Conventional deterrence

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Studies of conventional deterrence, although differing in methodology and underlying assumptions, have yielded three key findings: Many potential adversaries are, at least at times, undeterrable; in dealing with adversaries that are deterrable, it is important to deny them the expectation of a quick military victory and political fait accompli; and, if deterrence fails and aggression occurs, threats to use conventional military force to impose suffering and destruction are less likely to compel the aggressor to capitulate than are threats to defeat its military forces and to deny it its politicomilitary objectives. This article examines these conclusions and their policy implications and argues that conventional deterrence is unlikely to yield a stable stalemate or to offer American policymakers much of a panacea, and that in the long run conventional deterrence and conventional war are likely to be closely linked.