The theory of military deterrence was based on a simple psychological truth, that fear of retaliation makes a would b...
JohnSummersFebruary 9, 2024
Why is C not the correct answer choice?
It says the answer choice is too certain, and that there could be other theories, but the conclusion of the argument says otherwise. Clearly, then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would HAVE TO be BELIEVED to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend itself against such retaliation. C demonstrates this sentence perfectly. If a country has maintained its deterrence then another country has failed to attack them and as pointed out they clearly have to believe the other country's retaliation power is not withstandable.
Reply
Create a free account to read and
take part in forum discussions.
I don't love how the explanation for C is phrased. My issue with C is that it is simply way way to broad. C states that a countries decision not to attack can only be becuase the first country believes the second has overwhelming retaliatory power. This is obviously untrue.
We decide not to invade Canada every day. A country may decide against an invasion not because of retaliation but because the economic costs may be too high, the country is an ally, or simply because they did not want war. The passage sets up a necessary condition for deterrence. It does not set up a necessary condition for not deciding to invade. Singapore's military deterrence is likely minimal. This does not mean that any country will choose to invade it.
