Why Nuclear Superiority Doesn't Matter

Recent debates on the role of nuclear weapons in American defense policy have not clarified the important issues or dealt with the underlying assumptions that are involved. While some of the specifics of the arguments are new, the basic questions are as old as the nuclear era and can be referred to as the dispute between those who advocate a policy of Assured Destruction (AD) and those who call for Flexible Response (FR). Proponents of AD believe that any nuclear war will be all-out war and therefore that the United States need only have an assured capacity to destroy an enemy's cities even if forced to absorb a first strike. Proponents of FR hold that there is a range of military contingencies for which the United States must be prepared and that nuclear weapons can be used in a variety of such contingencies in a more flexible, limited way. The main arguments against AD, now as in the past, are that it is not credible and would lead to disaster if deterrence failed; the central argument against FR is that it is costly, ineffective, and dangerous. This article generally defends the AD position and argues that FR misunderstands the nature of nuclear deterrence.