Nonoffensive defense is overrated
- National Defense Univ., Washingtion, DC (USA)
Some Western analysts argue that European security would stabilize if nations shifted to forces and doctrines that left them structurally incapable of conducting offensive military actions. Some, including American scholar Gene Sharp, have even called for replacing traditional military forces with plans for civilian-based resistance. Purely defensive postures would be reassuring to neighboring states, all of these theorists say, but such defenses would still be strong enough to defeat an attack if deterrence failed. This defensive-only stance, according to its advocates, is a purer form of deterrence by denial than now exists, since it removes even the possibility of inflicting punishment in retaliation for an attack: it deters only be denying victory. But Mr. Flanagan questions whether such defense actually would serve as a credible deterrent. In addition, the various proposed schemes share some serious weaknesses, which he proceeds to discuss. 5 refs.
- OSTI ID:
- 6726743
- Journal Information:
- Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists; (USA), Vol. 44:7; ISSN 0096-5243
- Country of Publication:
- United States
- Language:
- English
Similar Records
Changes in Russia's Military and Nuclear Doctrine
Remixing the ‘Appropriate Mix’: Reassessing NATO’s Deterrence and Defense Posture in the Face of New Threats