Deterrence Case Study

The growing Western threat caused the Soviets to modify their military strategy. In the 1960s, the primary feature of their military doctrine and strategy was the assumption that future war against capitalism would be inevitable, and it would be nuclear war. During that time, the Soviet’s military doctrine and strategy, particularly the intentions and objectives, were the most important and perplexing issues confronting the coalition of the United States and NATO. As a socialist state, the Soviet Union viewed American capitalism as a threat to its socialist society and other parts of the globe. William T. Lee and Richard F. Starr argued that the Soviet military doctrine primary objective was to claim victory over American capitalism, and shift the global power in favor of socialism.

The West and the Soviet have different perceptions of the purpose and outcome of war. From the Soviet’s perspective, victory is only possible when their nuclear and non-nuclear forces are more superior than those of the West especially the United States. Victory means that “Western political and economic systems would liquidate and the

The Soviet was not fond of Western’s concept of deterrence. The Soviet’s concept of deterrence has different implications and meaning than those of the United States. The United States viewed deterrence as mutual and it would be at one disadvantage to start a war. On the other hand, the Soviet Union viewed deterrence as “one-sided and must make war unprofitable for the coalition of the United States and NATO” (pg. 23). Deterrence is a method of preventing capitalism from attacking socialism and taking control over the entire world. In order for deterrence to be stable, the Soviet must have military superiority over the West. Establishing military superiority over the West seems to be the primary explanation of the Soviet actions and