Jamal Awil

← The Consequences of Modernity

Deterrence logically requires the genuine possibility of war. [causal]

How remote that possibility is, literally no one knows. So long as there is deterrence, there must be the chance of war, because the notion of deterrence only makes sense if the parties involved are in principle prepared to use the weaponry they hold. Once again, no one, no matter how "expert" about the logistics of weapons and military organisation or about world politics, can say whether deterrence "works," because the most that can be said is that so far there has been no war. Awareness of these inherent uncertainties does not escape the lay population, however vague that awareness might be.

XREF: Connects to nuclear deterrence theory debates and game theory discussions of mutually assured destruction.

Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Moderni…, loc. 352