Which doctrine is based on the theory that superpower strategic nuclear forces can survive a nuclear attack and retaliate?

Which doctrine is based on the theory that superpower strategic nuclear forces can survive a nuclear attack and retaliate?

• A. The doctrine of progressive defense
• B. The doctrine of mutual protection
• C. The doctrine of mutually assured destruction
• D. The doctrine of preemptive strike

Answer: (C)

The correct answer is based on the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). This strategic doctrine emerged during the Cold War and reflects the understanding that if two opposing superpowers each possess a significant nuclear arsenal that could withstand a first strike and respond effectively to a nuclear attack, neither side would benefit from initiating a conflict. This creates a deterrence effect, as the guaranteed reciprocal destruction serves as a significant psychological barrier against the use of nuclear weapons. The stability of such a doctrine hinges on the assurance that both superpowers can maintain credible second-strike capabilities, thus fostering a tense but stabilizing environment where states are discouraged from launching a nuclear attack due to the inevitability of devastating retaliation. In the context of the other options, they do not capture this deterrence relationship between superpowers as effectively as MAD does. The doctrine of progressive defense may imply advanced defensive strategies rather than the focus on mutually assured retaliatory capabilities. The doctrine of mutual protection suggests a cooperative defense approach rather than a balance of terror brought about by nuclear stockpiles. The doctrine of preemptive strike emphasizes launching an attack to prevent an impending threat, which contradicts the key principles of mutual assured destruction where having the ability to respond is central.

The correct answer is based on the concept of mutually assured destruction (MAD). This strategic doctrine emerged during the Cold War and reflects the understanding that if two opposing superpowers each possess a significant nuclear arsenal that could withstand a first strike and respond effectively to a nuclear attack, neither side would benefit from initiating a conflict.

This creates a deterrence effect, as the guaranteed reciprocal destruction serves as a significant psychological barrier against the use of nuclear weapons. The stability of such a doctrine hinges on the assurance that both superpowers can maintain credible second-strike capabilities, thus fostering a tense but stabilizing environment where states are discouraged from launching a nuclear attack due to the inevitability of devastating retaliation.

In the context of the other options, they do not capture this deterrence relationship between superpowers as effectively as MAD does. The doctrine of progressive defense may imply advanced defensive strategies rather than the focus on mutually assured retaliatory capabilities. The doctrine of mutual protection suggests a cooperative defense approach rather than a balance of terror brought about by nuclear stockpiles. The doctrine of preemptive strike emphasizes launching an attack to prevent an impending threat, which contradicts the key principles of mutual assured destruction where having the ability to respond is central.