Nuclear Compellence vs. Nuclear Deterrence

Attribute	Nuclear Compellence	Nuclear Deterrence
Goal	Force an adversary to change its behavior or policies	Prevent an adversary from taking certain actions
Use of force	May involve the threat or limited use of nuclear weapons	Relies on the threat of nuclear retaliation
Timing	Usually employed in a crisis or conflict situation	Constantly maintained as a deterrent
Effectiveness	May not always be effective in achieving desired outcomes	Generally seen as effective in preventing aggression
International norms	May be seen as more provocative or escalatory	Generally accepted as a legitimate form of defense

Introduction

Nuclear weapons have been a significant factor in international relations since the end of World War II. Two key strategies that have emerged in the context of nuclear weapons are nuclear compellence and nuclear deterrence. While both strategies involve the threat or use of nuclear weapons to influence the behavior of other states, they differ in their objectives and methods.

Attributes of Nuclear Compellence

Nuclear compellence is a strategy aimed at coercing an adversary to change its behavior or policies through the threat or limited use of nuclear weapons. The primary goal of nuclear compellence is to compel the adversary to take a specific action or to cease a particular behavior. This strategy is often used in situations where a state perceives a significant threat to its national security and believes that the use of nuclear weapons will be effective in achieving its objectives.

• Nuclear compellence relies on the credible threat of nuclear force to influence the decision-making of the adversary.
• It is often used in situations where traditional diplomatic or military means have failed to achieve the desired outcome.
• Nuclear compellence can be risky as it may escalate into a full-scale nuclear conflict if the adversary does not comply with the demands.
• This strategy requires a high level of communication and signaling to ensure that the adversary understands the consequences of non-compliance.
• Nuclear compellence is a proactive strategy that seeks to change the status quo rather than maintain it.

Attributes of Nuclear Deterrence

Nuclear deterrence, on the other hand, is a strategy aimed at preventing an adversary from taking a particular action by convincing them that the costs of such action would outweigh any potential benefits. The primary goal of nuclear deterrence is to dissuade the adversary from initiating a conflict or aggression by making it clear that the use of nuclear weapons would result in unacceptable consequences. This strategy is based on the principle of mutually assured destruction (MAD), where both sides possess the capability to inflict catastrophic damage on each other.

• Nuclear deterrence relies on the concept of deterrence by punishment, where the threat of retaliation is used to deter aggression.
• It is often used in situations where states seek to maintain the status quo and prevent conflict rather than compel a change in behavior.
• Nuclear deterrence is considered a defensive strategy aimed at preserving peace and stability rather than achieving specific policy objectives.
• This strategy requires a credible and robust nuclear arsenal to convince potential adversaries of the futility of aggression.
• Nuclear deterrence is a reactive strategy that aims to prevent conflict rather than actively seek to change the behavior of other states.

Comparison of Nuclear Compellence and Nuclear Deterrence

While both nuclear compellence and nuclear deterrence involve the threat or use of nuclear weapons to influence the behavior of other states, they differ in their objectives, methods, and underlying principles. Nuclear compellence is a proactive strategy that seeks to change the status quo by coercing an adversary to take a specific action or to cease a particular behavior. In contrast, nuclear deterrence is a defensive strategy aimed at preventing conflict and maintaining peace by dissuading adversaries from initiating aggression.

One key difference between nuclear compellence and nuclear deterrence is their focus on changing behavior versus preventing conflict. Nuclear compellence is often used in situations where a state seeks to achieve specific policy objectives or respond to a perceived threat to its national security. In contrast, nuclear deterrence is aimed at preserving the status quo and preventing conflict by convincing potential adversaries of the futility of aggression.

Another difference between nuclear compellence and nuclear deterrence is their reliance on communication and signaling. Nuclear compellence requires a high level of communication to ensure that the adversary understands the consequences of non-compliance and the credibility of the threat. In contrast, nuclear deterrence relies on the credibility of the nuclear arsenal and the principle of mutually assured destruction to deter aggression without the need for explicit communication.

Furthermore, nuclear compellence and nuclear deterrence differ in their risk of escalation. Nuclear compellence can be risky as it may escalate into a full-scale nuclear conflict if the adversary does not comply with the demands. In contrast, nuclear deterrence is based on the concept of deterrence by punishment, where the threat of retaliation is used to deter aggression without the need for actual use of nuclear weapons.

In conclusion, nuclear compellence and nuclear deterrence are two key strategies in the context of nuclear weapons that differ in their objectives, methods, and underlying principles. While nuclear compellence is a proactive strategy aimed at changing behavior through the threat or limited use of nuclear weapons, nuclear deterrence is a defensive strategy aimed at preventing conflict and maintaining peace by dissuading adversaries from initiating aggression. Both strategies have their strengths and weaknesses, and their effectiveness depends on the specific context and circumstances in which they are employed.