Thank you! Don't forget to confirm subscription in your email.
No punishment has ever possessed enough power of deterrence to prevent the commission of crimes. On the contrary, whatever the punishment, once a specific crime has appeared for the first time, its reappearance is more likely than its initial emergence could ever have been.
Nuclear deterrence doesn't work outside of the Russian - U.S. context; Saddam Hussein showed that.
The only peace that can be made with a dictator is once that must be based on deterrence. For today, the dictator may be your friend, but tomorrow he will need you as an enemy.
What has kept the world safe from the bomb since 1945 has not been deterrence, in the sense of fear of specific weapons, so much as it's been memory. The memory of what happened at Hiroshima.
Deterrence is still fundamentally about influencing an actor's decisions. It is about a solid policy foundation. It is about credible capabilities. It is about what the U.S. and our allies as a whole can bring to bear in both a military and a nonmilitary sense.
Deterrence itself is not a preeminent value; the primary values are safety and morality.
A great amount has been talked and written about what constitutes a sufficient balance and what really is meant by the concepts of 'balance' and 'deterrence'.
When you have a regime that would be happier in the afterlife than in this life, this is not a regime that is subject to classic theories of deterrence.
The present basic philosophy is nuclear deterrence.
We have got thousands of nuclear weapons in order to achieve deterrence.
