Does Having a Deterrent Strategy Make The Major Causes of War Less Likely?

Chapter 1 of "The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons"


In Chapter one of the book, we are introduced to a series of topics that make it possible for us to further both our thinkng and logic on the question of nuclear weapon use. Chapter one rather than raises, notes a lot of important information.A few of the topics in this chapter consists of, Part I: The Military Logic of Self-Help Systems, Part II: What Will The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons Do To The World?, and Part III: Nuclear Weapons and Domestic Stability.

Part I made an inquiry into the management of nuclear weapons by states that has nuclear weapons and those who has the ability. What I liked about the chapter was that it introduced us to the weighing techniques that explains militry and war logic; does the cost of going to war exceed the benefits? If so the probability of going to war decreases substantially. Thus, in weighing the possibility in going to war"one must first ask about the ends for which states use force and about the strategies and weapons they employ". One thing we are assured of is that states will not take an active step to war if the stakes are high. The book mentions that "how nuclear weapons affect the chances for peace is seen by examining the different implications of defense and deterrence". Now, I forgot to explain the differences between deterrence and defence. The author describes defense as "building fortifications and to muster forces that look forbidingly strong". Meaning that one tries to build their defense that is close to impossible to breach or overcome. To "deter means to stop people from doing something by frightening them". Disuasion by deterrence " operates by scaring a state out of attacking, not because of difficulty of launching an attack and carrying it home, but because the expected reaction of the opponent may result in one's own severe punishment".  I like how they tried to place a line between the two words. However, I felt a vagueness... as if he was trying to hide the link between the two terms. I can't seem to persuade myself into thinking that you can have one without the other. What state would build a formidable army if it cannot use it as a deterrence. You can claim physical strength as a defense, since your opponent is more likely to share that type of force (despite the difference in force) and one can claim military weapons as a deterrence. Rather deterrence can be seen as something that is not readily used but places fear in themind of the opponent. I gues that's what he was getting at? defense is imminent, but deterrence are not since the stakes are to high.