![]() ![]() With the World War II being newly ended, many Americans were still fearful of the possibility of a nuclear war and this caused skepticism in a tactic that could provoke just that. Dulles speech aroused feelings of anger and skepticism from Americans listening from home. from getting into any more wars that would cost American lives. The primary goal of "massive retaliation" was a type of preventative measure that was seen as a necessary step to prevent the U.S. in the near future, and that the dependence on these measures could actually lead to the destruction of the U.S. It was made clear by the end of Dulles speech that he and many other government officials viewed the "reactive measures" as a tactic of the past that would do no good for the U.S. has always been a national power and the idea of what a full blow retaliation attack could do to an opposing country has kept many hesitant to prod the U.S. This would feasibly strike fear into the opposing side preventing any further or future attacks from happening. One of the primary ideas that makes up the term "massive retaliation" is to make known to the enemy that the degree of retaliation is not confined by the magnitude of the attack. Dulles speech in 1954 was what formed the basis for the term massive retaliation, which would back up any conventional defense against conventional attacks with a possible massive retaliatory attack involving nuclear weapons. Dulles never used the exact words because the term "massive retaliation" has an aggressive tone and caused much negative feedback from the public, which deemed it as a controversial subject. ![]() It is in that quote that the idea of massive retaliation being articulated is seen, but the use of the specific words are absent. In his speech, Dulles also stated that "local defense must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power". Dulles did not explicitly used the words "massive retaliation " instead, he spoke about relation as a much less threatening term. Īt the time, Dulles's speech was controversial. A potential aggressor must know that he cannot always prescribe battle conditions that suit him. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power. But there is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty land power of the Communist world. This can be done by placing more reliance on deterrent power and less dependence on local defensive power. Our purpose is to make these relations more effective, less costly. The idea of "massive retaliation" was first formally articulated by the Eisenhower administration Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in a speech on January 12, 1954. However, when massive retaliation became policy, there was no MAD yet since the Soviet Union lacked second-strike capability throughout the 1950s. ![]() Massive retaliation works on the same principles as mutual assured destruction (MAD), with the important caveat that even a minor conventional attack on a nuclear state could conceivably result in all-out nuclear retaliation. It must also believe that the defending state is willing to go through with the deterrent threat, which would likely involve the use of nuclear weapons on a massive scale. The aggressor also must believe that the state announcing the policy has the ability to maintain second-strike capability in the event of an attack. For such a strategy to work, it must be made public knowledge to all possible aggressors. The aim of massive retaliation is to deter another state from attacking first. In the event of an attack from an aggressor, a state would massively retaliate by using a force disproportionate to the size of the attack. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |