence operational concepts among the geographic combatant commands or the development of deterrence capabilities by the services.

Continue reading