THE CONCEPT OF DETERRENCE AND DÉTENTE

4.5 Political science Ⅲ

(International Relations)

Academic year: 2023-2024

2nd Year, Semester Ⅳ

Submitted by

SIDDHANTI NIMGADE

UID: UG22-107

Submitted to

PROF.ADITYA SATPUTE

April, 2024
MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR
Sr. CONTENTS Page
No. No.

1 Introduction 1

2 Aims and objectives 1

3 Research Questions 1

4 Research Methodology 1

5 Concept of Deterrence 2

6 Deterrence 2

7 Historical Background 2

8 Types of deterrence 3

9 Factors of Deterrence 4

10 Theories of Deterrence 5

11 Challenges 6

12 Concept of detente 7

13 Characteristics of Detente 7

14 Cold war 8

15 Nuclear war 9

16 Conclusion 10

17 Bibliography 11
INTRODUCTION

In the realm of international relations, the concepts of deterrence and detente have long been
pivotal in shaping the dynamics between nations. Deterrence, rooted in the idea of preventing
undesirable actions through the threat of retaliation, has historically been a cornerstone of
security strategies for many states. Conversely, detente embodies the pursuit of relaxation and
easing of tensions between conflicting parties, often through diplomatic means. Both
concepts, though seemingly contradictory, are integral components of the intricate web of
global politics. This study aims to provide an understanding of how deterrence and detente
interact, influence one another, and shape the dynamics of international relations.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of deterrence and détente strategies.

To examine the historical development of deterrence and detente and their evolution.

To examine the role of deterrence and détente in International Relations.

To identify emerging challenges and opportunities in the realm of deterrence and detente

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

How have the concepts of deterrence and detente evolved and what factors have influenced
their development?

What are the main theoretical frameworks to understand deterrence and detente?

What empirical evidence exists regarding the effectiveness of deterrence strategies in

preventing conflict escalation?

Can deterrence and detente coexist, or they conflict with one other?

What are the contemporary challenges and opportunities facing deterrence and detente?

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This project used extensive study of primary and secondary sources by examining case law,
statutory provisions and scholarly literature while maintaining ethical standards and
acknowledged potential biases.

1
DETERRENCE

The concept of deterrence is fundamental in international relations. The phrase deterrence is

derived from the Latin verb de terre, which means 'to terrify'. Deterrence is the process of
deterring or constraining someone in international politics, typically a nation-state, from
engaging in undesirable behaviour, for instance an armed attack. Deterrence is the process of
persuading prospective rivals that the costs of aggressive behaviour outweigh the rewards. It
is an effort to stop or prevent an activity, contrary to the closely related but separate idea of
"compliance," which is an attempt to force an actor to do something. Discourage states from
engaging in undesired activities, particularly military aggression. In foreign policy,
deterrence serves a similar purpose: to keep the peace by convincing foes that any attack will
result in a major retaliation. For deterrence to work, two requirements must be met: “severity
and credibility. Severity requires threatening a potential opponent with reprisal that
outweighs any potential rewards of attacking. A severe response can take many different
forms, such as harsh economic sanctions, diplomatic isolation, or military intervention” 1.
During the Cold War, nuclear weapons functioned as the ultimate deterrence, with both the
United States and the Soviet Union developing enough bombs to destroy the other.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Deterrence has evolved, adapted, and functioned as a barrier to the commencement of
catastrophic conflicts, ranging from ancient civilizations demonstrating military power to
modern states brandishing economic sanctions and cyber weapons. Throughout history,
alliances and diplomatic efforts have been used to deter conflict. Medieval European rulers
forged alliances to demonstrate their willingness to protect against a common adversary.
Mutual defence agreements proved the collaborative side of deterrence, in which a strike on a
single participant resulted in a coordinated response. However, the outbreak of the Cold War
brought deterrence to unprecedented prominence on the world stage. Nuclear weapon
proliferation in the United States and the Soviet Union fostered a climate of mutually assured
calamity. This suggested that any large-scale war between these titans would prove deadly,
ushering in a time of fragile balance of power and the real possibility of nuclear disaster. The
Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 proved the value of deterrence in this era. The United States
and the Soviet Union were on the point of a nuclear war, but both powers chose to postpone
open combat due to their deep fear of mutual destruction.

1
Todor Tagarev, “Theory and current Practices of deterrence in International Securit”.
2
This moment highlighted the potential of nuclear deterrence, with the devastating
consequences of aggression serving as a powerful deterrent. As the Cold War arrived to an
end, deterrent methods changed to address a larger spectrum of threats. While nuclear
deterrence remained critical, conventional deterrents increased in relevance. Regional
conflicts in the Middle East and Asia revealed how conventional military weapons, along
with the fear of escalation, could discourage opponents from raising tensions to critical
levels. In international relations, deterrence is defined as a complex network of theories that
explain the motivations, calculations, and dynamics that drive governments to seek
alternatives to confrontation.

TYPES OF DETERRENCE

1. Direct Deterrence: This strategy focuses on “preventing aggression against one's own state.
It comprises issuing a credible threat to potential adversaries in order to prevent them from
conducting hostile acts. This sort of deterrence typically involves exhibiting military assets,
alliances, and strategic positioning in order to project power and resolve. The nuclear
standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War is an ideal
instance of direct deterrence, as both superpowers demonstrated their determination to
respond to provocation with massive force”.2

2. Extended Deterrence: “The threat of reprisal is used to safeguard allies in addition to one's
own territory. A government can show its commitment to supporting its coalition partners by
making it clear that any attack on them could result in a response. NATO's collective defence
clause is a prime example of long-term deterrence. The alliance's vow to defend any member
state threatened by invasion reinforces the idea that an attack on one is an attack on all”.

3. Compellent Deterrence: Generally referred to coercive deterrence, “this is the act of

influencing an adversary's conduct by predicting negative consequences if specific actions are
not taken. This approach attempts to alter the adversary's expectations, causing them to adapt
their behaviour in order to prevent the looming repercussions. Economic sanctions, for
instance, could be used to discourage states from breaking international rules, as the
economic costs of infringement may outweigh the potential advantages”.3

2
“Concept of Deterrence in International Relations”, The Amicus Qriae.
3
Ibid.
3
4. Denial Deterrence: “It seeks to make an adversary's goals challenging or expensive to
achieve. Its purpose is to deter enemies by assuring them that their attempts would be met
with strong opposition and barriers. To dissuade potential attackers from crossing its
boundaries, a country may spend in defensive capabilities like anti-access/area denial
systems”.

5. Nuclear Deterrence: Nuclear deterrence, an aspect of deterrence, refers to “the use of

nuclear weapons to prevent large-scale hostilities. The concept of mutually assured
destruction (MAD) acts as the foundation, with both parties agreeing that an attack would be
terrible for everyone concerned. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear retaliation acted
as a powerful deterrent, averting direct combat between nuclear-armed adversaries.

6. Cyber Deterrence: Cyber deterrence has emerged as a critical characteristic of the current
digital environment. It comprises discouraging adversaries from launching cyber-attacks by
showing the ability to respond in like or by displaying cyber defensive capabilities. The
uncertainty of responsibility, as well as the likelihood of an asymmetric reaction, provide
significant challenges in cyber deterrence attempts”.

7. Economic Deterrence: “Monetary deterrence is the use of economic harness to prevent

adversaries from engaging in specific behaviours. States can put pressure on bad behaviour
on the global arena by imposing economic sanctions, curtailing trade, or freezing assets.
Economic interconnectedness amplifies the effect of economic deterrence since countries are
reluctant to jeopardise their economic stability”4.

FACTORS OF DETERRENCE
The effectiveness of deterrence techniques is dependent on a complex interaction of elements
that influence the credibility, communication, and capabilities of those attempting to
discourage potential adversaries.

1. Credibility: “Productive deterrence is dependent on credibility. Adversaries need to

presume that the deterrent state is determined and has the capacity of carrying out its threats.
Empty or unwarranted threats may diminish the deterrent party's trust and encourage

4
Ibid.
4
opponents to take risks. Existing ability to tackle threats, as well as consistent behaviour, are
critical factors in creating credibility”.5
2. Communication: “Deterrence information should be transmitted in a simple and efficient
manner. Ambiguity or misconceptions might lead to inaccurate impressions and
computations, exacerbating confrontations. Deterrence messages must be concise, rational,
and consistent with the state's broad goal. Public diplomacy and reliable information sources
can shape public perception of the deterrent state's goals”.
3. Military Capabilities: “The power and availability of a country's military forces have a
significant impact on its capacity to deter attacks. An effective and sophisticated military
provides legitimacy to a deterrent threat. Furthermore, the ability to respond quickly and
decisively to violent behaviour strengthens the perception that the costs of violence outweigh
any potential benefits”6.
5. Economic Strength: “Economic strength and stability help with long-term deterrence. A
strong economy provides a state with the resources necessary to maintain readiness for battle
and cover the costs of prospective conflicts. Financial interdependence can also work as a
deterrent, since states are hesitant to destroy mutually advantageous trade partnerships with
confrontational acts”.

6. Domestic and International Support: “National support for a state's deterrence policy can
affect its effectiveness. A united front within the country reinforces the sense of resolve and
drive. Acquiring foreign support and forming alliances can also help to dissuade possible
aggressors by showing a united front against them”.

7. Escalation Dynamics: “Deterrence may pose a challenge to balance to strike when an

escalation is close. It is critical to evaluate the possibility of an acceleration spiral, in which a
little problem becomes a major one. A believable danger of restricted retaliation can inhibit
violent behaviour while also facilitating de-escalation”7.

THEORIES OF DETERRENCE
1. Classical Deterrence Theory:
According to classical deterrence theory, “potential aggressors could be discouraged from
conducting specific actions if they perceive the costs or repercussions outweigh the possible
rewards. This hypothesis is based on the credible threat of reprisal or punishment. During the
5
Todor Tagarev, “Theory and current Practices of deterrence in International Securit”.
6
Ibid.
7
Ibid.
5
Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union had substantial nuclear arsenals. The
ideology of Mutually Assured devastation (MAD) guaranteed that if one side launched a
nuclear attack, the other would reply with overwhelming force, resulting in mutual
devastation. This balance of dread prevented either side from starting a nuclear war due to the
disastrous repercussions”8.

2. Nuclear Deterrence
Nuclear deterrence theory emphasizes “the application of nuclear weapons to deter enemies
from taking hostile acts. It highlights the concept of nuclear retaliation as a strategy of
avoiding nuclear war.
India and Pakistan, two nuclear-armed neighbours, have been at odds for years over the
disputed territory of Kashmir. The presence of nuclear weapons by both countries has
introduced a deterrent component, as the possibility of escalation to nuclear war provides a
significant incentive for both sides to display care and restraint in their activities” 9.

CHALLENGES
“The age of technology has widened deterrence through cyber warfare. States can now carry
out covert operations to damage essential infrastructure without utilizing direct military
action. Economic penalties have emerged as a deterrence tool, placing pressure on nations to
uphold international rules. The rise of hybrid warfare has blurred the line between
conventional and unconventional warfare, demanding the adaption of deterrent measures to
this changing setting. However, the path of deterrence reveals the obstacles that lay beneath
the surface. Non-state actors go outside traditional deterrence borders, and ethical quandaries
call into doubt the strategic efficiency of catastrophic weapons. Rapid technology
breakthroughs provide up new channels of aggressiveness, yet the intricacies of a world with
various polarities necessitate sophisticated deterrent strategies. In the face of these problems,
deterrence must be dynamic and adaptable, combining might with diplomacy and making
decisions with caution.
Deterrence serves as a reminder of humanity's ability to learn from history, forecast conflict
outcomes, and pick routes that prioritize stability over chaos in the greater context of
international relations. While deterrence cannot eradicate all conflict, it is an effective tool for
modifying behaviour, averting escalation, and guiding world events away from disaster. As
8
Stephen L. Quackenbush, “Deterrence Theory: where do we stand”.
9
Ibid.
6
the world changes, presented with new problems and opportunities, the concept of deterrence
remains steadfast a monument to human diplomacy's persistence, the skill of strategic
calculation, and the universal goal for a society in which the threat of violence is
overshadowed by the promise of peace.”

CONCEPT OF DÉTENTE
Detente is a French term that means tension relief; as animosity and enmity between
superpowers subsided, an environment of relaxation gained traction in international affairs.
The phrase detente expresses this relaxed environment. In the nuclear age, some type of
detente was required for survival. The two power blocs agreed to avoid open antagonism.
Superpowers learned that cooperation could lessen distrust and conflict severity. Both sides
saw it as beneficial to broaden the scope of their collaboration. Detente is a desire by both
superpowers to foster goodwill, understanding, and collaboration between them, which may
eventually help to reduce the extent of the cold war confrontation.

CHARACTERISTICS OF DÉTENTE

1. Deterrence
By mutual consent, both the sides may agree to reduce their forces and armaments. However,
their power dynamic would never be disrupted. Deterrence is the key component of detente.
Nixon observes that peace is a by- product of mutual respect's strength, therefore detente does
not preclude both sides from having adequate capabilities.

2. Peaceful Coexistence:
Another aspect of detente during the 1970s was peaceful coexistence. The goal of detente
was not to end their ideological conflict. It persisted notwithstanding any advances toward
detente. Kissinger made a valid observation. The United States and the Soviet Union are
ideological enemies. Detente cannot change this. The nuclear age requires us to coexist.
Verbal battles cannot change this either.

3. Elements of Conflict:
The arrival of detente does not mean the end of strife and antagonism. For a long time,
detente and the Cold War coexisted. The Cold War endured in some form or another as long
as there was mutual suspicion and antagonism between the two opposing groups. The New

7
Cold War lasted from 1979 to 1985, and detente reached its lowest point. Thus, for a long
time, detente included components of conflict, competitiveness, and cooperation.

4. Multiple Levels of Detente:

Originally, the term detente referred to the seeming relaxation in otherwise tense ties between
the two superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union. However, it would be too
narrow to connect detente with the steady improvement of relations between these two
countries. Indeed, coming closer and knowing each other in an atmosphere of humanistic
cordiality was evident in the interactions between West European countries and the Soviet
Union, as well as between the United States and China.

Prof. A.P. Rana defines “Detente as the Collaborative-competitive behaviour of the super
powers. Detente involves the attempts to replace cold war relations with co-operative-
collaborative and healthy competitive relations. Detente means the existence of both
collaboration and competition between the states which previously had been engaged in a
cold war”. Thus, Detente can be defined on “the process of normalization of relations and the
development of friendly cooperation in place of strained, hostile, unhealthy and mutually
harmful relations. It, however does not mean the conclusion of agreements, treaties or trade
pacts. Detente may or may not lead to such developments. It signifies the attempts made at
the promotion of collaboration even within a competitive or even in a conflictual situation”.

Nevertheless, the 1970s detente collapsed following 1979. Around the end of 1979, the two
superpowers restarted their cold war. They left detente in order to achieve their specific
power goals in international relations. The US became dissatisfied with detente after the
Soviet Union invaded in Afghanistan and made a series of other decisions aimed at increasing
its power and influence. The United States subsequently opted to become the world's leading
power and took a series of steps to strengthen its position and participation in international
affairs. The USSR opposed this US action. As a result, a new cold war erupted in
international affairs, with the detente of the 1970s giving way to the New Cold War of the
1980s.

COLD WAR
The rise of a new Cold War left the international scene confused, volatile, and explosive. The
character and destiny of the international order once again depended on the actions and
decisions of the two big powers. Their coalition partners' roles declined. The power that the
armaments race attained posed a significant danger to international peace and security. The
8
struggle between China and the USSR brought a new dimension to the new Cold War. The
establishment of the Washington-Beijing-Pindi-Tokyo bloc versus the Moscow-Hanoi-Kabul
alliance was a highly dangerous development. The increased complexity of international
relations, the large and ever-increasing gap between the North and South, the reduced role of
the United Nations, the NAM's inability to pursue several desired objectives vis-a-vis the
superpowers and their groups, the possibility of a limited nuclear war in international
relations, and several other developments all contributed to the new Cold War's more
dangerous dress. Following the respite of the Detente period in the 1970s, the world
community was gravely troubled by the New Cold War. The collapse of detente in the early
1980s was an unpleasant and hazardous trend. Fortunately, some good developments
occurred between 1985 and 1987, leading to a new detente in international relations. Once
again, humanity felt liberated of the strains imposed by the New Cold War. The collapse of
detente in the early 1980s was an unpleasant and hazardous trend. Fortunately, some good
developments occurred between 1985 and 1987, leading to a new detente in international
relations. Once again, humanity felt liberated of the strains imposed by the New Cold War.

NUCLEAR WAR
In the framework of nuclear fights, deterrence is based on the prospect of overwhelming
retribution or mutually assured annihilation. The assumption is that if both sides have enough
nuclear weapons to inflict massive harm on each other, neither side would consider launching
a nuclear attack for fear of the disastrous repercussions. The basic function of deterrence in
nuclear warfare is to avoid the employment of nuclear weapons entirely. The belief is that the
sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons serves as a deterrent to their deployment by any
sane actor. By creating a balance of power based on the prospect of reprisal, deterrence
theoretically fosters peaceful cohabitation between nuclear-armed states by preventing
aggression and conflict escalation.
Détente, on the other hand, refers to a time of reduced tensions or improved ties between
opposing countries, which is frequently marked by diplomatic, economic, and cultural
interactions. During the Cold War, détente marked a transition away from the combative
position of the early years and toward a more cooperative approach between the US and
Soviet Union. Détente sought to lessen the risk of nuclear conflict by encouraging
superpowers to engage in diplomacy, negotiation, and arms control agreements. Détente
helped to reduce the possibility of errors or mistakes that could lead to a nuclear conflict by
encouraging interaction and comprehension. Détente aided discussions on arms control
9
treaties, notably the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty, which sought to restrict the nuclear arms race and reduce the danger of
accidental or purposeful nuclear conflict. Dictatorial actions and confidence-building tactics
were used to establish trust between rivals and create a more stable international environment
favourable to peaceful coexistence.
CONCLUSION

During the Cold War, deterrence and détente were complementary in terms of nuclear
warfare. While deterrence was concerned with preventing nuclear conflict through the threat
of reprisal, détente tried to lessen tensions and foster cooperation among nuclear-armed states
through diplomacy, arms reduction, and confidence-building measures. Both notions were
critical to minimizing the hazards associated with nuclear weapons while ensuring global
peace and security. Neither deterrence nor détente is necessarily "better" in all situations.
Both techniques have advantages and disadvantages, and their efficiency is determined by a
variety of circumstances, including the nature of the conflict, the capabilities and objectives
of the parties engaged, and the larger geopolitical backdrop. In fact, a combination of both
tactics, customized to unique situations, may be the most successful way to manage
international relations while fostering peace and stability.

10
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Concept of Deterrence in International Relations”, The Amicus Qriae.

Stephen L. Quackenbush, “Deterrence Theory: where do we stand”.

Todor Tagarev, “Theory and current Practices of deterrence in International Security”.

11