More destructive retaliatory weapons strengthen deterrence credibility [causal]
If our problem is to guarantee to an enemy that we have the ability to strike a punitive blow after being struck ourselves—and to assure him that we know that he knows it so that we are under no temptation to doubt the potency of our own deterrence and strike first—we should find virtue in technological discoveries that enhance the anti-population potency of our retaliatory weapons. If it is logical to take measures to guarantee that a larger proportion of our retaliatory forces could survive a first strike on them, the same logic should make us welcome an increase in the potency of those that do survive. As Bernard Brodie has said, “When we consider the special requirements of deterrence, with its emphasis on the punitive aspect of retaliation, we may find a need even for super-dirty bombs. Since the emphasis must be on making certain that the enemy will fear even the smallest number of bombs that might be sent in retaliation, one wants these bombs to be, and thus to appear before the event, as horrendous as possible.”
Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, loc. 544